Application Details

Reference 19/04991/F
Address 349 Gloucester Road Horfield Bristol BS7 8TG  
Street View
Gloucester Road Story
Proposal Change of Use of Disused Former Retail Unit (Use Class A1) to Public House (Use Class A4) including external alterations, extension and creation of an external roof terrace.
Validated 14-10-19
Type Full Planning
Status Withdrawn
Neighbour Consultation Expiry 12-11-19
Standard Consultation Expiry 11-11-19
Determination Deadline 09-12-19
Decision Application Withdrawn
Decision Issued 19-12-19
BCC Planning Portal Application
Public Comments Supporters: 54 Objectors: 110  Unstated: 3  Total: 167
No. of Page Views 442

TBS response:

Public Comments

Mr Joseph Mooney 27 MORLEY SQUARE BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

This will massively undermine the indwpendent character of Gloucester Road and mustnot happen.

Mrs Linda Smiles 57 CHURCH ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I'm totally against this proposal as I feel it will have a detrimental effect on theindependent businesses currently on Gloucester Road. This is a huge asset to our communitywhich will be blighted with the appearance of a chain pub where there are existing local pubs,restaurants, cafes and bars which will suffer from the proposed development. Whilst I do not enjoythe sight of a derelict building surely there are other more ethical companies available to occupythis space, creating jobs and a welcoming, family friendly destination such as a cinema or otherleisure facility. This is the third time objections have been made to the planning department andoverwhelmingly the community are not in favour of this proposal. Please listen to the localresidents and do not permit the ruinous development of our local, independent and wonderfulGloucester Road.

Mr Chris Rees 18 ARLEY HILL BRISTOL   OBJECT

Wetherspoons would spoil the independent spirit of gloucester road. Also, this employerexploits employees with poor wages and Weatherspoons is generally full of middle aged racistsand I dont want to have them near me. I live here for the independent spirit and caringatmosphere.

Miss Cassie Holland  24 SEYMOUR AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

I strongly object to the Wetherspoons on Gloucester Road for 2 reasons; it is a majorchain that could ruin G Road independents. The other reason is that Tim Martin is not interested inlocal inclusion, only his political stance which is definitely not supportive of our local communities.

Dr Lucy Potter 120 DOWNEND RD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Gloucester Rd has a proud number of independent shops and establishments. We donot need or want another large chain pub.

Mr Jon Baker 62 OAK ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

This new application doesn't address some of the underlying problems associated withopening a pub in this location.

This part of Gloucester Road is a mix of residential and commercial, and the surrounding area ishigh density residential. It already has several pubs as well as numerous bars and restaurantsserving alcohol, and there's no need for yet another.

Gloucester Road thrives because almost all retail businesses here are local traders whichcontribute to the area; Wetherspoons are a large national company which sees the area as a cashcow. Their policy of selling alcohol at low prices is designed to maximise the amount they sell andbrings with it problems associated with heavier drinking which impact on local residents; it's alsolikely to take revenue from other local businesses.

There would be an inevitable increase in traffic. Not only would this add to the excessive pollutionand congestion in the area, which is contrary to the Council's policy objectives, it would makeresidents' parking even more difficult than it currently is.

Please reject the application.

Miss Rebecca McCutcheon 40 RADNOR ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

The proposed development will be detrimental to the local area for the followingreasons:

- noise and disruption to local residents, particularly owing to a proposed roof terrace- late opening hours changing the local atmosphere- increase traffic and pressure on local parking- target audience for this venture are not representative of the local residence- no road crossings on Gloucester road near the pub will tend to dangerous road crossings madeby pub visitors- the area is one of independent establishments, which is not only favoured by the residents, butthis venue will directly impact on many of those local businesses- it could be said that increased visitors to the area could support other local businesses, howeverthis target audience/ demographic are different to, and will not offer benefit to, the existingbusinesses in the area - not least since the busy hours of this venture will not overlap with theopening hours of these businesses.

The changes in this iteration of the proposal do not address the previous concerns and objections,are not substantive and this should be rejected again

Mr David Herman Morley 94 OAK ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Please consider the following reasons for rejecting this application, and be mindful ofwhy this was previously rejected: excessive noise from late night drinking, antisocial bevaiour thatis synonymous with this pub chain, the level of high quality pubs that are already in the area. Ihave been living here in this area that is filled with families for over 6 years and I can't think ofanything worse than a Wetherspoons across the road. It would be out of character with the areaand the people that live in it. Please don't allow this to happen!

