Application Details

Reference 18/01357/F
Address Land To Rear Of 73 Brynland Avenue Bristol  
Street View
Proposal Demolition of garage and construction of new dwelling together with bike and refuse storage and associated works.
Validated 16-03-18
Type Full Planning
Status Decided
Neighbour Consultation Expiry 17-04-18
Standard Consultation Expiry 16-04-18
Determination Deadline 11-05-18
Decision GRANTED subject to condition(s)
Decision Issued 15-05-18
BCC Planning Portal Application
Public Comments Supporters: 0 Objectors: 12  Unstated: 2  Total: 14
No. of Page Views 750
TBS articles

TBS response: NEUTRAL

Recommendation submitted 28-04-18

This application is for a small infill house on the site of derelict garages.  Whilst not perfectly designed or necessarily to everyone's taste, this proposal sits in quite well, like a little workshop, and has no windows at first floor level to create overlooking problems. As Bishopston is already highly developed, it is often small windfall sites like this which provide opportunities for sensitive infill.

Public Comments

The Bishopston Society 

We are not concerned in principle with having a new small house on this untidy garagesite, but more in the detail. The pitched roof has been set back from the front and rear boundaries,which will reduce the impact. It would be possible to flatten off the ridge and reduce the overallheight of the roof by approx. 800mm, which would help. The design has carefully avoided anywindows at first floor level which would overlook neighbouring properties. The general workshopcharacter of the proposal is appropriate, however it would be better to omit the bargeboards to thegables which are unnecessary and give the design a 60's bungalow flavour. The Cattybrook brickis not the best choice as it is very plain red and shiny and will not blend with the mottled bricks ofthe boundary walls. Better to use a multi stock brick which would have a gentler character, such asthe brick used on the small new house in the rear garden of 1 Tyne Road.


Although I would not be able to see the proposed new house from my home I object tothe proposal for the following reasons:

The area is already densely populated and suffers from parking and traffic problems. It is likelythat the occupant(s) of the new property would have a car and thus exacerbate the problem. Thenearby staggered junction of Dongola Avenue, Dongola Road and Seymour Avenue already hasissues with badly parked cars (as there are no other spaces) causing accessibility issue fordustcarts, delivery vehicles and potentially fire engines. There are increasing incidents of trafficcongestion on that corner which have led to instances or road rage.

The exterior and garden of 73 Brynland Avenue is poorly maintained by the landlord and therehave been instances of piles of rubbish being left in the garden and on the pavement. There is noreason to think that any new property would be better maintained.

The design of the proposed house is not in keeping with the other properties in theneighbourhood.

I am sympathetic to the views of the immediate neighbours who would suffer a loss of light due tothe increased height of the proposed house.


I share my neighbours concerns regarding the proposed development and object to thedevelopment for the following reasons:

The site is currently a large garage in poor repair however the style of the new development is notin keeping with the surrounding area.

The area is already densely populated and does not need further houses of multiple occupancy orotherwise.

I note that the development has bike sheds however I doubt very much if this will mean that theoccupiers will not have cars. There are already significant parking problems in the area withinsufficient parking space for the current population. In addition Dongola Avenue, Dongola Roadand Seymour Avenue have become increasingly busy in the last few years with traffic cuttingthrough to Ashley Down Rd. The road is not wide enough to cope with this traffic and an additionaldwelling will only exacerbate this issue.

The proposed development will block light from my garden. The view will change from that of openness and sky to that of a brick wall and roof. If the development were to go ahead with windows tothe rear these would overlook my garden decreasing my privacy.

The application states that there are no trees or shrubs on the site or adjacent sites that would beaffected by the development. There is in fact a tree in the garden of Number 73 Brynland Avenuewhich would almost certainly be affected by any demolition and building work.

Mention has been made by other neighbours regarding the poor repair and management of 73Brynland Avenue. I agree with those comments. Past performance would suggest therefore thatthis development would be managed in the same way or if built for sale would be done cheaply,not in keeping with the area and thus storing up issues for the future.


