Application Details

Reference 19/01527/F
Address 102 Gloucester Road Bishopston Bristol BS7 8BN  
Street View
Gloucester Road Story
Proposal Construction of 9no. (2 bedroom flats) flats over extended ground floor retail area, following part demolition of ground and first areas, and conversion of loft area to create office space. External alterations to existing building and forecourt on Gloucester Road and Berkley Road Elevation including roof extension to tower.
Validated 08-05-19
Type Full Planning
Status Withdrawn
Neighbour Consultation Expiry 11-06-19
Standard Consultation Expiry 20-06-19
Determination Deadline 03-07-19
Decision Application Withdrawn
Decision Issued 02-07-19
BCC Planning Portal Application
Public Comments Supporters: 0 Objectors: 11    Total: 11
No. of Page Views 15

TBS response: OBJECT

Recommendation submitted 13-06-19

Public Comments

The Bishopston Society  OBJECT

Berkeley Road Methodist Chapel is a local landmark and a locally listed building withinthe Bishopston Conservation Area.

We are supportive of the principle of residential development to compliment the existing residentialcharacter of Berkeley Road, but we do have concerns with several aspects of the designsubmitted for planning approval;

- the proposal is overdevelopment which harms the conservation area.- the design is too high and bulky is is overbearing to both the existing chapel and the houses inBerkeley Road.- the proposal makes no attempt to relate to either the chapel or the existing houses andfurthermore does not attempt a satisfactory transition between the two.- the building is far too high as it sits alongside No. 4 Berkeley Road and has a huge blank 4storey high side wall facing the house which is clearly visible from Berkeley Road.- the red brick treatment for this elevation (shown as dark blue on the elevations) is a weakreference to the Bristol North Baths which are not visible from Berkeley Road, which is almostcompletely in stonework. This does not contribute to local character and identity.- the Gloucester Road frontage is spoiled by the curious arched double height corner window. Thislarge opening should be set centrally within the front gable of the chapel in order to look balanced.- On practical matters, the plans show 11 no. parking spaces accessed across the pavement onBerkeley Road which is an unacceptable hazard to both pedestrians and local traffic. The plansmake no reference to a loading bay, for a business which is intensively involved in both receipt

and despatch of large quantities of bulky goods.

There are many aspects of this submission which need to be reworked and refined, not least thesize and scale of the proposal but crucially its relationship with the conservation area and thebuildings around it. This is a great opportunity to enhance the quality of the chapel and its settingwithin the local townscape.

We recommend refusal of the application.

-

Unknown   OBJECT

The Application Site 

The application site is located on the corner of Gloucester Road and Berkeley Road, within the heart of Gloucester                                     Road town centre. Gloucester Road features a mix of retail/service and food and drink uses, whilst Berkeley Road                                   is residential, mostly comprising pairs of two and three storey Victorian villas, interspersed with some more                               modern housing redevelopment further west. On the corner directly opposite the site is a petrol filling station, with                                   access from both Gloucester Road and Berkeley Road. Immediately to the south of the site is the new Bishopston                                     library building with residential apartments above (4 storey), which wraps closely around the rear site boundary.                               Beyond this is the Bristol North Baths building, of a similar height. It is a diverse, mixed-use urban area, featuring                                       a mix of building styles and sizes, with a strong Victorian element. 

Nailsea Electrical comprises a substantial two-storey stone building (formerly a Methodist Church) fronting the                           corner of Gloucester Road and Berkeley Road, with a large flat-roofed brick-faced side extension along Berkeley                               Road. The former Methodist Church is locally listed. Both elements are linked at ground floor level, and most of                                     the ground floor is laid out as a showroom, with an element of storage in the original part of the building. The                                           former Church features an Italianate tower on the Gloucester Road elevation, and has a pitched tiled roof with                                   stone coping to each gable. The side extension has been crudely spliced into (and envelopes) the rear of the                                     original building, cutting across attractive brick arch window features. 

There is an irregularly shaped tarmac service yard to the rear, enclosed by a stone boundary wall to the south.                                       There is a significant difference in levels here such that the library building is set down approximately 1.8m below                                     the yard, and includes a cut-away design feature facing directly onto the site (this cut-out is intended to                                   accommodate a large new tree, which was an explicit requirement of the approved scheme for the library                                 development under Consent Ref. 07/05629/F, however this has not materialised and there is a consequent lack of                                 soft landscaping around this building, in breach of the conditions attached to this consent). The apartments                               above are slightly set back. The yard is contained to the west by a 1.8m block boundary wall with No.’s 4 and 4A                                             Berkeley Road. Vehicular access to the yard is via a single-width lane off Berkeley Road between the side                                   extension of Nailsea Electrical and No. 4. The service yard accommodates refuse bins along with six large metal                                   shipping containers which have been in-situ without planning consent and are very unsightly. Customer parking                             for up to 11 vehicles is provided along the Berkeley Road frontage. 

No. 4 Berkeley Road is located immediately to the west of the service yard, with the access drive to No. 4A                                         (located at the southern end of the original garden to No. 4) running under an upper-floor side extension and                                     along the length of the boundary with Nailsea Electrical. No. 4 features an original two-storey side extension                                 (kitchen and living rooms) projecting into its rear garden, and No. 6 also mirrors this. Both properties are therefore                                     very close to the proposed development.  

The site falls within the Gloucester Road Conservation Area. 

Relevant Planning History 

There is an extensive planning history to the application site, dating back to 1960 when it was used as a furniture                                         store and fabric and carpet workrooms. Of relevance, consent was granted in 1971 for the part demolition of the                                     building and erection of the single storey side extension for sale of tyres, car supplies, petroleum products and                                   ,garage equipment together with retail showroom and warehouse (Consent Refs. 71/01083/P_U and                       71/03271/U_U). Various illuminated and non-illuminated signage was approved in 1972, 1985, 1993 and 2010                           (Refs. 72/8225B/17U_U, 85/02651/A, 93/00859/A and 10/04955/A). Alterations to provide a customer care                       facility were approved in 1993 (Ref. 93/00695/F), whilst the removal of glazed bar windows and bricking up of an                                     opening were approved in 1994 (Ref. 94/01731/F). 

Whilst it is unclear when Nailsea Electrical first occupied the site, it is therefore assumed that the established                                   lawful use of the site has always been as retail (Use Class A1) with ancillary storage.  

