Application Details

Reference 18/04705/F
Address Unit 3D And 3G Merton Road Bristol BS7 8TL  
Street View
Proposal Demolition of existing business unit and construction of new larger building consisting of three B1 or B8 units.
Validated 10-10-18
Type Full Planning
Status Decided
Neighbour Consultation Expiry 16-11-18
Determination Deadline 05-12-18
Decision GRANTED subject to condition(s)
Decision Issued 08-03-19
BCC Planning Portal Application
Public Comments Supporters: 0 Objectors: 16  Unstated: 1  Total: 17
No. of Page Views 93

TBS response: OBJECT

Recommendation submitted 24-11-18

This is a block house design with windows at the rear looking directly into the gardens and bedrooms of the houses on Brynland. We have objected, supporting Councillor Brooks' reasoning.

 

Public Comments

The Bishopston Society  OBJECT

The Bishopston Society is extremely concerned by this retrospective application andagrees with the observations/objections raised by Cllr Tom Brook.

Unknown  

Councillor referral form 30/07/18

Notes:

1. The application that you are referring, must relate to a site within your ward.

An exception to this relates to single member wards where referrals will be

accepted from members from neighbouring wards when the ward member is

not available.

2. The referral request must be received by Development Management no later

than 7 days after the end of the published consultation period. This is shown

for each application in Planning Online – see Important Dates tab. While there

may be a number of different dates listed here, the date that applies will be

the latest of the Expiry Dates for the neighbour and standard consultation,

advertisement and site notice. This applies to the first round of consultation

and does not include any re-consultation period.

3. You can only refer an application to a Development Control Committee for

planning reasons i.e. not for reasons such as loss of view, effect on property

values, private rights, boundary disputes, or construction noise. It is not

intended that a request from a constituent is simply “passed on” but that you

are supporting the views expressed in this referral, and will attend the

committee meeting.

4. The referred application will be considered by the next available committee

meeting in order to assist us in determining planning applications in

accordance with Government performance targets. Therefore, it could be

considered by either of the DC committees.

5. Early contact with the case officer is recommended in order to establish the

reasons for any potential referral and to explore potential solutions to the

situation.

Mr Martin Pearce 164 BRYNLAND AVENUE FIRST FLOOR FLAT BRISTOL   OBJECT

I am writing to register my objection to the above application as well as ask somequestions in connection with it.

This development is considerably larger than the structure it replaces. It is much higher and muchlonger than seems to be implied by the architect/developer. It is important that it be understoodthat this development also stands on ground that is much higher than the properties it overlooks.As such, it is overbearing and very intrusive.

The enforcement team need to ascertain if the development is actually too close to theneighbouring boundaries, falling within a 5-metre limit, and if its foundations will affectneighbouring properties.

The development now has a rolling door and two windows that directly overlook adjacentproperties. Both windows utilise clear and transparent glass, contrary to what is allowed. Onewindow looks directly into my bedroom and my kitchen, removing all privacy from the rear of myhome.

The building of these units occurred over several weekends and a bank holiday, contrary to what Iunderstand is allowed. What guarantee is there that other such regulations will not be flouted infuture?

I have lived here for 26 years and during that time there have been many incidents of noisenuisance out of work hours and over weekends from this entire site, sometimes well into the night.The potential for such nuisance cannot be underestimated and must be of concern to all local

residents, especially those with young children.

What provisions have been made for dealing with waste from this development - industrial,chemical, biological, water? What drainage requirements have been taken into account? What isthe likely impact on local residents and the environment?

My understanding is that there is no heating in these units. If temporary heating is utilised, how isthat likely to impact environmentally? Also: how will that impact on employees on the site duringcold times of the year?

I understand that there is a window at the rear of the development that is very close to another uniton the site. How does this impact on fire regulations?

Yours faithfully,

Martin Pearce

Mr Richard Castor Jeffery 156 BRYNLAND AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

In addition and in support of my previous comments:

We have been made aware that one of the units is to be used for community functions at eveningsand weekends. I would say any use of this sort clearly falls outside the B1 use class covering thesite. Please can the application / enforcement process ensure that this type of use is explicitly notallowed and strict restrictions are placed on operating hours to protect the amenity of neighbours.

Mr Simon Benson 174 BRYNLAND AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

I am very concerned about the build and use of these units.

Firstly, it's shocking that the building was able to be erected without permission in the first place,which occured 7 days a week, including evenings and bank holidays, with no regard for theneighbours and the noise they were generating at antisocial times.

The building is also considerably larger than the previous structure and is very close to theboundary, overlooking people's bedrooms and gardens/play areas used by children.

