Application Details

Reference 17/05315/F
Address 221 Gloucester Road Bishopston Bristol BS7 8NR  
Street View
Gloucester Road Story
Proposal Erection of a one storey rear extension and associated increase in occupants from 5-bed (Use Class C4) to 7-bed (House in Multiple Occupation).
Validated 17-10-17
Type Full Planning
Status Withdrawn
Neighbour Consultation Expiry 21-11-17
Determination Deadline 12-12-17
Decision Application Withdrawn
Decision Issued 12-12-17
BCC Planning Portal Application
Public Comments Supporters: 0 Objectors: 10    Total: 10
No. of Page Views 427

TBS response: OBJECT

Recommendation submitted 07-12-17

Public Comments

The Bishopston Society  OBJECT

We object to this application on the grounds that the proposed extension fills the wholeof the rear garden, which is already extremely small, thus leaving no external amenity area andblocking the rear access and fire escape route from no. 223 next door. The house currently has 5bedrooms and clearly has no effective storage for refuse and recycling. This situation would onlybe further aggravated by the addition of two further bedrooms.

We strongly recommend refusal.


I am a neighbour of this house and I would like to object to the proposal to extend thisalready overcrowded house to accommodate 2 more students.The property is very busy with many people coming and going, there is a high turnover of tenantsalso who are not very responsible neighbours, we have to clear up their trash on a regular basisas

the bin areas on the pavement are always overflowing and regularly fly tipped, more occupantsmean more trash dumped on the side. We have called the letting agent on many occasionsbecause ofthe problem but it is never resolved.The small area of Princes place is already heavily populated and to cram 2 more into this house isludicrous.I live in a similar sized house on the opposite corner and I can't imagine how they could get 7occupants in the house! Also building on the tiny garden will mean there is no outdoor area for thetenants to smoke and dry their washing.I think the development serves no purpose other than to line the Landlords pockets with more rent,it seems we are going back to Victorian times and stuffing as many people into properties as wecan regardless of the living conditions and safety aspects. Many people have raised the issue ofaccess for fire escape etc and for this reason alone this should be refused!

Unknown   OBJECT


Loss of Light Paragraph 2.30.6 (part of the text accompanying Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Policy DM30: Alterations to Existing Buildings) says: Care should also be taken to ensure that any extension or alteration does not result in a harmful loss of sunlight or daylight through overshadowing of its neighbours. Furthermore, extensions should not be overbearing or result in unacceptable overlooking or loss of privacy. The siting and size of the proposed extension will result in a significant loss of sunshine and daylight to the garden of The Mews and also leave the path and the front door of The Mews completely overshadowed. The extension will have an overbearing impact on The Mews resulting in a tunnel like feel to the entrance to the property. Furthermore, Policy BCS21 of the Core Strategy aims to deliver high quality buildings that make a positive contribution to an area’s character and identity whilst safeguarding the amenity of existing development. This proposed extension is harmful to the amenity of the occupants of The Mews. Section 5.5 of the SPD elaborates further on these matters. It provides advice on proposed extensions. The 4th paragraph on page 8 of the SPD considers that proposals should: …not result in a significant loss of sunlight, daylight or result in overshadowing of your neighbour’s property. Furthermore, extensions should not be overbearing… I contend that the proposed extension to 221 Gloucester Road does result in a significant loss of sunlight or daylight and will result in overshadowing which will create a detrimental sense of enclosure and oppressiveness to The Mews. The 9th paragraph on page 8 of the SPD also says: Extensions should not cause any unreasonable loss of light or overshadowing to any existing habitable rooms of neighbouring properties, or to gardens The proposed extension will result not only in light loss to the garden of The Mews but will also impact on amount of light that reaches the kitchen of The Mews. Lastly and whilst appreciating that this is not per se a planning issue, in relation to loss of sunlight and daylight, I consider that The Mews does have ‘A right to light’ as it has been enjoyed uninterrupted for 20 years or more, as referenced on page 9 of the SPD. Gaps between Buildings A conversation with the case officer Tamsin Sealy on 9th November queried the amount of space between the proposed extension and the garden wall and the side of The Mews. Ms Sealy was not able to give a precise figure for this gap and it is unclear to me also. The proposed boundary wall of the extension is, however, obviously in very close proximity to The Mews. Paragraph 3 on page 11 of the SPD states:


