Application Details

Reference 18/04795/F
Address 18C Merton Road Bristol BS7 8TL  
Street View
Proposal Construction of 1no. store and 2no. single storey B1 or B8 business units.
Validated 27-09-18
Type Full Planning
Status Decided
Neighbour Consultation Expiry 30-11-18
Determination Deadline 22-11-18
Decision REFUSED
Decision Issued 08-03-19
BCC Planning Portal Application
Public Comments Supporters: 0 Objectors: 11  Unstated: 1  Total: 12
No. of Page Views 707

TBS response: OBJECT

Recommendation submitted 08-12-18


We object to this application on the basis that it is too close to residential property and will impact on residential amenity, especially extreme loss of natural daylight to flats on the ground and first floor of 5 Ashley Down Road. The proposed industrial business units are only 35 cm from the rear wall and windows of the flats. We are also concerned about the potential noise and pollution from the business units and the impact on emergency escape and access for ongoing building maintenance.

This objection follows our earlier objection to the storage facility built alongside without planning permission or building regulation approval. We strongly recommend refusal.

See also this application.

Public Comments

The Bishopston Society  OBJECT

We object to this application on the basis that it is too close to residential property andwill impact on residential amenity, especially extreme loss of natural daylight to flats on the groundand first floor of 5 Ashley Down Road. The proposed industrial business units are only 35 cm fromthe rear wall and windows of the flats. We are also concerned about the potential noise andpollution from the business units and the impact on emergency escape and access for ongoingbuilding maintenance.

This objection follows our earlier objection to the storage facility built alongside without planningpermission or building regulation approval. We strongly recommend refusal.


I became aware of this application via a local residents social media page and feltcompelled to comment on the proposed development.

I object to the proposed development as submitted for the following reasons:

1. As others have pointed out, there appears to be no provision for the storage of trade waste oreffluent. This is contrary to BCC Waste and Recycling guidance note, which states that for new,extended or altered building, and any redevelopment, change of use or conversion of existingbuilding, must include adequate and appropriate means of storing refuse and recyclable materials,within the curtilage of the premises. Proposals submitting for planning permission should justify theproposed storage arrangements based on the nature of the use and the planned collectionarrangements. However as a rule a proposal that does not plan or provide for at least the storageof two 1100 litre waste receptacles, or equivalent storage volume, are unlikely to be acceptable.Proposals submitting for planning permission should justify the proposed storage arrangementsbased on the nature of the use and the planned collection arrangements. This is not addressed inthe application. Furthermore, the location of the proposed business units appears to be in excessof 15m from the kerbside collection point and the adopted highway, meaning a suitable storagearea should also be provided close to the site access point on Merton Road. No such area(existing or proposed) is identified on the proposed drawings.

2. BCS14 requires new development to deliver a 20% reduction in regulated CO2 emissionsthrough the use of low/zero carbon technologies. An energy strategy is required to quantify thebaseline CO2 emissions and demonstrate, through transparent and clear calculation, how theproposed development will achieve the % reduction. The applicant claims the proposed smallbusiness units will be defined as a 'non-exempt building with low energy demand' under Part L of

the Building Regulations (not a planning consideration). He therefore has not submitted a detailedenergy strategy for the development, including a design stage SBEM calculation. This is contraryto the requirements of BCS14, which requires an energy strategy to be submitted for alldevelopment, save for a few exceptions as detailed within the Climate Change and SustainabilityPractice Note, Section 2.3. Ergo, the failure to include a fully detailed energy strategy shouldrender the application invalid.

3. In connection with item 2, while the sustainability statement could be regarded as being'proportionate to the scale of development' it leaves a lot of issues covered under BCS-13 to BCS-16 unaddressed. For example, there is no detailed assessment made into the viability ofphotovoltaics, just anecdotal evidence based on the opinion of the agent. Due to the design of theunits and their proximity to the relevant boundary to the North, the proposed rooflights that arereferenced in the application (but not indicated on the drawings) are unlikely to be viable due toexternal fire spread concerns. Notwithstanding this matter, the dominant (regulated) energy usefor these units is likely to be arise from artificial lighting. The applicant appears to recognise thisbut fails to fully explore the opportunities for minimising the need for artificial lighting throughappropriate design. The application should be refused on the grounds that it does not fully addressthe requirements of policy BCS-14 and the energy hierarchy.