I also believe there is a likely chance of continuing noise pollution if the building is allowed to beused in the evening and at the weekend.

Finally, I understand that one of the proposed uses of one of the units is for a "working men's club"for the use of smoking cannabis. Regardless of whether someone is in support of thelegalisation/decriminalisation of cannabis, I think Bristol City Council's Councillors would have tobe smoking a seriously strong blend themselves to think it's appropriate to have a building for thatuse backing onto domestic properties. We all have children that play outside all summer and Idon't want to open my door and get hit with a pungent stench of smoke every day of the week,morning, noon and night.

Mrs Denisa Benson 174 BRYNLAND AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

I wish to declare my OBJECTION to the planning request above.We live at 174 Brynland Avenue with a 2 years old son and we have serious concerns over usageof the new building that will impact on our family qualify of life especially during summer monthswhen we have our windows open and spend time in our garden.The building is also considerably larger than the previous structure and is very close to theboundary, overlooking people's bedrooms and gardens/play areas used by children.Kind regards,Denisa Benson

Ms Rae Williams 158 BRYNLAND AVENUE BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

I was surprised and disappointed that a building of this size and nature that dominatesthe back of our houses could be constructed without planning permission.

The demolition and construction caused my partner and I considerable inconvenience as we wereunable to enjoy our garden during the process. The work was carried well into the evenings andover the bank holiday weekend.

Given the total lack of consideration shown to us by the owner during demolition and construction,and the disregard of a planning application, I am very concerned that the future usage of the unitswill continue to treat us with contempt.

Councillor Tom Brook CITY HALL, COLLEGE GREEN, BRISTOL BS1 5TR   OBJECT

Firstly, it should be acknowledged that having the Merton Road estate in our local areadoes bring benefits, namely adding to the variety of employment and vibrancy of the economy inthe area. This application could add to that through the reported increase in employment.

However, I have a number of concerns about the development that have resulted in me raisingthis objection:

- The new building is very overbearing in its nature. It is larger, bulkier, covers a bigger area and is1.25m taller than the previous building.- The building's windows overlook numerous neighbours, on both the Ashley Down Road andBrynland Avenue sides. This includes bedrooms.- The ground level on the Merton Road side is nearly 2m higher than the Brynland Avenue side(see Mr Jeffery's comment for an illustration), further adding to the overbearing nature of thebuilding and issues of overlooking.- The noise and light from the construction of this building have had a considerable impact onresidents, and these issues do not seem to be letting up now the building is in use.- The building is only 2.7m from the shared boundaries, which is closer than the previous building.This has the dual effect of increasing the overbearing nature of the building and making the noiseand light pollution issues worse given the building is closer to neighbours.- The new building is ugly and thus further detracts from residential amenity.- There is no apparent refuse strategy for the building.- There is a lack of clarity in the application about how waste sewage (including waste water fromany industrial use) will be dealt with.- There is a lack of clarity surrounding the heating needs - the applicant states that heating is not

required, but in which case how can the building support employment?

Overall, given the above issues I believe the application should be refused.

It should also be noted that the building was built without planning permission, including overweekends and other unsuitable times, which brought much disruption to residents and raisedconcerns over safety. This included reports of unsafe construction practices and impact onneighbouring properties (e.g. on shared walls and damage to property in gardens). I won't restatethese issues here as they have been noted to the council at length by neighbours and have beenmentioned in residents' comments on this application. But the fact this happened, and thatconstruction did not stop once it was made clear to the applicant that permission was needed, is tomy mind telling of their lack of keenness to be a good neighbour.

Should permission be granted, I would recommend a number of conditions to protect residentsand other neighbours:

- The opening hours and permitted use class(es) should be such that they reflect the closeproximity to residents. For example, B1 use Monday-Friday 9-5 only.- A suitable refuse strategy, including security against pests.- A suitable sewage strategy.- Obscuring of windows that face onto residential sides.- Limitations on noise, e.g. no machinery or loud music.

Finally, concern has been raised about various building regulations issues, including regardingfoundations, shared walls and fire hazards. Acknowledging that building regulations are not withinthe scope of planning considerations, if permission is granted then these concerns should beinvestigated by the relevant council department and, if necessary, actioned.