On the 3rd August 2017 planning permission was granted, subject to conditions, for a proposed warehouse                               extension for ancillary storage to the rear of the site (ref. 15/05590/F). This permission has not been implemented.  

The Proposals 

Nailsea Electrical specialises in the sale of kitchen appliances (bulky items such as cookers, fridges etc) and                                 kitchens. The nature of the business is that goods are ordered in and received from multiple ‘big brand’ suppliers,                                     either displayed within the showroom or collected again quickly by customers. 

The proposals involve the partial demolition of the existing ground floor shop, and the construction of a                                 replacement new shop with 9 No. two-bedroom apartments above. The existing Methodist chapel is also to be                                 refurbished with an additional storey proposed within its existing volume and a new pyramidal roof-cap installed                               to the chapel tower. New glazed elements are ​also proposed to the Gloucester Road and Berkeley Road facing                                   elevations of the chapel.  

Current Planning Policy Context  

For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004), the application will be                                   determined in accordance with the Bristol Core Strategy (2011) and the Bristol Site Allocations and Development                               Management Policies (2014) as the current development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.                         Both documents locate the site within the Gloucester Road Town Centre, but not allocated for any specific land                                   use. The site is within Flood Zone 1, a Smoke Control Area, an area of low coal mining risk and a ​Surface Water                                           Drainage Discharge Zone (limit discharge to capacity of existing sewer network or existing discharge rate). The                               site falls within the Gloucester Road Conservation Area and the former Methodist chapel is a locally listed                                 building.

Core Strategy Policies BCS5, BCS7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21 and 22 Development Management Policies DM7, 23, 26,                                     27, 30, 31 and 32 are relevant to the proposals and are addressed in respect of the key planning issues below.  

In addition to the adopted Development Plan, national planning policy is relevant in the form of the National                                   Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2019). This sets out the Government’s presumption in favour of sustainable                             development and requires the planning system to amongst other things, seek to secure high quality design and a                                   good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings, and encourage the effective                                   use of land. The NPPF also contains the Government’s guidance for the historic environment, and sets out the                                   need to conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance. Development that would lead to                                 substantial harm or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset will be resisted. Where a                                 development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm, this would be weighed against the public benefits                                 of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.  

Finally, supplementary planning guidance is also relevant in the form of the Gloucester Road Conservation Area                               Character Appraisal (April 2017) and various design-related documents including the Urban Living SPD (2018)                           and PAN15: Responding to Local Character, A Design Guide (1998).  

Key Planning Issues  

Given the above policy context, the proposal raise the following key planning issues, addressed in turn below: 

Principle and Quantum of Development  

Residential Use 

Core Strategy Policy BCS5 confirms how the Core Strategy aims to deliver new homes within the built up area of                                       the city, to contribute towards accommodating a growing number of people and households. Furthermore, Core                             

Strategy Policy BCS 18 states how all new residential development should maintain, provide or contribute to a                                 mix of housing tenures, types and sizes to help support the creation of mixed, balanced and inclusive                                 communities. It requires that residential developments provide sufficient space for everyday activities and enable                           flexibility and adaptability by meeting appropriate space standards. 

On the basis of these policies, the principle of further residential development in this location is accepted, however                                   the number of units proposed is patently excessive and tantamount to over-development for this particular                             constrained site, with insufficient private amenity space provided for future residents.  

Commercial Use 

Core Strategy Policy BCS7 and Development Management Policy DM7 set out a hierarchy of town, district and                                 local centres for Bristol wherein retail development will be primarily located, and identify Gloucester Road as a                                 town centre within this hierarchy. The policies set out how development should be of a ​scale and intensity                                 appropriate to the hierarchy and character of the centre and where proposed developments would be                             significantly larger in scale than existing uses, it should be clearly demonstrated that their catchment is in keeping                                   with the role of the centre.  

The intentions for the retained commercial space within the ground floor of the scheme are extremely ambiguous.                                 The infilling of the entire existing yard would create a large retail space (simply described as ‘shop’ on Drawing                                     No. PL08), and the proposed use of this space must be clarified as it will have a significant impact on existing                                         both neighbouring and future residents and on the local highway network (if it is intended to be serviced by                                     delivery vehicles or involve a significant increase in customers to the premises). Furthermore, the previous 2016                               scheme (Consent Ref. 15/05590/F) comprised proposals for a warehouse on this part of the site, designed to                                 accommodate three stacked boxed appliances (such as under counter fridges or ovens) and which resulted in a                                 relatively high external roof line. The same building height should not now be required with a ‘shop’ and a                                     reduced roofline should be sought to tie in with the height of the boundary wall with No. 4, which would be                                         significantly less obtrusive.  

Quantum 

Development Management Policy DM27 is concerned with the successful arrangement and form of buildings,                           structures and spaces. It states how the height, scale and massing of development should be appropriate to the                                   immediate context, site constraints, character of adjoining streets and spaces, the setting, public function and/or                             importance of the development, and the location within the townscape. ​The layout and form of development will                               be expected to enable existing and proposed development to achieve appropriate levels of privacy, outlook and                               daylight (amongst other things). 

The existing arrangement of buildings around the application site is disordered and convoluted - there is an                                 irregular shaped yard, a significant levels difference to the library building and residential dwellings tight up to the                                   boundary. This is dense urban development, interspersed with pockets of open land in the form of parking courts,                                   service yards and gardens. The existing built form is a similar juxtaposition of old and new, the application                                   building is a splice of Victorian stone-built church and modern brick extension, the library development and flats                                 behind are four storey, clean and contemporary, whilst the Berkeley Road dwellings are largely three/four storey                               Victorian villas, with No. 4A a modern two-storey stone-clad ‘infill’ building. 

As shown on Drawing No. PL07, the proposed scheme will tie into the remains of the existing building and occupy                                       the entire rear service yard tight up to the boundaries, such that the site would be completely covered with                                     development. The flats will sit approximately 2 metres off the boundary wall and side access drive with No’s 4/4A                                     Berkeley Road, and will also extend approximately halfway down the length of the rear garden of No. 4, well                                     beyond the two-storey rear extension to this property which accommodates habitable rooms at both levels (first                               floor lounge and kitchen below, both with side and rear windows). As shown on Drawing No. PL10, the scheme                                     

will completely dominate the outlook from these rooms and have an unacceptably overbearing impact on the rear                                 gardens of the properties at the eastern end of Berkeley Road.  