4. The Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy 2011 states 'high quality developmentshould consider the amenity of existing and proposed development' (paragraph 4.21.3). In myview, the placement of the proposed buildings does not consider the amenity of existing residentsof neighbouring dwellings, particularly those at 3-5 Ashley Down Road. Existing windows to theparty walls astride the boundary do appear to be obscure glazed and fixed shut. The applicantasserts that these windows serve circulation spaces based on an assessment of the approvedfloor plans for 3-5 Ashley Down Road (15/01700/F). It might be possible that the internal layout ofthese units as built differs from the approved plans, as internal layout changes would not besubject to a revised planning application. It is therefore a material consideration that the impact ofdaylight & sunlight should be properly assessed by a suitability qualified professional following theguidance in BR 209. Consequently, I argue the Council should refuse the application on thegrounds that it does not properly assess the potential loss of daylight and sunlight to the windowsthat would become fully or partially obscured. Incidentally, infringement of a potential right to lightis a separate matter and is not a planning consideration.

5. BCS-23 states that 'Development should be sited and designed in a way as to avoid adverselyimpacting upon environmental amenity...of the surrounding area by reason of fumes, dust, noise,vibration, smell, light of other forms of air, land, water pollution...'. The policy further states that itwill not usually be appropriate for residential development to be constructed in locations where thepresence of residential uses is likely to give rise to the imposition of undue operational constraintson existing industrial uses that might prejudice their ability to continue operation. I argue theopposite may also apply, and the erection of light industrial units immediately adjacent to existingresidential development is not appropriate and is likely to give rise to future disputes between

residents and the occupiers of the proposed units and/or introduce undue operational restrictionson the use of these units. Use class B1(c) permits use as offices, research and development ofproducts and processes, and light industry appropriate in a residential area. Based on the closeproximity of the proposed development to existing residential uses, I argue it is for the applicant toadequately demonstrate how the proposals seek to mitigate against the impact of environmentalamenity by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, dust, or smoke and that the occupied units willcomply with any recommendations or restrictions agreed with the Council should planningpermission be granted.

6. The applicant fails to address how the proposed units will be accessed by the fire and rescueservice, being more than 45m from the highway with restricted access via a private driveway andno turning provisions for appliances.

7. Due to the proximity of the proposed units to the relevant boundaries, the existing storagespace (which may or may not contain combustible materials) and proposed industrial units shouldbe constructed with a degree of fire resistance to limit external fire spread. Although this is not aplanning consideration, it is relevant to the design and construction of the proposed buildingswhich the applicant should consider when applying for building regulation approval. This ispertinent considering the recently updated guidance to Part B2 of the Building Regulationsfollowing the Hackett review.

Leigh Caller MCIAT


Councillor referral form 30/07/18


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

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

accepted from members from neighbouring wards when the ward member is

not available.

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

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

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

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

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

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

and does not include any re-consultation period.

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

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

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

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

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

committee meeting.

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

meeting in order to assist us in determining planning applications in

accordance with Government performance targets. Therefore, it could be

considered by either of the DC committees.

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

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



Further to our original objections it has been identified and brought to our attention that5 Ashley Down Road has an external pipe on the exterior walls which would be renderedinaccessible by the proposed development.

This has not been identified or mentioned in the original plans, and as stated would no longer beaccessible due to the construction proposed.


I object to this application on a number of grounds, but ultimately most come down tothe fact that this proposed building is too close to its neighbours, particularly 5 Ashley Down Road,which would be less than 30cm away.

The close proximity will result in an extreme loss of light to neighbours, and it will exacerbate noiseand other pollution issues. It also raises concerns regarding access to both buildings, particularlywith a view to emergency access (e.g. for fire escapes), and access to the external walls formaintenance.

Ultimately, the loss of residential amenity as a result of this building is unacceptable and so theapplication should be refused.

In addition to the above, there are also questions over how refuse and sewage will be dealt with. Ifthe application is accepted these should be clarified before construction begins.