Miss Emily Williams 164 BRYNLAND AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

I wish to declare my OBJECTION to the planning request above.I live in a garden flat directly behind the already built unit, which now massively looms over mygarden. It's incredibly imposing, and even worse still is that the windows which have been fittedare clear, meaning whoever is in the unit can look directly into both my bedroom windows.Furthermore, during the building of the property, the amount of noise and disruption that wascaused - all on weekends during the summer - meant that I was often unable to enjoy my gardenin peace. The new unit is directly behind my garden and at a greater height and with much greaterproximity to my property than the previous structure.I am very worried about the potential for hazards entering my garden from the site, as well as thepotential subsidence from the impact of foundations of the building on my rear garden wall.

Miss Emily Williams 164 BRYNLAND AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

I wish to declare my OBJECTION to the planning request above.I live in a garden flat directly behind the already built unit, which now massively looms over mygarden. It's incredibly imposing, and even worse still is that the windows which have been fittedare clear, meaning whoever is in the unit can look directly into both my bedroom windows.Furthermore, during the building of the property, the amount of noise and disruption that wascaused - all on weekends during the summer - meant that I was often unable to enjoy my gardenin peace. The new unit is directly behind my garden and at a greater height and with much greaterproximity to my property than the previous structure.I am very worried about the potential for hazards entering my garden from the site, as well as thepotential subsidence from the impact of foundations of the building on my rear garden wall.

Dr David Sweeting 154 BRYNLAND AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to this planning application.- it is too close to the boundary and looms over the rear gardens of Brynland Avenue- it has windows and doors that look over the and into the houses on Brynland Avenue, includinginto peoples bedrooms- it's ugly- the planning application is unconvincing, I quote: "The new buildings are set back 2.7m from thisboundary and despite being 1.25m taller than the old building, will have a lesser impact on thehouses and rear gardens." In my view and assuming we are talking about visual impact this couldonly be true if you thought a smaller building that was further away could have more impact.Perhaps whoever wrote that (Alexander & Thomas Architects?) would like to explain?- The building was constructed on weekends, Sundays and bank holidays in the summer of 2018creating massive amounts of noise and I have no confidence that those responsible for it will givedue regard to the neighbours on Brynland Avenue.- The development needs to have proper restrictions place on it's use, and hours of use to ensurethat it's location in a residential area, and within a stone's throw (literally) of children's bedrooms istaken fully into account

Miss Kathryn Wells  166 BRYNLAND AVENUE BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

- The new building is considerably larger than the previous structure and is very close tothe boundary. The building is overbearing which is made worse as the ground the building sits onis higher than the garden side.

- There are windows and doors overlooking our gardens and facing directly into my bedroomwhich is at the rear of the property.

- The building was built at weekends, evenings and public holidays, with no regard to theirneighbours and the noise they were generating at antisocial times. There is a risk of continuingnoise pollution if the building is allowed to be used in the evening and at the weekend.

- I have concerns around the safety and structural integrity of the building and the boundary wall, Ibelieve a structural engineer should access before retrospective planning permission should begiven.

Mr Anonymous Anonymous BRYNLAND AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

We would like to object to the new development. In our view the application does not dojustice to the impact on neighbours. It is also disingenuous concerning sustainability and cruciallyheight and privacy.

Whilst I have entered these comments anonymously, you will find an e-mail with our names andaddress sent to development.management@bristol.gov.uk

Our objections are as follows:

The application states that the impact is minimal since the building stands just 1.25m higher thanthe previous building. This is disingenuous because the majority of the building is on land wherethere was no building before. Furthemore our garden is now overlooked by an overbearingbuilding that sits more than 5m above ground level. (see photos sent via e-mail)

The photos i have sent the planning officers show a 'before' and 'after' picture. Notice how closethe building is to our boundary.

The building significantly impacts our privacy. There are windows and doors facing directly ontoour property. The required window height is 1.7m from the floor. However the sill height is approx1.6m from the floor. In reality this is >3m above our garden height. Furthermore the door is a widerolling door that faces our properties and will always be open. It is effectively be a ground to ceilinglevel window looking directly onto our property and into our rear bedroom which is a child'sbedroom. (approx. 14m away)

The installed doors are noisy rolling doors unsuitable for our location

There is insufficient detail in the application about how soil waste will be disposed of. We note thatthere are toilets - but no indication of the how waste will be handled

The application states that the units will create employment. Given that they are unheated andunfinished that doesn't seem reasonable. Furthermore - if they are to be used as a place of workthey must be heated - in which case the sustainability statement in the application is untrue.

There is no provision for the disposal of any waste from the units. We understand that thereshould be secure outdoor waste disposal or ventilated internal space for waste. Neither of theseare in the plans. Since there is already a rat problem on the site we believe this is essential.