In addition, the proposed flats at the front of the development will feature balconies that look immediately out                                   onto the existing dwellings on the northern side of Berkeley Road. Whilst this is a dense urban area, this would be                                         unreasonably intrusive and front-facing balconies are not a common feature within this part of the road.  

In summary, whilst the dense and disparate arrangement of buildings and spaces here is acknowledged, the                               layout and form of the proposed scheme is excessive and an insensitive response to this tight urban site. The                                     covering of the entire yard would result in no curtilage land to the new flats, which does not reflect the character                                         of the area of buildings interspersed with pockets of space. The proposed scheme is crudely crammed onto the                                   site, and the extent of site coverage tight up to the south and western boundaries will be oppressive and                                     overbearing to the neighbouring occupiers. For these reasons, the layout and form of the proposals do not accord                                   with the guidance of Development Management Policy DM27. 

Design and Appearance 

Core Strategy Policy BCS21 requires all new development in Bristol to deliver high quality design. Development                               will be expected (amongst other things) to contribute positively to an area’s character and identity, creating or                                 reinforcing local distinctiveness. Development Management Policy DM26 expands on this, and expects                       development to contribute by (amongst other things): 

“ii. Respecting, building upon or restoring the local pattern and grain of development including the historical                               development of the area; and, 

vii. Responding appropriately to the height, scale, massing, shape, form and proportion of existing buildings,                           building lines and set-backs from the street, skylines and roofscapes; and,  

viii. Reflecting locally characteristic architectural styles, rhythms, patterns, features and themes, taking                     account of their scale and proportion”.  

Policy DM26 also sets out how development will not be permitted where it would be harmful to local character                                     and distinctiveness or fail to take the opportunities available to improve the character and quality of the area and                                     the way it functions. Where existing development relates poorly to the surrounding development or lacks a                               coherent and integrated built form, development will be expected to take reasonable opportunities to improve the                               area’s character, enclosure, public realm and appearance and better integrate the area with its surroundings. 

Development Management Policy DM30 provides guidance on extensions and alterations to existing buildings. It                           requires extensions to be physically and visually subservient to the host building, including its roof form, and not                                   dominate by virtue of their siting and scale. They should (amongst other things): 

i. Respect the siting, scale, form, proportions, materials, details and overall design and character of the host                                 building, its curtilage and the broader street scene. 

iii. Safeguard the amenity of the host premises and neighbouring occupiers. 

The design and external appearance of the proposed building is shown on Drawing No.’s PL10, PL11, PL12 and                                   PL13, however these drawings do not provide sufficient illustration of how the structure will actually present to                                 Berkeley Road or relate to all of the neighbouring occupiers. Drawing No. PL12 shows existing and proposed                                 sections through the south of the site, and Drawing No. PL13 shows an existing and proposed streetscene along                                   Gloucester Road. Yet there are no corresponding sections shown through the north of the site and no streetscene                                   drawings along Berkeley Road, to illustrate just exactly how the scheme will relate to the form and height of No.’s                                       4 and 6 and the wider residential streetscape here. 

To specifically address the above requirements of Policies DM26 and DM3O, the proposed scheme: 

● Will not contribute positively to the character and identity of the area or reinforce its local distinctiveness -                                   the proposed building is monolithic and ‘heavy’ in appearance and will appear alien to the ornate                               Victorian residential streets and the modest shops of Gloucester Road;   

● Does not respect, build upon or restore the local pattern and grain of development - the scheme covers                                   the entire site with building, leaving no curtilage or ‘pocket’ space that is characteristic of the area;  

 ● Does not respond appropriately to the existing buildings in terms of massing, shape, form or roofscape -                                 

the scheme represents crude ‘blocky’ infill development, with little design reference to the historic chapel,                             the new contemporary library or the nearby Victorian villas;   

● Does not provide an attractive, well composed ground floor frontage. The entrances to the bike and bin                                 stores on Berkeley Road are single doors within a bland expanse of brickwork with no articulation. This                                 part of the scheme offers little contribution to the streetscape here;  

 ● The proximity of the edge of the main block to No. 4 Berkeley Road in particularly is unacceptable and will                                       

completely detract from its historic form, scale and proportions as one of a pair of Victorian villas. The                                   interface of ‘new and old’ here will be crude and overwhelming;  

 ● Will not be visually subservient to the existing building - the height and ‘blockiness’ of the new roofscape                                   

will visually dominate the former Church structure;   

● Bears little relation to the original scale, form, proportions, overall design and character of the former                               Church building, resulting in a complete loss of curtilage and the concealment of any original stonework                               features at the rear;   

● Fails to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring occupiers - the outlook and rear gardens to the                               (even-numbered) properties at the eastern end of Berkeley Road will be dominated by the scheme, and                               overlooked by 2nd and 3rd floor balconies within the western and southern elevations;  

● The height of the new building will be almost as tall as the existing church tower, and well above the roof                                         line of the church, dwarfing what is a locally listed and attractive feature of the Gloucester Road. It is                                     proposed to be even higher than the new library flats;   

● There is a lack of any soft landscaping to improve the residential feel of the place for the new residents                                       and for the existing neighbours;  

● The nine dwellings are tightly tucked into a small space. The proposed balconies do not interact well with                                   each other and would overlook both the new library flats and the gardens of the houses at the bottom of                                       Berkeley Road.

In summary, the proposed building does not represent high quality urban design. It does not contribute positively                                 to local character and distinctiveness and fails to take the opportunity to meaningfully improve the character and                                 quality of the site or the way it functions. It impacts negatively on neighbouring residents and there is no                                     contribution to the public realm.  

We suggest that a revised scheme with a reduced height, scale and mass, a reduced number of flats and                                     improved soft landscaping (between it and immediate neighbours) should be considered. Any such scheme                           should pay astute attention to design detail such that it is more sympathetic to the strong Victorian vernacular.                                   The balconies directly overlooking the Berkeley Road properties (and gardens) should also be removed, and the                               height of the ground floor development should be reduced so as to make it less imposing for the residents of No.                                         4.  

As proposed, this scheme is a missed design opportunity to rationalise and really enhance this site. For these                                   reasons, the design and appearance of the proposals are not considered to comply with Core Strategy Policy                                 BCS21 and Development Management Policies DM26 and DM30.  

Heritage 

In accordance with Policies BCS22, DM31 and national planning guidance, and proposals on the site should                               conserve and/or enhance heritage assets and the character and setting of areas of acknowledged importance,                             including Conservation Areas.  

