Application Details

Reference 18/04649/F
Address 181 Bishop Road Bristol BS7 8NA  
Street View
Proposal Proposed 1no. two bed single dwelling house, with landscaping.
Validated 02-10-18
Type Full Planning
Status Pending consideration
Neighbour Consultation Expiry 14-11-18
Standard Consultation Expiry 14-11-18
Determination Deadline 27-11-18
BCC Planning Portal Application
Public Comments Supporters: 4 Objectors: 8    Total: 12
No. of Page Views 48

TBS response: SUPPORT

Recommendation submitted 24-11-18

This looks like a sensitive infill development but we have proposed some changes as you will see from our submission to the council

Public Comments

The Bishopston Society  SUPPORT

We understand that the proposal sits forward of the building line in Queen's Road, butfeel on balance that the design sensitively extends the existing form of no. 181 and provides awelcome additional new home in the Bishopston. We would recommend one or two minorrevisions;

- the solar panel looks visually intrusive on the front elevation and suggest that it is repositionedcentrally within the side/west elevation roof

- the driveway looks out f character being enclosed by a high gate and would be more in keepingwith adjacent properties if it remained unenclosed

- the two storey bay to the westy elevation looks ungainly rising above the gutter level. We suggestthat it is either a flat roof at gutter level (with the gutter continung around) or gabled to reflect themain bay on the front elevation.

Mr Robert Hinton KINGS DRIVE BRISTOL   OBJECT

The fundamental issue is that this proposal is presented as a property on Bishop Road,however it is clearly a property on Queens Drive. The entrance and garage are proposed onQueens Drive, there is more window area on Queens Drive than Bishop Road . The interior layoutprohibits an entrance on Bishop road as the plot is too narrow for an internal hall / staircase on thisalignment (suggesting it is too small for a dwelling in keeping with the Bishop Road style ofproperties). Hence it should be treated as a proposed property on Queens drive.

When considered as what it is (a Queens Drive property), it is clear that it is building much tooclose to the footpath and road (hence inconsistent with the existing building line and rulesregarding set back of extensions and corner extensions)

It is also clear that the resulting property has a garden inconsistently small compared to the styleof houses on Queens Drive. It is unclear how the loss of trees and natural environment will bemitigated in the proposal.

Over the last few years, congestion of Queens drive has become increasingly noticeable. Thereality is that most houses have >1 car, and almost no-one uses a garage in practice to park a car.Therefore, it is almost certain that the proposal will lead to increased on-street parking, in an areawhere there are already access problems. Because the property is on a corner, this also raisesconcerns about road safety (poor visibility on the corner when turning in / out).

I also note that the arrangement requires sideways oriented steps up to the front door due to thefall of the land and inadequate space for a more sensible ramp directly facing the property. Thisraises concerns as to whether the property would be suitable for those using a buggy / pushchair /wheelchair / mobility scooter.

Overall, while some form of side extension to the property could be appropriate, there isinsufficient room to add a separate dwelling. The need to place the entrance on Queens Drive isindisputable evidence to this effect.

Mrs Amanda Howell 4 NEW KINGS COURT BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Four years ago we moved into a new-build a stone's throw from this proposeddevelopment. Without that opportunity, we wouldn't be in Bishopston and we love it. Creating thisnew home will enable another family to live here and reap the benefit. The proposal looksproportionate and sustainable and well-considered on all fronts. We fully support it. Bristol (andBishopston) needs more new homes.

Mr Ben Salisbury 14 PAULTON DRIVE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

This looks a thoughtful proposal that will add a good-quality home to the housing stockin the city.

I like the emphasis on sustainability and it will sit comfortably among the mixed bag of propertiesat the Kellaway Avenue end of Bishop Road.

Ms Shona De Bradeney 80 BISHOP ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Bristol needs more homes and I support this proposal further up my road.

The houses at the Kellaway Avenue end of Bishop Road are on big plots and I'd rather see a newhome created than another house being extended further with a double-storey extension. Even ifthis plan was rejected, the owners could easily get a large extension passed by planning and whatthe city desperately needs is more homes not bigger homes.

The plans for parking look more than adequate, too, compared with the rest of Bishopston!Parking is hard at the Gloucester Rd end of Bishop Road but is straightforward around QueensDrive. Everyone local knows that.

Mr Stuart Coles 1 QUEENS DRIVE BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

Dear Jack Jones (Case Officer)

I would like to register my objection to the proposed plan to build a 2 bed house on the cornergarden of 181 Bishop Rd.