I object to the proposal for the following reasons:1] my house will be overlooked from the bedrooms/bathroom of the dwelling, and this willcompromise the privacy of my master bedroom and 4th bedroom.2] the available light to the front facing ground floor will be reduced which will have a negativeimpact on my well-being.3] the immediate area is already densely populated. There are 3 HMOs at 73 Brynland Ave, 5Dongola Ave, & 1 Seymour Ave. This proposal will add another HMO.4] there is likely to be an increase in on-road parking in an area where there are already safetyissues. Dongola Ave is not as wide as inferred in the proposal. There has been car damage,unsafe parking & road rage incidents due to the traffic density/flow. This road is the main conduitfrom Glos Rd for residents in surrounding roads, and is used as a short cut by other traffic. This ismade worse on match days for cricket & soccer events. Despite requests not to, students persistin bringing cars with them when they attend uni. This will have an impact on air quality.5] The property is currently a poorly maintained garage/storage facility for the landlord of 73Brynland Ave. It is not a residential property & therefore this will be a change in use, contrary tothe application statement.6] My experience of HMOs is that students are not good at managing household wastearrangements. Their bins block pavements on non-collection days, and rubbish frequently spillsout into the street. This proposal will add to the problems of navigating blocked thoroughfares.7] There has been a long history of noise & drug problems at 73 & it is likely that this will beexacerbated by creating a HMO in this garage. This will have an impact on my well-being.8] The reduction in open ground to act as a rain water soak away will add to the load on sewers &add to the risk of flooding.9] There is an established mature tree in the garden next to the garage/store which will need to be

removed for the development. This is not mentioned in the application. Its removal will have animpact on wildlife, reduce the green corridor between Brynland Ave & Dongola Rd, & have animpact on air quality


I object to an additional residence being built in Dongola Avenue for the followingreasons:

1. The area is already very densely populated.

2. The Council is aware that there is a daily problem with volume of traffic, parking and road ragein the Dongola Avenue/Dongola Road/Seymour Avenue area. The addition of another householdwould add to these problems.

3. The building works would cause chaos as the proposed site is close to a staggered, busyjunction and would add to the problems mentioned in the above point.

4. The Council needs to address the above mentioned traffic problems before even consideringthe addition of any further residential buildings in the area.

5. The owner of 73 Brynland Avenue is clearly not a responsible landlord. That property andadjoining garage are in a state of disrepair which mars the otherwise tidy neighbourhood.

6. The gardens of the terraced houses in the area are already small and overlooked to someextent. The building of a two storey house where there is currently some precious open sky wouldaffect the light and privacy of the gardens in the immediate surrounding area (including my own).


I am not in favour of a new dwelling in this location based on the following grounds:

Traffic and parking issues - there are already significant parking issues in this area. Peopleregularly park on the corner of Dongola Road / Dongola Avenue making it difficult for people toturn the corner. Rush hour road rage and jams are a daily occurrence here. A new dwelling withpotential for additional cars needing to be parked would exacerbate this problem.

Loss of light - the increased height of the building will lead to a loss of light in surrounding gardensand homes. The decrease in sunlight will extend across several gardens, including my own andneeds to be assessed.

Appearance of the development - Although the existing garages are poorly kept and need to bemaintained, the proposed dwelling is not in keeping with the properties in this area.

The current property at 73 Brynland Avenue is very poorly maintained and is currently an eye sorein the area. If the same landlord is going to rent out an additional property then I suspect that thisproperty too will be equally badly maintained.


I object to the proposed plans to develop a new property in the place of existinggarages. The reasons are as follows:

1. The proposal will mean a reduction in view and light to the rear of my property. In particular itwill reduce the view and light to the back garden. This would reduce my visual amenity.2. The creation of another dwelling (which will possibly then be rented as 73 Brynland Avenuecurrently is) will increase the congestion in the area in terms of parking. This area is alreadyheavily congested. most weekends the roads are gridlocked due to poor traffic management inplace and too many cars parked.3. 73 Brynland Avenue is currently poorly managed and is rented to students. The property isalways in a state of poor repair, the gardens are in a very poor condition and the refuse from thestudents is spread everywhere. There is also a high level of noise nuisance from those studentsand they are not managed at all by the owner. I fear that this new property will be treated in thesame way causing more issues for the local community.4. Similar to point 3 above, the owner of 73 Brynland Avenue has taken no care of the existingproperty and I do not feel the new property will be any different. I once witnessed people clearingthe property when the students had left, they filled a supermarket trolley full of refuse from theproperty and dumped this further up Dongola Avenue.5. I note other resident's concerns and in the main agree with them. However, if the proposal ischanged to have windows at the rear then we will be directly overlooked and our privacy heavilyimpacted.6. I also feel that the area is already heavily populated and does not need further development toincrease this. Further, design is not in keeping with the rest of the property design in the area. Allhouses are of the same design and format and a development as planned would very different

from that.