The local significance of the Methodist chapel is outlined in the Gloucester Road Conservation Area Character                               Appraisal (Adopted April 2017). The document describes the chapel as ‘a local landmark’. whilst also describing                               ‘views towards the tower of the former Methodist Chapel’ as a key view in the conservation area. 

The Heritage Assessment prepared by Nicholas Morley Architects LTD assesses the scheme against outdated                           planning policy contained with PPS5 rather than against current national guidance contained within the National                             Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  

The proposed additional glass and roof lights to the chapel will detract from the Gloucester Road Conservation                                 Area. The number of rooflights is excessive and the resulting loss of historic fabric from the new glazing and                                     rooflights will harm the building, to no public benefit. The rhythm of the original façade will be lost for little gain.  

In addition, whilst original Italianate tower did feature a short spire, the proposed new triangular dome is now                                   considered harmful, not only to a key view in the Conservation Area, but also to the locally listed building itself. It                                         makes this element of the building too high in the context of the street and is not in keeping. No details are                                           provided on the proposed roof treatment for the tower on the drawings and the Heritage Statement simply states                                   “​A contemporary gesture to the existing tower roof is proposed in the form of a dark grey metal pointed frame”.                                       This is insufficient justification for such a prominent alteration to the building.  

For the above reasons, it is considered that the proposed scheme would neither preserve or enhance the                                 Gloucester Road Conservation Area or the locally listed building but would result in substantial harm to these                                 heritage assets. The proposed demolition works and this degree of harm are not adequately justified by the                                 public benefits of reinstating some of the original features of the Gloucester Road facade.  

Highway Access, Traffic impact and Parking 

Policy DM23 concerns the traffic and transport considerations that all development proposals should address. It                             sets out how development should not give rise to unacceptable traffic conditions and will be expected to                                 (amongst other things): 

i) provide safe and adequate access onto the highway network; and iii) provide appropriate transport improvements to overcome unsatisfactory transport conditions created or                       exacerbated by the development. 

Proposals should be supported by a Transport Assessment and/or Travel Plan where development is likely to                               have a significant impact. 

In addition, Policy DM23 requires development proposals to provide an appropriate level of safe, secure,                             accessible and useable parking with regard to parking standards, the parking management regime and the                             accessibility of the location. Appropriate servicing and loading facilities should also be provided. Proposals for                             parking, servicing and loading should make effective and efficient use of land and be integral to the design of the                                       development.  

The following parking standards are set out for A1 retail uses: 

● 1 car space per 100m2 (between 250-1000m2, not within primary or secondary shopping area) ● 1 staff cycle space and 1 customer cycle space per 250m2 (above250m2)  ● Disabled staff parking provision, 5% of parking standard/minimum of 1 space (above 500m​2​), disabled                           

customer same where development permits  ● Service vehicles- all developments expected to demonstrate how servicing will be undertaken. Some                         

reduction in standard may be allowed where justified and in some cases on-street may be appropriate  

The following parking standards are set out for C3 residential uses: 

● Car parking - Two bed house/flat: 1.25 spaces per dwelling ● Cycle parking - 2 or 3 bedroom dwellings: 2 spaces per dwelling  

No Transport Statement has been submitted with the application and it is critical that this is now provided in                                     order for the proposed transport arrangements/traffic impacts to be properly assessed.  

The existing access arrangements are that daily deliveries to Nailsea Electrical are made within Berkeley Road.                               Delivery vehicles do not use the rear service yard, and there are is no pull-in layby to the front of the building, such                                             that deliveries are made directly on the roadside and goods deposited within the parking bays until taken into the                                     shop. Consequently, vehicles often obstruct the public highway or pavements around the building, with traffic                             backing up onto the Gloucester Road junction.  

The proposed scheme will subsume the existing service yard and the existing side access lane, such that there                                   will be no vehicular access into the site, and no service yard at all to receive deliveries. There is no information                                         included with the application to demonstrate how servicing will continue to be undertaken, and again this should                                 be clarified. It would be completely unacceptable for all deliveries to continue to take place within Berkeley Road,                                   as per the current unsatisfactory arrangements.  

In respect of car parking, there are currently 11 customer parking spaces along the Berkeley Road building                                  frontage (one of which is only accessible if an adjacent space is vacant), 9 of which involve vehicles reversing                                     directly out onto the public highway, directly opposite a petrol filling station and close to a very busy junction (the                                       two spaces closest to the junction are very rarely used, for safety reasons).  

The submitted Design and Access Statement states that it is proposed that the shop has use of the 11 parking                                       spaces between 9:00 - 17:30 Monday to Saturday (inclusive) and that the apartments have use of the parking                                   spaces between 17:31 and 8:59 Monday to Saturday and all day Sunday. We consider that this proposal is                                   unrealistic and not enforceable. For this to work it assumes that the residents work 9am-5pm jobs. In reality it is                                       highly likely that some residents may work alternative hours or not work at all and therefore their cars will either                                       block car parking for shop customers or result in congestion in the rest of the road if they can’t park on site.   

A new, secure, cycle store with capacity for 20 cycles is proposed for the residents, accessed from the building                                     frontage on Berkeley Road. Whilst these are accessible in this location, regrettably they result in a very bland                                   ground floor elevation which makes little contribution to this part of the Berkeley Road streetscene, and are also                                   potentially vulnerable to vandalism here.  

In summary, there are significant traffic impacts associated with Nailsea Electrical current operations. The                           proposed new scheme appears unlikely to offer any mitigation to these, unless there is a fundamental change in                                   their practice that removes all or drastically reduces the number of daily suppliers visiting the site. Realistically,                                 the site requires a dedicated loading bay and off-street manoeuvring space to accommodate all its deliveries                               safely. The lack of car parking for the new residents of the flats is unrealistic and will result in an inevitable                                         increase in parking on the rest of the road which is already overcrowded on both sides. The retained customer                                     parking spaces are poorly located and those nearest the traffic lights could be dangerous to access. For all these                                     

reasons, the proposals do not comply with Development Management Policy DM23, and a full Transport                             Statement and Travel Plan must be provided to demonstrate how they can be addressed and traffic can be better                                     managed at the site.  

Impact on Residential Amenity 

Core Strategy Policy BCS21 and Development Management Policies DM27 and 30 all seek to ensure that                               development safeguards the amenity of existing and neighbouring occupiers and achieve appropriate levels of                           privacy, outlook and daylight.  