Mrs Penelope Rigby 67 BEMONT ROAD ST ANDREWS BRISTOL   OBJECT

Gloucester Road is special because it has numerous privately-owned businesses, bars,pubs, restaurants etc and has no need of a large chain pub which would attract business fromoutside the area looking for a cheap drink (including stag and hen parties which are already well-catered for in the centre of town) and bringing their cars for which there is no parking pace locally.The noise to near neighbours for most of the day and much of the night would be appalling fromsuch a large establishment. The derelict building could be used for much-needed housing instead.Weatherspoons has persistantly tried to take ownership of this property and must be stopped forthe wellbeing of the neighbourhood.

Mr Andrew George 16 MANOR ROAD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I fully support this application. It will provide much needed jobs to the local area whilstalso turning something which is an eyesore into something that provides a facility to thecommunity.Not everyone can afford to drink in other public houses along Gloucester Rd, it will be areasonable priced venue for people to meet from young to old.Those people that want to keep Gloucester Rd as a road filled with independent shops need toopen their eyes, people aren't making enough money to keep them going just look at the shopsthat has already closed we all need to move on and adapt.Creating 50+ jobs and providing a cheap location for people to meet up including families is a nobrainer.It's not going to be the sort of place people would want to stay all evening, I would think mostpeople will go there early for some cheap drinks then work their way down the Gloucester Rd ifanything its going to attract more people to Gloucester Rd.

Ms Angela Marsh 6 OAK ROAD BRISTOL BRISTOL   OBJECT

This is not amenity that this neighbourhood has asked for or needs and judging frommany of the letters of support, the pub will attract people from afar and if it goes ahead will changethis residential area to a 'party' destination. I am shocked that the proposal is for a licence for 450people and if just one quarter of them bring their cars it will mean that 100 extra cars will park innearby residential streets adding to an already very difficult parking situation - none of the localroads have parking restricted for residents only. The additional additional traffic and pollution thepub will generate will negatively impact on the lives of residents. Isn't it possible to restrict pubs ofthis size and opening hours to city centre areas well served by public transport and where peoplecan enjoy themselves without it negatively impacting on other people's lives.

I also object to the opening hours and the potential for noise and disruption to sleep. In my streetand other surrounding streets, the houses don't have front gardens and the noise carries thehouse. The noise impact statement submitted to you does not appear to have not taken account ofthe noise generated by people late at night and into the early hours of the morning returning totheir cars parked in these residential streets.

In conclusion1. The business model for this 'super-pub' is to attract people from outside of the area.The impact of this is that it will change the residential area to a party destination2. The people travelling to the pub will bring cars which will impact on the parking, noise andpollution in lots of nearby residential streets.3. I object to the opening hours

Mrs Linda Davies TORBLICK HOUSE TANYARD LANE NORTH WOOTTON   OBJECT

object most strongly to the change of use of the above building to a Wetherspoonsestablishment. One of the joys of my frequent visits to the Gloucester Road is the wealth ofinteresting shops, and the small, locally owned, individual eating houses, serving healthy, qualityfood at very reasonable prices. The opening of a Wetherspoons will put all these at jeopardy.Once one food chain is allowed to open, the rot will begin, and the Gloucester Road will no longerbe somewhere to visit for its uniqueness, nor will it be such a pleasant area in which to live.The Gloucester Road does NOT need yet another eatery or pub, but it DOES need moreaffordable accommodation, and an ideal use for the unused building would be as a series of studioflats or one-bedroom starter flats, where young people could have a home of their own. Somecould be council or locally-owned rental flats for students or for people working temporarily inBristol, for whom purchase is not a viable proposition. More accommodation would help the smallretail businesses, cafés and restaurants to be even more likely to survive, and the area wouldretain its unique much-loved character.

Mr Berian Davies TORBLICK HOUSE TANYARD LANE NORTH WOOTTON, SHEPTON MALLET   OBJECT

I strongly object to this planning application. The Gloucester Road has no need for morepubs or restaurants as it is already well supplied with excellent, inexpensive, independent placesto eat, which would be adversely affected, and possibly have to close. Wetherspoons wouldchange the unique character of the area, and would be totally out of place. Would notaccommodation be a much better use for the building? It is certainly needed, and could prove amuch better source of income than a chain whose profits would leave the area.