I have sent an email with supporting photo's as you can not submit them online.

Technical Points on the Design which should be mandated:

Reference guide: A Guide for Designing House, Alterations and Extensions

Some of the points where the design does not fit with the planning guidelines are:

Building line (pg:9 / 12) - This is the line down Queens Drive (front of the buildings). As theentrance to the new property is on Queens Drive then this should be taken into account and notjust along Bishop Rd. The proposed new house would protrude beyond the current line of thehouses on Queens Drive, which results in the closing of the road and change the nature of thestreet.

Set back of a side extension (pg:10) - The guidelines ask that side extensions are set back by 1mso that they do not lead to terracing effect. As the proposed house would be an extension on theoriginal property these regulations should be enforced, as they have done so with recent planningapplications within Queens Drive and Bishop Rd. The area is made up of semi and detachedhousing with no examples of terraced housing.

Extensions at Corners (pg:12) - As the development comes out to the existing fence, there is notsufficient space retained at the side of the property and this will close off the end of Queens Drive.This is unlike the property on the other side, 183 which is quoted in the planning application, thatdoes have a side extension. In this case, it has been well set back at the front and has a pathbetween the side extension and the boundary fence which allows for visibility around the cornerand does not create a 'pinch point'.

Comparison with 183 Bishop Rd:

The proposed development for 181 will protrude 5.4m from the existing property, whereas theopposite side, 183, the side extension only protrudes 4m allowing space before the boundaryfence. If 183 is used as a reference to allow a side extension/development, then no greater than4m should be allowed. The proposed street scenes seem to overestimate how much the extensionof 183 protrudes.

Other concerns i would like to raise regarding the development:

Trees:

The tree at the end of Queens Drive on the grass verge will be lost. Although they will mitigate thisby planting trees elsewhere, this is an established and mature tree, in keeping with the avenue oftrees along Queen Drive and any planting would not be for the benefit of other residents, whocurrently benefit from the character of Queens Drive. The removal of the tree conflicts with PolicyDM21.

Policy DM21: Development of Private Gardens

This states: "In all cases, any development of garden land should not result in harm to thecharacter and appearance of an area.

Development involving front gardens should ensure that the character of the street is not harmedand that appropriate boundary treatments and planting are retained."

If the tree is to be lost, please can it be replaced after the development to fit with Queens Drive.

Parking and Congestion:

The new development will use the existing drive that is on Queens Drive. The design has spacefor bike storage but due to the area and value of the property it would be marketed for, prospectiveresidents would most likely be a professional couple or small family that would probably havemore than 1 car.

Parking on Queens drive has significantly increased in the last 5 years due to residents fromBishop Rd and Kellaway Ave flats as well as customers from the shops on Kellaway Ave using thebottom of Queens Drive to park.

Despite the proposal of parking in the planning for off-street parking outside of 181 Bishop Road,the current residents of 181 use the off-street parking at the rear of their property located onQueens Drive. The off-street parking on Bishop Rd will result in other residents not being able touse the parking on Bishop Road outside of 181, impacting on congestion in other parts - further upQueens Drive.

The road is not wide enough to have parking on both sides without cars parking on the pavement,which hinders pedestrians. Cars parked at the end of Queens Drive and Bishop road junction,where 181 is located, also obstruct the exit to Queen Drive. The bus stops and the road bollard inthe centre of the Bishop Road also prevents further on-street parking and impacts on congestionon Bishop Road and Queens Drive

The bus stops on either side of Bishop Road near Queen Drive are already compromised byresidents parking. This stretch of Bishop road has become more congested with parked cars onboth sides of the road in a concentrated area. This is the bus route of the no: 77 and busesregularly find it hard to navigate this part of Bishop Rd at busy times.

Examples of parking congestion around the immediate area of the proposed development areattached to the email I also sent.

Other proposed developments in the immediate area:

There are 2 further planning applications within 120m of 181 Bishop Road (18/04649/F) both forthe building of new houses.

18/04774/P - 2 Bed Bungalow, no parking planned

18/05183/F - 3 Bed House, parking planned but existing property loses its existing parking.

More houses will mean more pressure on the existing infrastructure

Mrs Helen Randall 2 QUEENS DRIVE BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

I have the following observations to make concerning this planning application:

1. The building line for Queens Drive should be taken into account since the entrance to theproposed new house would be on Queens Drive. If the planning application is allowed the newdwelling would very much alter the character of Queens Drive in a way that has never beenpreviously allowed. All other side extensions in Queens Drive have preserved the building line andmost have been set back. The proposed plans also show the driveway being enclosed by a newfence and sliding garage door. No other property on Queens Drive has an enclosed driveway.