The gaps between detached or semi-detached houses are an important characteristic and their in filling with side extensions can detract from the appearance of the neighbourhood. As a cramped, ‘terracing effect’ can result… This will be the case with the proposed extension. Page 11 of the SPD also advises that an extension should: …leave at least 1 metre between it and the adjoining boundary. The gap proposed here is significantly smaller and therefore, as the proposed extension is sited within such close proximity to the boundary of the Mews, access for future repair or maintenance of The Mews is severely compromised at best and may indeed be impossible given the current proposals. In conclusion, in terms of overshadowing, loss of light, dominance, noise and general disturbance and over intensification of the street scene and I consider this application to be seriously detrimental to the amenity of the occupants of The Mews and that therefore, the application should be refused. Yours sincerely

Barbara Carnaby Mrs Barbara Carnaby


The current building with 5 residences already has inadequate refuse storage which ison the pavement by the side of Princes Place. There are currently 5 wheelie bins and lots of ofrecycling boxes that are left on the floor and some are on a raised platform. It is not organisedspace and is messy, often over flowing and regularly spills onto the public pavement all throughthe week (not just on collection day). The untidy rubbish area then encourages others to fly tipthere. The wind along the street regularly blows the rubbish along Princes Place. With the rubbishoverflowing, foxes and vermin make the mess of the refuse area worse. Increasing the number ofdwellings would exacerbate this problem.

Parking and bike parking facilities are very limited in the area.


I am the owner of the maisonette at 223 Gloucester Road - the house that is above PDCars and semi-detached to the house belonging to the Applicant and the subject of this planningApplication.My property is let to 5 students as a licenced HMO.I was given no advance notice from the Applicant that this proposal had been lodged.

Having reviewed the applicant's proposals as posted on the BCC website, I write to OBJECT tothe submitted scheme for the following reasons:

The proposed extension completely fills the rear garden footprint to the significant detriment of myproperty as it cuts off access for necessary repairs and refurbishment to the rear elevations.This access is essential as it is not possible to manoeuvre scaffolding poles and building materialsthrough my house to effect such repairs.This requirement is subject to a clause in the Deeds of the Applicant's property (and mine)worded:

In consideration of the payment of £1 (the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged) the Grantorhereby grants to the Grantee as appurtenant to the Dominant Property the right to access suchpart of the Servient Property shown edged brown on the attached plan as shall be necessary fromtime upon reasonable notice (except in the case of emergency) for the purposes of maintaining therear of the Dominant Property the Grantee doing as little damage as possible to the ServientProperty and making good without unnecessary delay at his her or their own cost and promptlymaking compensation for any damage done or occasioned by the exercise of this power.

This right was granted by the Applicant's predecessor in ownership.

The garage showroom of PD Cars currently has an emergency exit escape door to the rear of theproperty that allows the occupants to escape the premise onto Princes Place. The current designof the proposed rear structure does not allow for this.

Similarly, any loss of access/egress would also remove an important means of escape to mytenants in the event of a serious fire and also the ability to reach their refuse bins located inPrinces Place.

A site visit is recommended in order for Councillors to clearly see the issues.


As a neighbour of 25 years I would like to strongly object to the proposed extension of221 Gloucester Road.Over the years that the property has been a HMO for students there has been a long runningproblem regarding the waste management from this property.The numerous bins and recycling boxes are inadequate and are always overflowing. Recycling isunwashed and smelly and bin bags are often just thrown in a pile. This encourages vermin and Ihavewitnessed foxes and rats in the rubbish on several occasions at night when leaving work.An increase in occupants will of course only make this problem worse.There is no provision for parking cars so the tenants often block our loading areas and parkinconsiderate in the side road of Princes Place, 2 extra tenants in this property will of course addto this problemIn my view the house is running at maximum capacity and 2 extra bedrooms built onto the backgarden represents an over development of this site and allows no outside space for the tenants.I was concerned also that the applicant has not approached the neighbours re his planneddevelopment neither has he informed his current tenants who have signed a long term lease, theyare also worried about how this will affect them.Our main objection of course is for the safety of the tenants and over the years we have witnessedpeople climbing onto the roof of PD cars below to sit up there, taking away the small garden willforce this behaviour even more and put the youngsters at risk.There have been incidents over the years of small fires in the property adjoining 221 and thegarden has provided an important escape route for the tenants of 223 Gloucester Road, with a carshowroom attached to the building there is always an increased fire risk and blocking this escaperoute is dangerous in my opinion.

We urge the Planning Officers to listen to the many documented objections from local neighboursand refuse Planning permission for this development.


Thank you for your letter of the 31st. October telling me of the proposed rear extensionto a neighbours property at 221 Gloucester Road.

I would like to register my complaint on two main points.

The area is already over developed with students. Should more be encouraged, is this goodpractice?This proposal will block the right of way and possibly fire escape from the adjoining student houseat 223, across the garden at 221. The students at 221 don't appear tohave a fire escape?