As described above, the proposed height and monolithic appearance of the scheme and the extent of the site                                   coverage, will dominate the outlook from the side and rear of No.’s 4 and 6 Berkeley Road and have a                                       significantly overbearing effect on these dwellings. The proposed 2nd and 3rd floor terraces (west elevation) will                               also result in direct overlooking into the gardens of No.’s 4 and 6, whilst the proximity of the terraces is also likely                                           to result in noise disturbance.  

The bulk, scale and mass of the building is also likely to result in the loss of daylight and sunlight to No.4 Berkeley                                             Road and we note that no assessment of this has been submitted with the application in respect of this issue.  

For these reasons, in addition to the daily traffic disturbance, the proposals do not safeguard the amenities of                                   neighbouring occupiers and do not comply with Policies BCS21, DM27 and DM30.  

Sustainability and Drainage 

Core Strategy Policies BCS13, 14, 15 and 16 are relevant to the proposals.

Policy BCS13 requires development to contribute to mitigating and adapting to climate change and to                             demonstrate this through a Sustainability Statement, proportionate to the scale of the proposals. 

Policy BCS14 requires development to include measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from energy use, and                               to incorporate renewable energy sources to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from residual energy use in                             buildings by at least 20%.  

Policy BCS15 requires the integration of sustainable design and construction measures in new development,                           whilst Policy BCS16 expects all development to incorporate measures to reduce surface water run-off (30%                             target in other urban areas). 

The application is accompanied by a Sustainable Energy Statement. This confirms that a 20.40% reduction in                               emissions from residual energy use in the new scheme will be achieved through the incorporation of 23 No. PV                                     panels on the flat roof. Whilst the use of PV panels is welcomed it is noted that the location of these will be very                                               prominent. It is noted that a sedum roof is proposed which will help to reduce surface water run-off, although                                     there is no curtilage space remaining within the site for water to actually disperse. For these reasons, Core                                   Strategy Policies BCS15 and 16 are not adequately addressed.  

Refuse/Recycling Provision 

Development Management Policy DM32 requires all new development to provide shared recycling and refuse                           bins of sufficient capacity. The location and design of this should be integral to the design of the development. In                                       assessing proposals, regard will be had to the level and type of provision, location (with satisfactory access for                                   users and collection operatives), the impact of the provision of visual amenity (having regard to the need to                                   minimise the prominence of the facilities and screen any external provision), the impact on the health and amenity                                   

of neighbouring development, security against pests, vandalism, unauthorised use. Recycling/refuse storage                     should be kept separate from cycle storage, car parking and key circulation areas. 

The proposals relocate the existing refuse and recycling provision from the rear of the site to the front of the                                       building fronting Berkeley Road, directly adjacent to the visitor car parking. This is the most visible part of the site                                       on a very busy public thoroughfare, and is completely exposed to vandalism and unauthorised use.                             Notwithstanding this, the current location in the yard is not ideal either, and has previously resulted in noise and                                     disturbance to nearby residents with refuse and recycling collections occurring at antisocial hours. A pragmatic                             storage solution that considers the requirements of Policy DM32 and the amenities of neighbouring occupiers still                               therefore needs to be pursued. 

Drawings 

Finally, as mentioned previously, the submitted application drawings are insufficient and inaccurate in parts. An                             additional section drawing should be provided to demonstrate the existing and proposed building heights across                             the north of the site (in particular showing the original building and the relationship with the projecting rear                                   extension of No. 4 Berkeley Road). An additional street scene illustrating the proposed scheme within the context                                 of Berkeley Road is also essential, and some 3D drawings would be extremely useful in illustrating the height and                                     profile of the roof to the proposed rear ‘shop’ and again how this relates to the adjoining boundary wall and                                       neighbouring dwellings.  

Drawing PL08 shows a terrace to Flat 1 located to the rear of the development, accessed from Flat 2. We                                       presume that this is a labelling error but this needs clarification?. Similarly, Drawing No.’s PL10 and PL11 label                                   the Proposed East and West Elevations inaccurately (should they be switched?). 

Summary 

To conclude, Mr and Mrs Smith and Mr and Mrs Kittow acknowledge the contribution that Nailsea Electrical make                                   to the local economy and to the vitality and viability of this part of Gloucester Road, and do not wish to hinder                                           their business. They would also welcome a more balanced development here that would result in a real                                 improvement to the existing traffic and delivery situation. However, this is a very constrained urban with very                                 near residential neighbours, and in their current form these proposals do not deliver that improvement.  

Both parties are keen to engage in constructive dialogue with Nailsea and Electrical and officers to reach a more                                     modest residential scheme that is more appropriate and inkeeping in terms of scale, density and design, and will                                   involve lesser impacts on residential amenity, heritage assets and the local highway network. This is a real                                 opportunity to achieve high quality urban design and coherent mixed-use development, and they would welcome                             a meeting on site to find a reasonable way forward.  

We would be grateful if you could keep us updated on the application. 

Yours sincerely  

 

Lyn Jones 

cc Mr and Mrs Smith, 4 Berkeley Road, Mr and Mrs Kittow, 6 Berkeley Road 

 

Mr Gavin Spittlehouse 7 BERKELEY ROAD, BISHOPSTON, BRISTOL, BRISTOL BS7 8HF   OBJECT

Whilst I'd be happy to see Nailsea Electrical replaced by residential accommodation, Ihave a number of objections to the proposed design:

The proposed blocks are too high relative to the surrounding buildings.

Although the site has a Gloucester Road postal address, the proposed flats will clearly be a part ofBerkeley Road and should be designed to fit in with their surroundings. A frontage garden/yardshould be included clearly separated from chapel building Nailsea Electrical, preferably with atleast 50% green landscaping in addition to parking spaces if required. The gaps between parkingspaces 3-4 and 7-8 could be provided enclosed by a low wall and used for green landscaping, thiswould go some way towards an acceptable frontage. The parking space surfaces should bevisually different from the tarmac pavement.

The existing and proposed north elevations do not show the street tree which was planted in 2018having been sponsored by my neighbours and I. This should be added to the drawings so that itcan be considered in context. I request that the planners include conditions to ensure that the tree,which has already been damaged on several occasions by Nailsea Electrical vehicles, is protectedduring the building work.

The lower part of Berkeley Road is at present blighted by Nailsea Electrical delivery vehicles, fromcans to rigid lorries to articulated lorries. The planning application should demonstrate whatvehicles would need to access the redesigned shop and how they would safely and legally access

the building.