Ms Fiona Reid 61 DONGOLA RD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to the application to turn this building into a public house. The last thingGloucester Rd needs is more pubs - the area is already becoming a magnet for pub crawls atweekends with associated noise and anti-social behaviour.There are already 4 or 5 pubs within yards of this development. The area is a residential one, andis becoming blighted by over development. I object on the following grounds -highway safety - Gloucester Rd is already dangerous for pedestrians to cross and this will attractmore people with cars to the areatraffic and parking issues - made worse by other factors such as the diesel ban and proposals toextend residents parking, this area already does not have enough parking for residents. This willmake the situation worse.noise - increase in noise and anti social behaviour in a residential area, especially at weekendsand eveningsamenity - there are already tens of pubs in the area nearby

Mr David Moore 72 ASHLEY DOWN RD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

This development will brighten up the area, and, we have lost two pubs over the last 10years. This pub will challenge other pubs in terms of pricing so I welcome it's arrival.

Mr Pete Macey 3 SALTHROP ROAD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I fully support this application to restore an ugly empty retail unit into a thriving familypub which will provide refreshments at an affordable price.

Unknown   OBJECT

4. The assessment of patron noise from the proposed roof terrace fails to identify the likely

impact and appropriate mitigation measures for noise disturbance.

5. There are numerous and significant omissions in the reporting and application

submissions that prevent the necessary evaluation and confirmation of the reliability and

robustness of the noise impact assessment

Detailed review of noise impact assessment

1. No measurements of weather conditions during the survey have been reported, so it

seems likely they have not been taken. RK2665/18492 states only that weather conditions

were "generally mild and dry, with low wind speeds" (page 11), but does not indicate how or

where these conditions were monitored or verified. Consideration of the weather is a very

important part of acquiring robust outdoor sound data, especially during unattended

overnight periods, when wind and/or rain can affect measured values – in addition to the

fairly obvious potential consequence of higher sound levels due to wind, rain, increased road

traffic noise from wet tyres etc, adverse weather conditions can also affect the operation and

accuracy of the measurement instruments.

Specifically in relation to determining the potential influence of wind on survey

measurements, BS 4142:2014 requires the surveying assessor carry out the following

steps1:

Record the weather conditions that could affect measurements. Monitor wind speed

at the measurement location, using an anemometer, and record the wind speed

together with the wind direction. Exercise caution when making measurements in

poor weather conditions such as wind speeds greater than 5 m/s.

These mandatory steps do not appear to have been taken in the assessment reported in

RK2665/18492.

BS 4142:2014 also advises that2:

wind passing over the diaphragm of the microphone of a sound measuring

system…can generate interference… NOTE Windshields are generally effective up

to windspeeds of 5 m/s.

There is no information on the wind protection used in the listed survey equipment and there

are also no photographs include that could provide this.

Examination of recorded meteorological data in the region during the survey period indicates

that wind speeds in the area may have been significantly higher than would be advisable to

capture reliable and representative sound level measurements outdoors. Figure 1 shows the

daily wind speeds recorded at the Cardiff Airport weather station, Barry, over a fortnight from

3 February to 16 February 2019, which covers the survey period 7-13 February 2019. It can

be seen that throughout the survey period increased wind was observed at the weather

1 Page 5, paragraph 6.4; BSI,2019. BS 4142:2014+A1:2019 Methods for rating and assessing industrial and

commercial sound. British Standards Institution. 2 Page 5, paragraph 6.3; BSI,2019. BS 4142:2014+A1:2019 Methods for rating and assessing industrial and

commercial sound. British Standards Institution.

station, with average, maximum and even minimum wind speeds considerably in excess of

the BS 4142:2014 cautionary threshold of 5 ms-1.

Figure 1: Wind speeds recorded at Cardiff Airport weather station during the sound level survey; data obtained from https://www.wunderground.com/history/weekly/gb/barry/EGFF/date/2019-2-7 and https://www.wunderground.com/history/weekly/gb/barry/EGFF/date/2019-2-13

If similarly high winds were indeed present around the site, measured sound levels would be

higher and not representative for the purpose of assessing the impact of noise from the

application proposals. The assessor could not have known whether or not this was the case,

as it does not appear that the survey and assessment included anything but the most

cursory consideration of wind, and no quantified evaluation has been reported.