Ms Tricia Morgan 39 DONGOLA RD BRISTOL  

I live on Dongola Rd, close to the proposed development. I would like to submit thefollowing comments:The current run of garages on Dongola Avenue are an eyesore, and I would welcome a change ofuse that improved the overall appearance of this part of the road.I agree with the other comments re the state of no 73. However, if the property was sold, thenpotentially it could be well maintained and be an improvement to the road. I would not support anyincrease in tenanted properties in this location.I feel that the reasons given for not providing parking for the property are unrealistic- ie it is'located in a highly sustainable location, close to good public transport links on Gloucester Road'.Whilst this is true it appears not to reduce the need for car ownership by surrounding properties . Iwould view the development more favourably if parking were to be provided. Dongola Avenue isheavily used by traffic cutting through to local roads and for parking for the Gloucester Road, andis congested at most times of day.Back dormer windows would overlook the gardens of the houses on Dongola Rd, reducingprivacy. I note that this been suggested.The impact on the light in the houses and gardens of the end houses on Dongola Road should beinvestigated. These gardens face predominantly north and are generally shady. Any furtherreduction in light would not be welcomed.


I am concerned about an additional HMO residence next to 73 Brynland Avenue for thefollowing reasons:

1. 73 Brynland Avenue is not properly looked after as it is - there is often rubbish around theproperty, a gate has been boarded up with chipboard for years, the windows and general state ofthe house is in poor condition. I do not want another property which will not be looked after addedto the neighbourhood, and if 73 isn't looked after it is likely the new one won't be either.

2. 73 also regularly has disruptive and inconsiderate occupants occupying it. Adding moreresidents of this kind to the neighbourhood will not be beneficial to the permanent residents.

3. There is very limited car parking already in this area and HMOs often have several carsassociated with them which will exacerbate the existing parking issues.


I am 71 years old in poor health i have lived at this address for 56 years and since then73 Brynland Ave has changed homeowners but since this landlord has had this property he hasoverun it with students who have no consideration for their neighbours I have in the past andpresent made many complaints to the council for noise pollution and have had to visit the lettingagents on numerous occasions..

1..The property is in bad condition with the gardens overflowing with weeds,rubbish,junk oldfurniture and blocked drains left unrepaired with foul smell..

2..i am totally against this proposal it will totally overshadow my garden my property and especiallymy kitchen..

3..the garage is need of repair but not the proposed application I believe if planning goes aheadthe property will be kept in the same bad condition as the existing property..

4..there is no door on the side of the property from the street and anyone can enter our gardenswhich I have found an intruder in the past ..

5..parking is also a major problem with many cars parking on curbed and lowered pavementsresulting in parking fines..


(1) Application contentThere are areas within the planning application that appear to be incorrect:14. Existing Use:- The applicant has stated that the use of the current site is a dwelling and that it is not vacant.However it is currently a garage/storage unit which is solely used for storage by the propertyowner (so far as we are aware) and not the current residents of 73 Brynland Avenue. Theapplicant's response to "17. Residential Unit" appears to support this view, namely that theexisting market housing is zero.18. All Types of Development: Non-residential Floorspace:- We understand that a garage/storage unit is classed as non-residential floorspace and thereforethe applicant is proposing a change of use, but the response to this question is "no".

(2) ObjectionsWe welcome development of the current site because the garage in its current form is in disrepairand extremely unsightly leading to litter being drop/left (e.g. beer cans and pint glasses from localpubs) as well as passers-by deeming it acceptable to urinate up against the garage door.However, we object to the planning proposal in its current form for the following reasons:(a) We live directly opposite the site of the proposed new dwelling. Whilst garages opposite ourhouse are not aesthetically pleasing, on Dongola Avenue the residents enjoy the alternativebenefit of not being overlooked at the front of our properties. The proposed master bedroom andbathroom dormer windows will look directly into our master bedroom and fourth bedroom,significantly reducing our privacy and subsequently decreasing the value of our property.Furthermore if the planning application were to be granted it would impact the privacy of the newresidents in the same way.