Similarly, if the application is accepted a construction management plan and usage restrictions(both in terms of class and times) that are appropriate to the close proximity to residentialneighbours should be put in place.


The proposed new industrial buildings will have a significant impact upon my residentialproperty: Flat 3, 5 Ashley Down Road and I wish to object this application:

1. The construction of the 2 units will have a significant adverse impact upon the natural light intothe building. It will obstruct the window to the rear of the property which is the single natural lightsource to the access corridor for the whole flat.

2. The development of the industrial buildings in such close proximity to our building will be a firehazard and potential noise nuisance. The storage building which has already been erected withoutplanning permission or compliance with building regulations is built from timber frame and woodsheeting and as such is a fire risk given its purpose.

3. It is unclear how refuse and waste from the proposed buildings will be stored and disposed of. Itis also unclear how extra vehicles involved in the construction and subsequent use by tenants andtheir visitors will be accommodated as there appears to be no planned designated parking in whatis a densely developed area.

4. On the plans each unit has a toilet, however there are no plans for the soil waste or services.Furthermore, a concrete slab has already been laid without planning permission or buildingcontrol.

5. The erection of the storage building on the site prior to acquiring planning permission brings intoquestion the motives and intent of the applicant. It should be noted that I object to the constructionalready completed on the site.

In conclusion, the application for these extra industrial buildings on what is generally a poorlymaintained site will have a detrimental effect on it's residential neighbours.


I am extremely concerned about the proposed construction 18/04795/F and stronglyobject to this planning application. I have already submitted a joint objection as part of 5 ADRLimited, but feel it necessary to also submit an individual objection to highlight both the personaland community risks and detriments that the construction of these buildings would bring.

As a resident on the ground floor of 5 Ashley Down Road (5 ADR) I will lose almost all naturallight, and all direct daylight, by this construction, which leaves only inches between our windowsand the walls of the proposed units. This is also true of the second ground floor flat of 5 ADR. Thiswould result in a substantially reduced amount of light entering either property, which wouldpersonally impact my day to day quality of life. This reduction would be far greater than the 20%maximum that the Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidelines recommend. Thedevelopment will also cover most of the first floor property windows too, and have a similaradverse effect on their residents.For these reasons I appeal that our only natural light from that side of the building be lawfullyconserved. Failing to conserve this light would result in a strong sense of enclosure and beinghemmed in, which is a serious concern for the ongoing mental wellbeing of myself and otherresidents.

With 5 ADR being a residential property, I am extremely concerned about the proximity ofindustrial units next to our residential property. There is already a level of noise pollution from theexisting units, which are substantially further away than the proposed development. This noisepollution is present in both daytime and evening hours. With only an inches wide gap between 5ADR and the proposed units I believe noise levels from the development could only be of anunacceptable level, and this is certainly not appropriate for an area with an increased number ofresidential properties in recent years.

Noise pollution is a recognised disturbance and is a mental health risk, and the developmentwould have an impact of quality of life for all residents, both of 5 ADR and 379 Gloucester Road.The unit design submitted does not address these noise and disturbance concerns and the impactthat further industrial developments would have on the immediate environment. Notably, takinginto consideration that part of 5 ADR's adjoining walls are comprised of windows, I cannot see howadequate noise containment would be addressed; the existing windows of 5 ADR do not providesignificant noise insulation. I would also like to underline the increased noise and disturbances thatwould also occur from exterior vehicle activity to and from these units, aside from just theoperations inside of them.Several studies have underlined the increased risk of adverse health outcomes as a result of livingnear to industrial developments, and it is widely recognised how these contribute to poorer healthand the development of disproportionate health outcomes. The current plans situate an industrialdevelopment immediately adjacent to a residential building, just shy of literally being wall to wall,therefore I feel I can only stress the extremely concerning nature of this.

General maintenance access to 5 ADR would be entirely impeded on the proposed developmentside, leaving no way to service exterior walls or windows. Aside from simply preventing regularmaintenance of 5 ADR, which could result in significant structural issues going undetected due totheir visual obstruction, should any structural work be required on 5 ADR in the future this wouldbe impossible on these sides of the building. The same notion applies to the proposed industrialunits, as no space for human access has been left. Again, this is a substantial safety concern fromboth sides, and in the very least could result in the failure to detect preventable structural issues ofboth buildings, resulting in heavily increased repair costs for residents.