Planning conditions should require the proposed sedum roof to be maintained properly and deadplants to be replaced on an annual basis.

Please therefore reject this application.

Mr John Payne 53 ZETLAND ROAD, BRISTOL BS6 7AJ   OBJECT

Bristol Civic Society considers there is some potential for increasing the use of this sitewith residential development. The Society does not support this proposal, however. It is over-intensive for the amenity space available and would increase the pressure for on-street parking.The Society notes that some provision of off-street parking is shown but considers that themovement of cars over such a length of the pavement would be a hazard to pedestrians. This ispossible at present but should be resolved in the context of a development proposal. Theproposal, as it stands, would dominate the adjacent houses in Berkley Road. All in all, theproposal would harm the character of the Conservation Area. A more modest proposal with onestorey less might be appropriate.

Mr Jon Mackley 8 BERKELEY ROAD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

Hi,We are encouraged by the move from commercial to residential use of this space in order tomaintain the residential character of Berkeley Road but have the following concerns andobjections to the plans:1) The lack of parking for the new residents and the inevitable increase in parking on the rest ofBerkeley road which is already regularly overcrowded. Assuming one car per proposed bedroom,we could be looking at up to 18 new cars in addition to the current flow in and out of NailseaElectrics. The view that no parking is required to be provided as the flats are close to theGloucester Road so people living there will get the bus everywhere, walk or cycle will be far fromreality. This really means that the already overcrowded street parking on Berkeley Road will get alot worst so please can one change the plans to put some parking in.2) Currently there is customer parking spaces nearest the traffic lights which could be dangerousto access. If these are removed it will reduce the amount of parking on Berkeley Road even furtherso one needs to reconsider having parking within the plans.3) The height of the new building which from the plans will be almost as tall as the existing churchtower, well above the roof line of the church, dwarfing what is a listed and attractive feature of theroad. It is proposed to be even higher than the new library flats. The overall feel of the 2 sets offlats will be very imposing for us who live nearby.4) There is a lack of any soft landscaping to improve the residential feel of the place for the newresidents and us existing neighbours5) The proximity of the edge of the main block to our house (it is closer and much taller than thecurrent brick building).

6) The very tightly packed nature of nine dwellings in a small space, in particular how theirbalconies interact with each other, plus how they overlook both the new library flats and thegardens of the houses at the bottom of Berkeley Road.7) The ambiguous intentions for the commercial space at the bottom of the development. Byinfilling the entire existing yard, it will make for a large space, which is just described as "shop" onthe drawings. The use of this space needs clarification because if it is a warehouse, this wouldrequire lorry deliveries which we have been promised will stop with this development. Could thisground floor space not be used for flats thereby rendering the top floor unnecessary?8) This commercial ground floor structure is much taller than the existing wall between thedriveway to 4a and the Nailsea boundary, meaning a much greater mass of structure in this space;without modification it will look imposing and unpleasant to those of us close to it.9) The design drawings are either inaccurate or insufficiently thought through. It is, for instance,impossible to work out how Flat 1 which is at the front on the road can access its terrace, which isat the back and connected to Flat 2! Clear dimensions in the drawings are lacking, and there areno 3D views to help us visualise the ideas being presented.

Therefore please can the plans be changed to: -- Make it a 3 storey (rather than 4 storey) development with improved soft landscaping between itand its immediate neighbours as well as improved attention to design detail so it is moresympathetic to the Victorian architecture that surrounds it.- The number of flats needs to be reduced to better suit the footprint of the building and to reducethe number of potential cars on Berkeley Road.- There should not be balconies looking directly onto Berkeley Road, nor onto the gardens of thehouses it neighbours.- The height of the ground floor development needs to be reduced so as to make it less imposingfor us next door at 4 and 4A.- There must be some parking provided.

From Jon and Liz Mackley , residents of 8 Berkeley Road for 28 years

Mr Philip Walsh 9 BERKELEY ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Having reviewed Application Number: 19/01527/F at 102 Gloucester Road, we wouldlike make the following comments.We welcome a number of positive improvements:- Some (but not all) of the design is sympathetic to the heritage of a former Methodist Chapel andis appropriate to the requirements of the Gloucester Road Conservation Area.- The untidy rear yard would be replaced, removing an eyesore.- The construction of 9 apartments would help to contribute to the housing targets of Bristol CityCouncil.However, the proposed design raises a number of questions:- It is the height of the proposed development which is not sympathetic to the requirements of aConservation Area. The proposal dwarfs the Methodist Chapel with a much higher roof profile.- Currently, there is steady flow of delivery vans bringing goods to the shop premises. As theproposal includes "creating a larger shop floor at ground floor level in order to substantiallyincrease the sales area", it is safe to assume that increased sales will only lead to increaseddeliveries, contradicting the claim that the proposal will "rationalise the number of deliveries tosite". In fact, it is highly likely that there will be even more delivery vans searching for places tounload. leading to even greater congestion than experienced today. The 11 parking spaces arealready earmarked for customers between 9.00 -5.30 and residents at all other times, so cannotbe assumed to be available for unloading.- The proposal shows how 11 parking spaces will be created on the forecourt with access on toBerkeley Road. As Bristol City Council's own ward profile for Redland states that the averagenumber of cars per household is 1.29, it is safe to assume that the 11 parking spaces will be

insufficient and that, in fact, a minimum of 12 parking spaces will be required.- The parking proposals are questionable. There is an underlying assumption that the residents ofthe 9 flats will all be able to move their cars somewhere else between 9 and 5.30 to allowcustomers to park there. This is presumably based on an old-fashioned view that people drive towork during daytime hours. Increasingly, however, in the digital economy, people work from homeor work irregular hours and it is highly likely that the residents of the 9 flats will be looking to movetheir 12 cars somewhere else during the day. This would be a significant additional impact ontraffic congestion in the local area.- The planning assumption is that all 11 eleven parking spaces can be contained within the stretchof Berkeley Road from 4a to the traffic lights. We would be concerned about traffic reversing on toBerkeley Road at the traffic lights as this would be dangerous, especially with cars coming roundthe corner from the Gloucester Road, and would also interfere with traffic waiting at the lights tocross the Gloucester Road. We would conclude that there is not enough space to safely provision11 parking spaces.- There is also a question of whether such a long stretch of pavement should be provided withkerb drops, thereby turning the pavement in to a dangerous no-go area for pedestrians

Mr David Brown 11 BERKELEY ROAD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

We have no in-principle objection to the development of this site for residential use. Ourprimary concern is that the proposed design, notably the addition of a top (fourth) storey above theroof lines of the adjoining former church and adjacent houses, is not in proportion to the existingnearby buildings and will create a jarring and overbearing aspect in Berkeley Road.