2. The flowering plum tree at the end of Queens Drive on the grass verge will be removed. This isan established and mature tree, in keeping with the avenue of trees along Queens Drive. Althoughit is policy to mitigate this loss by the planting of trees elsewhere in the city, any planting would notbe for the benefit of Queens Drive residents, who currently enjoy the tree lined nature of the road.We therefore request that if the development goes ahead, the tree is replaced on Queens Drive inthe vicinity of the lost tree.

Mrs celia williams 7 QUEENS DRIVE BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

The proposed new house on Bishop Road is an over developmentof a small site.It's design is out of keeping with existing properties in Queen's Drive as it willprotrude beyond existing houses,and therefore be out of character with the whole road

All new side extensions have to be set back by 1m so as not to create a terracing effect. This isenforced by planning guidelines..

Number 183 Bishop Road has a side extension which is set back this allows better visibility at theroad junction.There needs to bemore space left at the side of the new development which is not in the plans .in fact, the planshows the development to be right out onto the pavement edge in Queen's Drive.If the front of the house is to be in Queen's Drive the loss of green space and mature trees is to bedeplored .Parking at the Bishop Road /Queen's Drive junction is already causing problems to vehiclesentering and exiting Queen's Drive.Residents in Bishop Road with multiple vehicles regularly park at that end of Queen'sDrive.Especially since the bus stops were introduced on Bishop Road.Queen,s Drive is not a wide enough road for safe parking on both sides of the road,if this doesoccur usually one vehicle will park partially on the pavement,causing problems to pedestrians.

We do not think that this proposed development is appropriate for the site and therefore would askfor the planning to be rejected.Thank you

Michael and Celia Williams

Mr Guy Wells 6 QUEENS DRIVE BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

As a neighbour within close proximity of proposed development I wish to raise thefollowing concerns and object to the planning submission for 181 Bishop Road - 18/04649/F.

This planning application clearly goes against all planning protocol. Allowing a property to be builton Bishop road that relies on its main entrance facing onto Queens drive with no immediate bufferwill adversely change the character of the road for a large number of residents and sets adangerous precedence for future developments within Bristol. The extension to 183 Bishop Roadmaintains the line and keeps an adequate buffer, the same should apply to number 181. Thebuilding line for Queens Drive must remain in place.

Parking at this end of Queens Drive is limited to one side of the road due to the roads width.These few spaces are almost always in use, sometime for long periods of time, they are also infrequent use by a number of large commercial vans owned by residents of this part of Bishop road(See picture). This makes the corner extremely difficult to navigate safely and will no doubt soonlead to a road traffic accident.

We have also noticed an increase in commuters starting to park their vehicles on the road duringworking hours. Despite limited parking provision from the new property there will be an inevitableincrease in parking demands from the residents, this will only add to the demand and force parkingfurther up the road which again, due to a limited road width leads to vehicles being parked on thepavement. This makes it extremely difficult for pedestrians, including young school aged children,the elderly, and young families with push chairs to use the pavements safely, their safety must beconsidered!

Recently on a number of occasions vehicles parked on both sides of the road have led to

emergency and council vehicles being unable to access the road effectively.

The removal of mature trees - The plans suggest that four trees will be lost with this developmentincluding one managed by the council and in a prominent position. Over the years a number oftrees have already been lost to development and disease in this road without being replaced. Theenvironmental and social benefits of trees within an inner city area is clearly understood and theremoval of this mature tree (T3) should not be allowed. The grass verge directly outside proposeddevelopment will also be lost further impacting the loss of green space within this area. Section 7.3of the Arboricultural Assessment states that it will take nine (9) replacement trees to counterbalance the trees lost, however there is no reference to where these may be planted, if at all?

Within this area over the past few years a number of corner plots have been lost to developments.Indeed, it appears that there are already two others within very close proximity seekingdevelopment (Ref: 18/04774/P and 18/05183/F). The impact to the local area in terms of housingdensity and loss of green spaces will be significant and detrimental to a huge number of people, itis for this reason that I ask you reject these plans as they currently stand.