Finally, I'd like to underline the concerns of fire safety, due to the immediate proximity of aproposed industrial area to an established residential building. Should a fire occur there is nomargin for containment, with the walls and windows of 5 ADR in immediate proximity of theproposed units. This would surely allow for a potential fire to rapidly spread to both 5 ADR and 379Gloucester Road. Similarly, the proposed units would also give a potential fire a direct spreadingroute between 5 ADR and 379 Gloucester Road, whereas currently there is an outdoor space thatacts as a fire barrier and prevents this direct spreading.Furthermore, emergency service access would be impeded by the units themselves in thissituation. This especially applies to fires originating in either the units or 5 ADR itself, as this areawould no longer be accessible to emergency vehicles or crews. For the ground floor flats it wouldalso block off a potential route of exit through the ground floor windows, which would be blockedby the unit walls immediately opposite.The fire risk from the units and potential fire hazards stored within them is of great concern, and Ido not feel these have been addressed in the proposed application.

I hope the substantial issues underlined above, and the extensive impact this development wouldhave on all residents, are clearly conveyed and that due time is taken to examine these in depth.


Mr STEPHEN KEMPIN: Flat 1, 5 Ashley Down Road


The construction of these properties are of great concern to me. It has already been anoise nuisance for many months already, as a unit and foundations have already beenconstructed without building permission. This includes work over the weekends, as even mySundays have been disrupted by early morning drilling.

On top of this, one of the construction workers has a dog, which barks nonstop almost every day.He's quite a large dog and barks at people, to which his owner appears to do nothing.

When trying to speak to them about their noise levels on a Sunday, I was left with rude remarksand no acknowledgement.

I also believe this will restrict access to our fire exit, and if we ever need emergency work donethere will be less space.


To whom it may concern,

The five flat owners of 5 Ashley Down Road, represented as 5ADR Limited, wish to jointly objectto the proposed construction 18/04795/F, as it will negatively impact the local area in severalways.

Firstly, the natural light afforded to the lower two floors of 5 Ashley Down Road will be completelydisrupted on the side of the proposed construction area, as there is only an inches-wide gapbetween the existing building and the proposed construction. Our building is residential and hasbeen in place for over two years, so this natural light should lawfully be conserved.

As an aside, ground floor residents of our building have already been impacted by the constructionprocess, with both residents having their windows partially covered with concrete and one tauntedby construction workers. This does not suggest that the potential concerns of residents has beenseriously considered.

Secondly, the noise produced by an industrial unit is not suitable for this residential area. There isalso a higher risk to health and safety from such a close industrial property. Emergency servicevehicle access would be impeded by the development.

Thirdly, access will be impeded by this development, as it will no longer be possible for this side ofthe building to be reached to perform repairs, alterations, etc. This would also impede emergencyservices from accessing the flats if the front windows/doors were blocked, e.g. by fire. A similareffect would be felt by the houses opposite the proposed development.

Finally, while each of the five flats represented in this letter are listed on the Neighbour NotificationList issued 22.10.18, none of us have received any correspondence whatsoever announcing theproposed construction - we were only made aware of the construction via a chance meeting just afew days before the deadline for public comment. This suggests that other residents on theNeighbour Notification List are likely to have not received any warning either. With this in mind, weurge the council to send out proper correspondence to each of the affected residences and extendthe deadline for public comment so that the full views of the community affected by thisdevelopment can be heard and considered.


Mr STEPHEN KEMPIN: Flat 1, 5 Ashley Down RoadMrs CHRISTINE O'NEILL: Flat 2, 5 Ashley Down RoadMr JOHN BUCHMULLER: Flat 3, 5 Ashley Down RoadMr JAMES JARAD & Miss KATHERINE JARAD: Flat 4, 5 Ashley Down RoadMrs YU WANG & Mr WILLIAM JUDD: Flat 5, 5 Ashley Down Road


I am concerned with restricted access to our emergency fire exit. In addition, noisepollution is a serious concern.


Noise pollution


I am concerned with the proximity of the proposed building and lack of light to myproperty.