The supporting heritage statement makes only passing comment on the effect on Berkeley Road,suggesting that the new building will be "finished in red brickwork with buff banding. This is acontemporary reflection of the Bristol North Baths building on Gloucester Road". A red-brickstructure (actually shown in grey on the elevation drawing) of this size between two stone oneswould have a wholly contrasting appearance to the Victorian properties which Berkeley Roadalmost completely comprises. Reference to the red brick finish of the former Bristol North Bathshas no relevance since that does not form part of the Berkeley Road scene, nor is it visible to anysignificant extent from Berkeley Road. The addition of timber cladding has no sympathy withanything extant in Berkeley Road - it is simply a current architectural fashion.

A further consideration is that a lack of provision for car parking is likely to affect traffic flow andparking in Berkeley Road and we would request that this is properly assessed.

Whilst of no direct consequence to our home, we trust that the abutment of any new building toNo. 4 Berkeley Road will give due consideration to the needs of the property owners with regard tosuch matters as maintenance access and weatherproofing. The proposed balconies may alsooverlook existing gardens and homes; whether or not prospective residents would welcome

balconies at the front overlooking a busy road junction is open to question but we accept that thisis a matter for the developer.

Mrs Naomi Smith 4 BERKELEY ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I would like to encourage the move from commercial to residential use of this space inorder to maintain the residential character of Berkeley Road. Improvements to the church facadeand moving the front entrance of the Nailsea Electrical shop to Gloucester Road (from BerkeleyRoad) is a welcome suggestion (though I believe there may still be an unnecessary entrance onBerkeley Road).

However, I have the following concerns and objections to the plans:1) The lack of parking for the new residents and the inevitable increase in parking on the rest ofthe road which is already overcrowded on both sides.2) The poorly located customer parking spaces nearest the traffic lights which could be dangerousto access.3) The height of the new building - it will be almost as tall as the existing church tower, and wellabove the roof line of the church, dwarfing what is a listed and attractive feature of the road. It isproposed to be even higher than the new library flats. The overall feel of the 2 sets of flats will bevery imposing for us who live nearby.4) There is a lack of any soft landscaping to improve the residential feel of the place for the newresidents and us existing neighbours5) The proximity of the edge of the main block to our house (it is closer and much taller than thecurrent brick building).6) The very tightly packed nature of nine dwellings in a small space, in particular how theirbalconies interact with each other, plus how they overlook both the new library flats and thegardens of the houses at the bottom of Berkeley Road.

7) The ambiguous intentions for the commercial space at the bottom of the development. Byinfilling the entire existing yard, it will make for a large space, which is just described as "shop" onthe drawings. The use of this space needs clarification because if it is a warehouse, this wouldrequire lorry deliveries which we have been promised will stop with this development. Could thisground floor space not be used for flats thereby rendering the top floor unnecessary?8) This commercial ground floor structure is much taller than the existing wall between thedriveway to 4a and the Nailsea boundary, meaning a much greater mass of structure in this space;without modification it will look imposing and unpleasant to those of us close to it.9) The design drawings are either inaccurate or insufficiently thought through. It is, for instance,impossible to work out how Flat 1 which is at the front on the road can access its terrace, which isat the back and connected to Flat 2! Clear dimensions in the drawings are lacking, and there areno 3D views to help us visualise the ideas being presented.

I would like to suggest a 3 storey (rather than 4 storey) development with improved softlandscaping between it and its immediate neighbours as well as improved attention to designdetail so it is more sympathetic to the Victorian architecture that surrounds it. The number of flatsneeds to be reduced to better suit the footprint of the building and to reduce the number ofpotential cars on Berkeley Road. There should not be balconies looking directly onto BerkeleyRoad, nor onto the gardens of the houses it neighbours. The height of the ground floordevelopment needs to be reduced so as to make it less imposing for us next door at 4 and 4A.

Mr Jonathan Kittow 6 BERKELEY ROAD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

19/01527/F

We are generally in favour of a well designed, sympathetic residential development at theproposed site, however the design as currently proposed is, in our view, entirely inappropriate forthe reasons listed below, primarily its materially adverse effect on the residential amenity ofneighbours. As a result we object to the development as currently proposed.

Moreover, the drawings included with the submission are not detailed enough to give an accuratedepiction of the impact of the development, as they do not show the distance from surroundinghouses and gardens, or the impact caused by the differences in height between the proposed flats(and their balconies) and the levels of the existing buildings and gardens.

Additionally, there are errors on the drawings, for example they appear not to be entirely to scalein depicting the manner in which the proposed development interacts with the surroundingbuildings and they do not show how all the terraces are to be accessed (particularly for flat 1).

1) Overlooking / Loss of Privacy / Overshadowing

Our key comment is that the development is over-bearing, out-of-scale and out of character interms of its appearance compared with existing development in the vicinity, primarily because:

i) the proposed roof height is far higher than that of the surrounding buildings; andii) the rear projection (south elevation) is not in line with that of the existing backs of neighbouringhouses (numbers 4, 6, 8 and 10 Berkeley Road).

This will lead to a stark and material loss of privacy, and erosion of residential amenity for thesurrounding houses on Berkeley Road and the existing flats in the Library development.

Furthermore, the proposed South and West facing terraces / balconies of the proposeddevelopment will look directly into the gardens of 4 and 6 Berkeley Road with no screening.Moreover, by virtue of the heights of the South and West facing terraces / balconies of theproposed development, their views into the gardens of 4 and 6 Berkeley Road will be entirelyuninterrupted and literally within physical spitting distance.

We propose that:

i) No South or West facing balconies are permittedii) Suitable screening is included to prevent direct lines of sight into neighbouring properties.iii) The top floor is removed so that the highest point of the development is no higher than the evesof the existing church building and neighbouring property (4 Berkeley Road).iv) the Ground floor, and the original church building roof space (proposed for commercial / officeuse) is used for residential, enabling a ground floor garden / terrace which does not impact uponneighbouring properties.

2) Noise / disturbance

The terraces and Juliet balconies within the Library development have already caused substantialnuisance to local residents, by virtue of the homogenous demographic of their target tenant market(generally young people).