(b) We share our neighbours' concerns regarding the adverse impact that the construction of afurther dwelling will have on our local area. The following properties at each end of DongolaAvenue are already in multiple occupation;- Dongola House, 1 Seymour Avenue- 73 Brynland Avenue(c) Parking is therefore extremely difficult, leading cars to park unsafely (namely too close to eachother, at and across all junctions to/from Dongola Avenue, Dongola Road, Seymour Avenue andBrynland Avenue) increasing the likelihood of vehicle damage. We have had one of our carswritten off, whilst parked legally on Dongola Avenue, due to damage caused by a passing vehicleas well as recent damage to its replacement, again in similar circumstances. We therefore stronglydisagree with the Design & Access Statement which suggests Dongola Avenue is relatively widefor the local area; it is not wide enough for the volume of traffic and number of vehicles in use bylocal residents.(d) Access for emergency vehicles is also a concern, as is pedestrian use and access topavements due to vehicles parking on and across them.(e) We have recently had the front of our property repainted and the building works are likely toadversely impact this.

(3) ProposalsAs set out above, we object to the planning permission for a new dwelling being granted, howeverif this work was to go ahead we would firstly request the following alterations to the proposals:(a) The 3 rooflights in the master bedroom be moved to the rear of the dwelling so that 1-4Dongola Avenue are not overlooked but maintain the privacy currently afforded to them. Equallywe consider this would result in greater privacy for the resident of the new dwelling.(b) The bathroom dormer be moved to the rear of the property for the same purpose.(c) The council introduce viable parking restrictions; such as double yellow road markings toensure no ongoing illegal parking in the direct vicinity. Also for consideration, one way direction oftraffic as is in use effectively on Brynland Avenue.


I live at 35 Dongola Avenue. My objection to this proposal is threefold.

(a) I will be seriously impacted by the proposed building in that I will experience severe lightdeficiency. Simply put - the proposal is too large for the site. It will impact light into 4 downstairsrooms. The recommended light levels as I understand for housing is around 150 lux. Currentlevels measured on Saturday 14 April were between 78 lux and 81 lux in the two main downstairsrooms. This will mean I will need to use electric lighting all the time, affecting my quality of life,including increasing my household costs. I am more than happy for any further monitoring to takeplace to evidence my objection. It will also reduce my ability to successfully cultivate plants in myback garden.

(b) The proposal is significantly higher than the existing structure and will be nearer my propertyalmost to the line of the border fence and much higher than the existing fence which is around 2m.This will increase noise and will effectively box me into darkness. My neighbours have notcommented that they will also be overlooked.

(c) My last objection is concurrent with the views of my neighbours. No 73 is a student let and notin good order evidenced by a dangerous perimeter wall and frequent drain overflows in the frontgarden. It is clear the owner has no vested interest in our community and seeks to maximise assetat the cost of noise, disturbance and cut-price maintenance. I fear this track record of care will gothe same way and we will be blighted by further disturbances.


I live at 71a,Brynland Avenue. My property faces on to Dongala Avenue and will bealmost directly opposite this proposed dwelling. My objection are twofold.1) Firstly as already stated by my neighbour 73 Brynland Avenue is already inhabited bynumerous student, and there is already a significant amount of noise nuisance from them . Addinganother dwelling on the same site which no doubt would mean more students, will make it worsestill.As already stated the area is at saturation point , in terms of student population, and traffic.2) the demolition and building work will cause considerable nuisance , particularly to traffic flow onDongola road. This is a busy and narrow through road to Gloucester rd, which is already easilyblocked particularly at the junction nearby with Dongola rd. Construction traffic and any associatedworks could cause serious difficulties and exacerbate parking in the road.


I object to this application to convert o a garage to a house because of the density ofhousing already in this area. 73 Brynland Ave is already in multiple occupation by students, and Ihave experienced issues with noise and rubbish disposable. The house opposite (5, DongolaAvenue) is also in multiple occupancy by students. Adding another residence to Dongola Avenuewill create more noise and more cars in an area that is already densely populated.