In fact, comparison of the sound levels measured during the survey conducted at the same

locations around the site for the previous application ref 17/06228 (report ref

RK2294/17280/Rev 0) with those later reported in RK2665/18492 show that the more recent

survey recorded higher sound levels. For example, as shown in Figure 2, the levels recorded

at position A (representing the rear of houses on Brynland Ave) over Thursday 21 to Friday

22 September 2017 were approximately 25-44 dB LAF90,15min and 30-56 dB LAeq,15min.

Equivalently, as shown in Figure 3, the levels recorded at position A over Thursday 7 to

Friday 8 February 2019 were consistently higher, approximately 33-50 dB LAF90, and 37-55

dB LAeq,15min. Similarly upwards-shifted levels were measured at positions B and C in

comparison with the previous survey – this shift can also be seen by comparing the

‘representative’ levels reported in tables 5 and 10 of the latest assessment report

RK2665/18492 (pages 15 and 18 respectively) with the corresponding ‘representative’ levels

reported in tables 5 and 10 of the previous assessment report RK2294/17280/Rev 0 (pages

12 and 15 respectively). Of course, there is natural variation expected in sound

measurements, with levels fluctuating from day to day, but one of the major influences on

this natural variation is the weather, and this is especially so in the evening and night-time

when human activity tends to subside. In this case, in conflict with the assessment standard

(and good practice), no weather measurements appear to have been attempted, evaluated

or reported, and so the potential influence of adverse conditions cannot be ruled out. It is

acknowledged that the assessment selected measurements made on the Tuesday as the

quietest night during the survey, but there is no way of confirming that Tuesday was not also

affected by windy weather, as the surveyor was not present and there was apparently no

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Win

d s

peed,

ms

-1

Maximum

Average

Minimum

BS 4142:2014 cautionarythreshold

unattended weather monitoring. On the face of the available evidence, this omission appears

likely to have led to unrepresentative survey measurements and mischaracterisation of the

existing sound environment.

Moreover, as indicated in BS 4142:2014, the reported measurement values themselves may

not be accurate if wind interfered with the instrument transducer, increasing the uncertainty

associated with the survey data. In the absence of information on the adequacy of the wind

protection employed, this risk also cannot be ruled out.

Figure 2: Sound level survey measurements reported in Spectrum Planning Noise Impact Assessment report ref RK2294/17280/Rev 0 for application ref 17/06228

Figure 3: Sound level survey measurements reported in Spectrum Planning Noise Impact Assessment report ref RK2665/18492/Rev 2 for application ref 19/04991

I conclude that the approach taken to the survey does not comply with BS 4142:2014

requirements, and there appears to be a strong risk that existing background (LAF90) and

ambient (LAeq) sound levels have been overestimated due to the possible influence of

adverse weather conditions (as well as the flawed approach taken to deriving representative

levels, which is discussed under point 3 below). This raises the consequent risk that the

assessment has underestimated the likely impact of noise on nearby properties.

2. The noise model has ignored noise sources that are proposed to be installed on the roof

in a location that is exposed and overlooked by residential neighbours. To give one example,

the roof-mounted kitchen extract system has been modelled as a single source at the

location of the duct outlet (indicated in Appendix D). This is incorrect, as it ignores the sound

emission from the fan casing, which is also proposed to be mounted on the roof. The

proposed kitchen extract system is specified as a Systemair MUBT-062-630D4-IE2. The

sound power data for this system can be viewed at https://shop.systemair.com/en/mubt--

062--630d4--ie2/p105457 under the 'Acoustics' tab (the overall sound power level quoted for

the fan casing is 75 dBA re 1pW). The omission of relevant noise sources from the model

raises the serious concern that noise impacts have been underestimated. For example,

based on an approximate distance of 25 m between the kitchen extract fan and the nearest

receptor, the flat above 347 Gloucester Road, the sound pressure level incident at the

dwelling generated by the fan alone would be expected to be around 39 dB LAeq,T3.

Summing this level with the predicted plant noise emissions during kitchen trading hours (as

noted in table 6 of RK2665/18492, this is 34 dB LAeq,T, including duct attenuation) yields a

total plant noise rating level of 43 dB LAeq,T. Comparing this with the background sound level

of 42 dB LAF90,15min used in the RK2665/18492 assessment (which, as noted above, appears

likely to have been overestimated) indicates a slight excess of rated plant noise above

background levels. Comparison of the rating level with the background sound level of 38 dB

LAF90,15min derived in assessment report RK2294/17280/Rev 0 (for application 17/06228) at

the same receptor location during the same trading hours indicates an excess of +5 dB,

suggesting an adverse impact may well arise. This analysis demonstrates that the

assessment has not considered all relevant sources of potential plant noise impact.