Unknown   OBJECT

5. Parking and Congestion: The new development will use the existing drive that is on Queens Drive. The design has space for bike storage only, but due to the area and value of the property it would be marketed for, prospective residents would most likely be a professional couple or small family that would probably have more than 1 car. This means one or more additional cars are likely to be parked on Queens Drive or Bishop Road. Parking on Queens drive has significantly increased in the last 5 years due to residents from Bishop Rd and Kellaway Ave flats as well as customers from the shops on Kellaway Ave using the bottom of Queens Drive to park. Despite the proposal of parking in the planning for off street parking outside of 181 Bishop Road, the current residents of 181 use the off-street parking at the rear of their property located on Queens Drive. The off-street parking on Bishop Rd will result in other residents not being able to use the parking on Bishop Road outside of 181, impacting on congestion in other parts - further up Queens Drive. The road is not wide enough to have parking on both sides without cars parking on the pavement, which hinders pedestrians, pushchair users and wheelchair users. Cars parked at the end of Queens Drive and Bishop road junction, where 181 is located, also obstruct the exit to Queens Drive. The bus stops and the road bollard in the centre of the Bishop Road also prevents further on street parking and impacts on congestion on Bishop Road and Queens Drive. The bus stops on either side of Bishop Road near Queens Drive are already compromised by residents parking. This stretch of Bishop road has become more congested with parked cars on both sides of the road in a concentrated area. This is the bus route of the no: 77 and buses regularly find it hard to navigate this part of Bishop Rd at busy times. I am aware that there are two further planning applications for new builds, nearby on Bishop Rd, both within 120m of 181 Bishop Rd., one of which, 18/04774/P - 2 Bed Bungalow, has no parking planned. Even more houses will mean more pressure on the existing infrastructure. Please find attached very recent photos showing the congested parking situation at the junction of Queens Dve/Bishop Rd. Yours sincerely Andrew Fagan

Unknown   OBJECT

road. In fact occasional losses over the years have been replaced, often by the residents themselves.

5. Parking and congestion problems. It is proposed that the new development would use the existing drive and garage that share a narrow entrance on Queens Drive. Both are restricted in size and are not really suited to the increasing size of modern cars. This means one or more additional cars are likely to be parked on Queens Drive or Bishop Road. Parking on Queens Drive has significantly increased in the last 5 years due to residents from Bishop Rd and Kellaway Ave flats as well as customers from the shops on Kellaway Ave using the bottom of Queens Drive to park. Parked cars close to the entrance or indeed opposite would make access to the proposed narrow entrance problematic and likely to result in the new residents parking in the road. Queens Drive is not wide enough to have parking on both sides without cars parking on the pavement, which already hinders pedestrians, pushchair users and wheelchair users. There are no road markings to restrict parking at the junction of Queens Drive and Bishop Road with the result that visibility for vehicles both entering and leaving Queens Drive is often compromised. The proposed development would be likely to make these problems worse. The bus stops and the road bollard in the centre of the Bishop Road also prevents further street parking and impacts on congestion on Bishop Road and Queens Drive. This stretch of Bishop road has become increasingly congested in recent years with parked cars on both sides of the road. It is also a bus route and buses regularly find it hard to navigate this part of Bishop Rd at busy times. Also the proposed off-street parking on Bishop Rd will result in other residents not being able to use the parking on Bishop Road outside of 181, resulting in further impact on the parking issues. I am aware that there are two further planning applications for new builds, nearby on Bishop Rd, both within 120m of 181 Bishop Rd., one of which, 18/04774/P - 2 Bed Bungalow, has no parking planned. Even more houses will mean more pressure on the existing infrastructure.

Yours sincerely

David Jenkins

Unknown   OBJECT

The removal of mature trees - The plans suggest that four trees will be lost with this development including one managed by the council and in a prominent position. Over the years a number of trees have already been lost to development and disease in this road without being replaced. The environmental and social benefits of trees within an inner city area is clearly understood and the removal of this mature tree (T3) should not be allowed. The grass verge directly outside proposed development will also be lost further impacting the loss of green space within this area. Section 7.3 of the Arboricultural Assessment states that it will take nine (9) replacement trees to counter balance the trees lost, however there is no reference to where these may be planted, if at all? Within this area over the past few years a number of corner plots have been lost to developments. Indeed, it appears that there are already two others within very close proximity seeking development (Ref: 18/04774/P and 18/05183/F). The impact to the local area in terms of housing density and loss of green spaces will be significant and detrimental to a huge number of people, it is for this reason that I ask you reject these plans as they currently stand.