The application plans submitted for the proposal show 3 refuse bins, this is incorrect as there are5, with numerous recycling boxes, I'm assuming with two more students there will be more.The residents of Princes Place and neighbours on Gloucester Road often have to tidy up this binarea, even taking rubbish to Bristol refuge centre when larger items or possibly fly tipped itemshave stayed there week after week.

Caroline Morgan

Mr Piara Singh 221   OBJECT

Date 19.11.2017Planning application reference 17/O5315/F

Objections for PlanningAs the Leasehold Owner of the Ground Floor Garage Showroom I would vociferously object to thisPlanning Application. My grounds of objection are

- There is very limited parking in the locality, Princes Place already being over congested.Increasing the number of households into an already heavily populated area will only increase thecongestion. Inevitably both Occupiers and their guests will seek to go to the Premises by vehicleand I do not see how the existing Princes Place could cope. There is presently very little room inthis road to turn around. This road which is very narrow already provides access to both thehouses which abut it and the Development at Sycamore Court. My great fear is that the possibilityof increasing the numbers who use it by granting this Planning Application could result in a trafficaccident with mortal consequences to those who use it.

- In addition, the occupiers and their guests could seek to park their vehicles on our forecourtwhich could adversely affect the running of the business

- The building of an additional structure would further reduce the very limited open land that existsin the locality

- The building of an additional structure over the current rear garden could give the occupiers andtheir guest's incentive to use adjoining structure to the front of the property, the Garage Showroom

roof. Currently the roof is used as an emergency escape route for the property; however therehave previously been noise complaints when the occupants of the above property have used theroof for non-emergency activities. By building over the rear garden, the frequency of use and noisecomplaints could increase, as well as potential damage to the roof.

- The noise that impacts from the present 5 bed accommodation is having an adverse effect on mybusiness and the prospect of an addition of two more households within such close proximitywould be deleterious.

- The garage showroom currently has an emergency exit escape door to the rear that allows theoccupants to escape the premise onto Princes Place. The current design of the rear structureinhibits this by not showing a clear route onto Princes Place, and thus no escape from hazards.

- The design of the structure builds on the back of the Garage Showroom, and would build overthe current Garage bathroom and office ventilation.

Unknown   OBJECT

View looking down on existing bin area (5 wheelie bins , inumerable recycling boxes) in Princes Place with Gloucester Road in the background (lh side of the photo)

View looking at rear garden area of 221 and 223 Gloucester Road; rear access bridge to 223 clearly shown in the centre of the photo

Refuse storage - Bins and recycling boxes for the student flats in nos. 221 and 223 Gloucester Road are located on

the street on a narrow piece of concrete hardstanding between the back edge of kerb and the flank wall of no. 221 in Princes Place close to the access to rear garden application site.

- The photo above shows the current provision of 5 black wheelie bins and a haphazard collection of black and green recycling boxes and kitchen bins. As noted above these serve both properties.

- This current provision is already inadequate for the volume of refuse / recycling produced. This results in full bins and black bags dumped beside them creating a health hazard and a vermin problem and encouraging fly tipping from surrounding properties. Inadequate recycling facilities have a similar effect and wind-blown paper, cardboard and plastic bottles is a real problem.

- The proposals only show 3 bins, 3 recycling boxes and 3 kitchen bins stored on the street. This quantity does not reflect even the current situation let alone the additional storage required if the number of occupants increases. No details are given in the response to Q7 on the application form, simply suggesting that facilities will be ‘as existing’.

- Item 5.3 of SPD 2 (Guide to designing and house alterations and extensions clearly states that ‘It is also important to consider appropriate storage of the household wheelie bin and recycling box. These should ideally be screened from public view, behind a front boundary wall or landscaping, or within a rear garden etc.’

- BCC’s Waste and Recycling: Guidance for Developers, Owners and Occupiers publication supports this policy in detail and sets out the size, quantity, location and screening criteria to be met for refuse and recycling storage.

- As it stands the application is unacceptable on this basis alone. Refuse storage and fly tipping and the attendant issues of vermin (gulls, foxes, rats, etc.) are key problems in this area and these proposals and the lack of appropriate facilities will only make things worse.

In summary, the application is poorly presented, ignores a number of technically considerations, ignores its context and represents overdevelopment of the site with inadequate refuse / recycling facilities. It should be refused. Simon Lawrence BSc BArch ARB RIBA

The Workshop Princes Place Bristol BS7 8NP


I have submitted a separate email to settingout my reasons for OBJECTION to this application. Please confirm receipt of bothcommunications.


Simon Lawrence