Furthermore, the proposed mitigation scheme (duct attenuation) will not reduce noise levels

emitted from fan casings as the duct attenuators only reduce sound travelling through the

ducts, and not the sound directly emitted from the fan casing. I have personally experienced

similar oversights in commercial pub plant installations in the past, and can attest to the

likelihood of disturbance arising when plant noise has not been properly assessed, and

mitigation measures identified.

3. BS 4142:2014 requires that uncertainty is taken into account in the assessment.

Furthermore, general good practice in environmental assessments entails reducing

uncertainty wherever practicable (it is also mentioned in the IEMA guidance4 cited in

RK2665/18492). In the report, uncertainty is only mentioned twice, stating that it would "have

no significance" due to the "difference between the rating levels and background level".

Since both the plant noise impacts and the background sound levels are, in light of the

3 Based on a simple estimate of A-weighted hemispherical sound propagation using the relationship LpA = LwA –

20log10(r) – 8 where r is the source-receptor range; no screening would be expected due the clear line of sight between the source and the receptor. 4 Page 20, bullet point 4; IEMA, 2014. Guidelines for environmental noise impact assessment. Institute of

Environmental Management & Assessment.

above concerns, both considered likely to have been mischaracterised, this assertion is not

valid. The assessment should clearly consider the potential effects of uncertainty on the

assessment outcomes, including uncertainty in the source noise, in the modelling

assumptions and limitations, and around the ambient sound climate. The approach taken

does not meet BS 4142:2014 requirements.

One example of how uncertainty has not been properly considered, and may consequently

affect the assessment outcomes concerns the approach to statistical analysis of measured

sound levels. RK2665/18492 states (page 11) that

The analysis derived the Mode, Mean and Mean -1 standard deviation values. Once

these three values have been established, a judgement was then made as to which

value is considered representative. In this instance the modal LA90,T values were

used for each of the periods at each measurement positions on Tuesday 12 February

2019, when noise levels were generally lower. Whilst it is accepted that BS

4142:2014 states that this should not automatically be the default position, the modal

values were used, as in this instance, they were considered to be the most

representative. This is also in line with the guidance provided in the Guidelines for

Environmental Noise Impact Assessment, IEMA, 2014 which advises the modal

value should be used.

In fact this interpretation is misleading: the IEMA guidance actually states (page 27, para

5.39)5:

when establishing a baseline against which to assess a specific noise impact. A

typical value such as the mode average (the most commonly occurring noise level),

or where a value biased towards worst case is desired, the mean average -1

standard deviation normally should be used. [emphasis added].

A ‘reasonable worst case’ should be the fundamental basis for environmental assessment –

the IEMA guidance puts this as “Include an assessment of a worst-case situation …the worst

case to be tested should be reasonably likely”6. RK2665/18492 appears to acknowledge

this, frequently referring to the ‘typical worst case scenario’ (eg, page 1, page 13, page 17

etc). Nonetheless, the approach to deriving representative sound levels selected in the

assessment does not follow this principle.

It is also standard practice in BS 4142 assessments to derive an occurrence frequency

distribution for measured background sound levels (exemplified in BS 4142:2014+A1:2019

page 11, figure 4) in order to assess what statistic may be most appropriate in the given

situation. This aids clear understanding of the method used to derive a level representative

of the reasonable worst case, and the reduction of uncertainty.

4. There are a number of deficiencies within the assessment of patron noise from the roof

terrace.

5 Page 27, paragraph 5.39; IEMA, 2014. Guidelines for environmental noise impact assessment. Institute of

Environmental Management & Assessment. 6 Page 20 bullet point 3; IEMA, 2014. Guidelines for environmental noise impact assessment. Institute of

Environmental Management & Assessment.