No mention of how noise will be abated. The site has a long history of creating noise pollutionduring working hours and especially at unsociable hours. Indeed the building itself was built atweekends, evenings and public holidays. Furthermore one of the new tenants appears to be asound equipment company who regularly tests the equipment on site (see video in a second e-mail)

In addition to our concerns about the planning application, we have concerns about the quality ofthe building.

The planning application makes no mention of the foundations. It is unclear to me whether or notthe foundations have been built properly and whether or not the weight of the building will impactour retaining wall.

It is good that rain water will be drained into mains drainage but insufficient detail about how anyindustrial use water will be disposed of. (we understand that 1 of the units will be used as a petgrooming service and so it is important that waste water is disposed of correctly)

There are windows at the rear of the building next to another unit which represent a fire hazard.We understand from a local architect that this would be a building regs issue due to the risk of firespreading from one unit to another

Should approval be given to the building or should the council deem that a demolition is notnecessary we would like to strongly request that a number of restrictions are placed on the use ofthe buildings and that the owner is required to make changes to the property in order to reduce theimpact on our homes. These are:- To restrict use to classification B1 and restrict use of the buildings to weekdays 9-5:30 with Noaccess at weekends.- Reasonable noise limitation at all times (i.e. no music / machinery) -- Appropriate waste and water management

- Removal of clear windows- Removal of noisy rolling door and any door facing our property- Erection of a sympathetic / appropriate 'screen' to shield neighbours view- An investigation by an engineer into the suitability of the foundations and fire safety. We need tobe sure that the foundations are appropriate and that they will not cause damage to the retainingwall. This should include a survey of the retaining wall on the Brynland Avenue side.

Thank you for considering our feedback

Unknown   OBJECT

the premises. 6.2 - Waste must be stored in a secure area, therefore preventing interference by any scavenging pests or any third party. Storage areas inside the building require a ventilation system". There is already a problem on the Merton Road site with waste which attracts rodents (foxes and rats), fly tipping is common in the area and illegal burning of industrial waste is a frequent occurrence. The new development should not add to this problem. 4 - the application documents do not adequately describe the scheme in relation to neighbouring properties. This is particularly important to allow you to assess the impact of the proposal as set out in points 1 & 2 above. To this end I attach a scale section through the site showing the change in level and relative distance / height of the new building in relation to the properties on Brynland Avenue. 5 - the risk of noise pollution from the use of the new building affecting adjoining properties. In previous correspondence with the planning department regarding the site it appears that the site is classified for uses B1-B8. If this is correct then this would allow for a wide range of uses that would not be compatible with the proximity to a residential area. If any permission is granted for use of this area of the site then I suggest a condition needs to be applied restricting the use to B1 only and with a restriction on hours of operation to exclude weekends and bank holidays. Thank you. Richard Castor Jeffery

Merton Road Industrial Estate

Section Through Garden of 162 Brynland Avenue & Unit 3D1:50 @A31376

Oct 2018SV01

-

Project

Title

Scale

Job No

Date

Dwg No

Drawn

Rev

Revision: - - -

AS BUILT

-

0 5 M

5500

(var

ies)

13700

INDUSTRIAL ESTATE 162 BRYNLAND AVENUE

UNIT 3D

164 BRYNLAND AVENUE BEYOND

TIM

BE

R F

EN

CE

PA

NE

L

1850

BO

UN

DA

RY

(TB

C)

Unknown   OBJECT

Ms Megan Shirley 41B ASHLEY DOWN ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to the building for the following reasons:

- It is significantly taller than the previous structure - this affects the amount of daylight in ourproperty. The building is also ugly and is not in keeping with the character of the surroundingbuildings.

- There is a window in the building which overlooks our garden and faces directly into our bedroomwindow, which was previously not overlooked. In addition, there have been several occasionswhen the light has been left on in the building - the building is so close that this shines straight intoour bedroom.

- When the building work was being done the builders climbed into our property to clad the outerwall without asking for permission. Whilst carrying out the work they trampled the plants in ourgarden and left a pile of garden waste.

Mr Damian Sandiford 168 BRYNLAND AVENUE BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to this building as per the following points.

- It's substantially larger (3 times) than the previous building.

- The old building was ripped down by a JCB digger and was done so without much care andattention. This isn't an issue however the main issue is that they left one of the walls that backsonto my garden with the garden being much lower down. This wall has a major crack runningthrough it and I'm not convinced that this wall is structurally safe. I have young children and aswing beneath this wall.

- It overlooks gardens and rear rooms including bedrooms.

- We've endured lots of noise so far in the building of this and there is risk of further noise pollutionin the future either late at night or on weekends.