This will be significantly exacerbated by virtue of the proposed development, primarily due to:

i) the overly large number of outdoor spaces (balconies / terraces) within the proposed schemeii) the close proximity of such balconies / terraces to existing residential propertyiii) the fact that all 9 proposed flats are explicitly designed to be rented out rather than sold,possibly attracting a homogeneous demographic of younger occupant, as is the case with theexisting Library development; andiv) lack of screening / soft landscaping providing any barrier between the proposed developmentand surrounding properties.

3) Unacceptably high density / over-development of the site

As proposed, the scale and intensity of the development is not appropriate for the hierarchy andcharacter of the vicinity of the site given it is significantly larger in scale than existing buildings,particularly those older buildings in the vicinity of the site, being the original (locally listed) churchbuilding and the Victorian houses on Berkeley Road itself.

The development appears to be designed to include a commercial (shop) unit primarily frontingGloucester Road, as well as a large commercial unit fronting Berkeley Road stretching across thewhole of the ground floor of the premises. It appears that the intention may be to split these intoseparate retail units, which would exacerbate pedestrian and traffic issues on Berkeley Roaddetailed in section 5 below.

We propose that the commercial unit be accessed solely (save for fire exits) from Gloucester Roadand use of the ground floor area fronting Berkley Road be used for residential accommodation,thus enabling the overall height of the development to be reduced.

Further, the substantial roof space within the existing church building is proposed to become officespace. Again, this could be used for residential therefore reducing the size of the entirely new(Westerly) aspect of the development adjoining the existing houses on Berkeley Road and goingsome way to ameliorate the issues set out in section 1 above.

4) Design

The design of the development is not in keeping with the existing buildings in the vicinity, mostnotably the frontage on to Berkeley Road, which is predominantly Victorian residential dwellingsconstructed in natural stone on the Southerly side of the street.

The original church building inhabiting much of the site is locally listed and the development oughttherefore to be subservient to it in its size and architectural design, particularly use of materials.The development as currently proposed detrimentally affects the character and appearance of thearea, especially the Berkeley Road frontage as well as the architectural importance and setting ofthe existing church building.

We propose that the Berkeley Road frontage of the development be constructed out of naturalstone to match existing dewllings on the South side of Berkeley Road. We also propose that thebalconies overlooking the street are removed given these will invade the privacy of the housesopposite and would in any event not be in keeping with any other dwelling or buildings in thevicinity of the site.

The lack of screening and soft landscaping within the design is notable. This contributes to theissues set out at point 1) above. We propose that a condition of any consent to a revised schemeincludes detailed soft landscaping requirements, for example additional trees / shrubs / trellisingon the Berkeley Road frontage and a row of trees along the Westerly boundary of the

development in between the garden of number 4 Berkeley Road and the development itself.

5) Adverse affect on highway safety and the convenience of pedestrians / road users.

There is already a significant parking problem on Berkeley Road as it is outside of the RPZ and weobserve staff and customers of local business, plus residents of the Library development parkingon Berkeley Road daily in addition to residents. The volume of parking often leads to parking overdriveways and pavements or on poorly maintained areas of double yellow lines.

Parking and traffic is largely uncontrolled in the vicinity of the area, leading to regular near missesand/or minor collisions. My young children have on more than one occasion almost been hitwalking past the existing site and the recently replaced tree in front of the proposed developmenthas been knocked over numerous times within the last 12 months.

The proposed development does not include any parking for the 9 flats; the parking spacesdepicted on the drawings are for customers of the shop. Whilst it may be contended that theresidents are close enough to Gloucester Road not to need cars, it is patently clear that this is notthe case in reality, as we know from daily experience of residents within the Library developmentparking on or around Berkeley Road, in relation to whom similar arguments were previously madein respect of them not needing / owning cars which transpired not to be accurate in reality.

Our view on this issue is therefore as follows:

i) double yellow lines or other suitable parking controls should be introduced, on at least the firsthalf of Berkeley Road (up to Arundel Road).ii) the overall development should include fewer flats therefore having less impact on parking.iii) the flats should have allocated spaces.iv) pedestrian safety for those walking past the development should be considered and thereshould not be parking or dropped curbs so close to the busy junction with Gloucester road /Somerville Road, notwithstanding current custom and practice of loading / parking for NailseaElectrical on existing hard standing areas in the vicinity.v) there should be much more emphasis on soft landscaping to ameliorate the visual detriment ofthe parking aspects of the scheme.

Ms Linda Vousden 5 BERKELEY RD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

I wish to object to this proposed development at Nailsea electrics.My concerns are:parking-this is already constrained with people parking across my drive to access NailseaElectrics-will there be parking for the flats and how many spaces?Will there be parking for Nailsea Electrics? Will there still be deliveries? These already causeproblems on the road and impact on parking.

The height of the proposed flats is imposing and too high - above the house next door at no 4 . Ifeel that the balconies would impact on my privacy as I sleep at the front of the house. I amconcerned that there could be increased noise levels from music, people outside chatting, etc.I feel it could block out some light from my room at the front and maybe my front garden . I haverecently planted up a neighbour's garden with sun loving plants-it is thriving and a reduction in lightwould spoil this. There is no outside space for the flats and I feel that this detracts from the generallay out of the road-all the houses have a front garden.I understand that the church is a listed building how does the proposed site comply with anyregulations with this ?I wish my objection to be noted.

Mr Frank Maddix 5 BERKELEY ROAD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to the application for the following reasons:

No thought has been given to car parking for the new residents - at least 9 cars need to be parked,and there is limited space at the moment

Nailsea Electrics vehicles already have trouble unloading, and have caused congestion due to upand down traffic in Berkeley Road.

The overall elevation of the proposed flats is too high, and not in keeping with the current height ofbuildings (and bearing in mind that the Church is a listed building).

There would be 9 dwellings in a small space - has an environmental risk analysis been carried outwith regard to nose and emergency access?

There is likely to be more noise than at present, going against the community spirit of theneighbourhood.

It is not clear from the proposal whether commercial activities would continue at the NailseaElectrics site - if this is intended, then the combination of vehicles unloading and people trying toget to work at peak times would be chaotic.

The proposed balconies would be overlooking properties opposite, impacting on their privacy.

The proposed flats may block light from the front gardens of the neighbouring properties,rendering the whole area in a somewhat depressing light, especially in the evening. When peoplebought properties in this area they saw it as a pleasant street.