Firstly, the assessment misuses the WHO Guidelines for Community Noise criteria for

outdoor noise annoyance to justify the predicted noise levels of both plant and patron

activity. As is acknowledged in RK2665/18492, the WHO Guidelines are clear that the

criteria are relevant to steady/continuous noise, such as from transportation sources. In fact,

close attention paid to the evidence base on which the Guidelines are derived from

highlights that all of the research relating community annoyance and sleep disturbance

effects concerns exposure only to transportation noise sources; noise from venue and

entertainment activities is not addressed at all (other than within the context of risk of hearing

impairment, ie due to relatively high exposure levels expected during participation in the

activity). Contrary to the claim made in RK2665/18492 that this type of approach is “helpful”

(page 5), the comparison of patron noise with WHO annoyance criteria is distinctly unhelpful,

as it is misleading and not based on evidence. The nonsense of the comparison can be very

easily and intuitively demonstrated by comparing equal exposure levels of steady sound of

the type examined by the WHO (eg road traffic) with that from a busy crowd at a bar. To

facilitate this comparison, I have provided as supporting evidence an audio file (please refer

to the Wave format audio file ‘comparison_20s_road_noise_w_20s_bar_noise.wav’ attached

to my covering email), in which the first 20 seconds comprise distant road traffic in an urban

area, and the latter 20 seconds comprise the sound of a busy crowd talking at a bar – the

two segments of the audio have been carefully adjusted so that their total LAeq values are

precisely equal. Yet audition of the file7 demonstrates that subjective evaluation of the two

sounds would (for many people) be entirely different, especially when one considers the

context of the noise intruding into private property used for evening recreation and amenity.

The impact of patron noise is particularly concerning for properties on Brynland Avenue,

which will be exposed to clearly audible noise from patrons in the outdoor areas throughout

warm evening months, when they are likely to want to use their own outdoor areas for

relaxation. The assessment reports that predicted customer noise levels are expected to be

close to or above the ambient sound levels at these sensitive times (table 10; NB the table

caption states incorrectly that the comparison is with background sound LA90, when it is in

fact compared with ambient sound LAeq). Of course, this comparison disregards the potential

impact of the aforementioned mischaracterisation of existing sound levels, which is believed

to have led to artificially high values for existing sound levels. The level of exposure

predicted would probably lead to residents altering their behaviour, such as curtailing use of

their gardens and closing windows in hot weather to avoid the disturbance; according to

Planning Practice Guidance (table 1) this constitutes a significant adverse effect. The

assessment has not proposed adequate mitigation for this impact, which is not acceptable in

terms of the planning policy.

RK2665/18492 cites the IOA Good Practice Guide on the Control of Noise from Pubs and

Clubs, which states8:

Careful consideration should always be given to the siting of gardens and play areas,

intended for the use of patrons, in order to minimise the risk of disturbance to

7 It is recommended that when listening to the audio file, the overall volume be adjusted to a moderate level

that represents the expected exposure – it is important that the presentation volume is held constant once the file is playing however, to ensure the two segments play at the same LAeq,T. 8 Page 15, paragraph 7.8; IOA, 2003. Good Practice Guide on the Control of Noise from Pubs and Clubs. Institute

of Acoustics.

neighbours. The use of gardens and external play areas from which noise

disturbance has arisen, or may arise, should not commence before the start of

normal trading hours and should normally cease at dusk or at 21:00 hours, whichever

is the earlier.

Yet no consideration appears to have been given to this advice in relation to the proposed

operating hours of the terrace area.

5. Significant omissions from the report include:

 Weather conditions throughout the unattended survey periods

 Equipment calibration certificates (despite the claim on page 7 of RK2665/18492,

certificates have not in fact been included in the report appendices)

 Detailed plant layout drawings (also not found attached to the planning application)

 Details necessary to establish the appropriateness of the sound prediction model:

o Sound absorption characteristics of reflective surfaces – this is very important

in urban spaces with sound sources adjacent to solid buildings and surfaces,

as reflections between surfaces can result in significantly reduced benefits

from screening

o Highest reflection order employed not stated – this is important for the same

reason: selection of too low an order will result in underestimations of sound

emissions; the order selected must ensure that further increases in reflection

order do not result in a significant increase in predicted level (ie, the

predictions ‘converge’ on the resulting value)

In summary, the report and the noise impact assessment documented therein contain

several, serious flaws that undermine the reliability of its conclusions. My view is that there

remains a strong likelihood that the proposals would have a significant adverse impact due

to noise disturbing nearby residents, and the application has failed to demonstrate how

these could be mitigated sufficiently to comply with relevant planning policies.

B Risk of antisocial behaviour and drunkenness

In contrast with claims that Wetherspoon operates an effective management policy and

culture to prevent antisocial and violent behaviour, the evidence in periodic news reports

indicates otherwise. Below is a selection of reported violent incidents that have occurred

either inside or directly outside Wetherspoon pubs in recent times:

Horsham Wetherspoon The Lynd Cross stabbing 1 November 2019

https://www.littlehamptongazette.co.uk/news/crime/man-in-hospital-after-being-stabbed-

outside-west-sussex-wetherspoon-s-1-9127741

Falmouth Wetherspoon The Packet Station attack 2 March 2019

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/man-left-eye-cut-broken-3487668

Yeovil Wetherspoon The William Damper brawl 10 February 2019

https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/two-men-under-investigation-after-

3189015

Cheltenham Wetherspoon Moon Under Water attack 13 January 2018

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/cheltenham-news/thug-punched-victim-several-

times-1106419

Plymouth Wetherspoon Union Rooms, attack 1 January 2018

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/uk-world-news/unprovoked-assault-outside-

wetherspoons-pub-1026981

Cheltenham Wetherspoons Bank House attack 6 July 2017

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/cheltenham-news/manhunt-after-pub-goer-

suffers-174370

Peckham Wetherspoons Kentish Drovers, homophobic attack 5 March 2017

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/man-glassed-for-holding-hands-with-boyfriend-in-

unprovoked-homophobic-attack-at-peckham-wetherspoon-a3485966.html

This colourful record clearly suggests that there is a demonstrable link between the kind of

cheap alcohol for sale business that Wetherspoon operates and violent incidents,

presumably as an indirect result of drunkenness. I would expect such incidents to increase

on Gloucester Road if this application were to be approved.

It is particularly concerning in view of the proximity to the Memorial Stadium football ground,

and the large numbers of (mostly) male drinkers that congregate in the area before and after

Bristol Rovers matches. Despite any assurances Wetherspoon makes, there is no

management policy that can control the behaviour of drunk patrons after they have left the

premises and are loose in the neighbourhood. I have personally witnessed fights breaking

out on matchdays outside local pubs, and the burden borne mainly by the police (and

residents) due to aggressive football spectators, very likely under the influence of alcohol.

Increasing access to cheap alcohol at a large capacity premises would be a disaster for

managing disorder in the area on matchdays.

Dr Peter Messent 152 BRYNLAND AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

Hi,

Firstly, please also consider the original objection comments made in September 2014 includedbelow.

Currently I don't have the time to look at the proposal in detail but how can it have radically havechanged from the first two proposals if the criteria applied by the council included disruption andnoise levels to local residents.

I object for the following reasons:Gardens on Brynland Avenue abutt the site mentioned.Several years ago we won a tribunal to restrict this site to B2 light industrial use keeping businessbetween 9.0 and 5.0 p.m.Most importantly every evening, weekend and bank holiday the noise would encroach on ourgardens and kitchens and back bedrooms (which are often children's bedrooms) and this wouldmean a very deleterious effect on our lives permanently.I object in the strongest terms to any proposal that disrupts the peace, increases our stress andprevents us from using our gardens and back rooms

Thank you.

Please also see my original comments from 2014.

Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application

Comments: I oppose this planning application for the following reasons: Noise from theWetherpoons pub garden - a complete disregard for local residents! - Would anyone on the BristolCouncil planning committee agree to a new Wetherspoons pub if it meant the pub garden openuntil 1.30am backed onto their garden? - The proposed plan, size of the pub and garden and verylate closing time 1.30am demonstrate Wetherspoons have a complete lack of regard for the localresidents of Brynland Avenue whose gardens back onto the proposed pub garden. - There is noway Wetherspoons will be able to guarantee noise does not travel and disturb local residents.Increase in anti-social behaviour is inevitable! - Wetherspoons establishments are renowned forattracting people from out of area who want cheap drinks. Statistically such establishments havebeen shown to encourage binge drinking and anti-social behaviour. - In August 2010, afterconsulting with the police, who expressed concern about the level of crime and disorder linkedwith pubs and bars along the Gloucester Road the city council designated the Gloucester Road aCumulative Impact Area (CIA). - For the City Council to undermine attempts to preserve this muchloved mile and a half of Bristolian heritage by granting planning permission for, of all things, aWetherspoons pub would be criminal! - CIA status was endorsed by the Bishopston Society, whichmonitors and sometimes opposes new licensing bids, when it feels noise pollution and crime maybecome a problem when a new establishment opens. Gloucester Road is unique - GloucesterRoad is known as one of the most unique and independently spirited high streets in the country. - Iam proud to live in an area where students, families, professionals and retired people all live inharmony and where local pubs, cafés, services, clothes and food shops can all make a living.Where the profits are reinvested locally. It's special and very unusual. - A Wetherspoons would becompletely out of character for the area and drain money from the local economy. Already fourother pubs within 100 yards - This area of Bristol doesn't need another pub! - The Vic, The RoyalOak, the Anchor and the Golden Lion are all with 100 yards of this location not to mention familybars ie Tintos, Grounded and the Boston Tea Party. The size of the establishment and proposedopening hours is shocking! - When I counted the number of toilets provided for in the plans, I washorrified at the size of the place. Comparatively, this proposed pub is disproportionate and simplynot in keeping with the area and does not meet the CIA criteria set by the Council. - How manypeople are Wetherspoons wanting to eat/drink there? - The hours the venue is proposed to beopen 7am - 0.30am Sunday to Wednesday and 1.30 am Thursday, Friday and Saturdays againdemonstrate a complete lack of regard for residents and local businesses. Clearly Wetherspoonspropose to open at 7am to serve breakfasts and coffee etc. and compete directly with otherindependent cafés/coffee shops. The size of the organisation means they will be able to chargeprices well below what smaller places are able to charge and ultimately outlast them. AlreadyNoisy on Brynland Avenue - Regardless of whether the bedroom windows are opened or closed,Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights on Brynland Avenue, Summer or Winter between the hoursof 11pm and 2 am are already noisy and my sleep is regularly disturbed. The is no doubt aWetherspoons Pub would compound this! For the above reasons it's almost unthinkable thatBristol Council could even contemplate give planning permission for such an destructive proposal!

Unknown   SUPPORT

Mr Peter BILL 35 MANOR RD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

This application has been rejected twice. There is nothing different about how thisdevelopment would affect the immediate area contained in this new application. An additionallarge, chain pub with long opening hours is just not needed or welcome in a residential area. Theadditional noise & nuisance created late at night would be intolerable. It is not just the immediateneighbors who are affected, but those living in nearby streets who already have to put up withquite enough disturbance. Residents enjoy the independent shopping experience in the daytime.Personally I would not like this part of the Gloucester Rd to change it's character to focus on thenight time economy. Please reject again - for the same reasons as last time. Nothing haschanged.

Mr P BILL 35 MANOR RD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

This application has been rejected twice. There is nothing different about how thisdevelopment would affect the immediate area contained in this new application. An additionallarge, chain pub with long opening hours is just not needed or welcome in a residential area. Theadditional noise & nuisance created late at night would be intolerable. It is not just the immediateneighbors who are affected, but those living in nearby streets who already have to put up withquite enough disturbance. Residents enjoy the independent shopping experience in the daytime.Personally I would not like this part of the Gloucester Rd to change it's character to focus on thenight time economy. Please reject again - for the same reasons as last time. Nothing haschanged.

Mr Peter BILL 35 MANOR RD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

This application has been rejected twice. There is nothing different about how thisdevelopment would affect the immediate area contained in this new application. An additionallarge, chain pub with long opening hours is just not needed or welcome in a residential area. Theadditional noise & nuisance created late at night would be intolerable. It is not just the immediateneighbors who are affected, but those living in nearby streets who already have to put up withquite enough disturbance. Residents enjoy the independent shopping experience in the daytime.Personally I would not like this part of the Gloucester Rd to change it's character to focus on thenight time economy. Please reject again - for the same reasons as last time. Nothing haschanged.

Mr MJ Hays 328 GLOUCESTER ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Good Day,

I am writing to highlight why my family and I OBJECT to this current proposal.

I have seen the mixed reviews for this pending change but I think those that are supporting havenot thought about the residents that live within metres of the premises.

I think that rejuvenation of this property is much needed as it is in a bustling part of the city and aset of independent businesses would be very successful here given the local area's stance onpromoting buying local. Changing this premises to a huge corporation such as Wetherspoons willnot only undermine these values, but they will also seriously endanger the success of the nearby,family run public houses/restaurants.

This brings me onto the fact that this 150 metre stretch of road is currently saturated with publichouses and I can't see that it is proportionate for yet another one to open.

The noise of such establishment will be detrimental to the local area. Being a large corporation,the public house will most likely be open for longer than other local, family run public houses. Thenoise of the roof terrace will travel to local streets where families, young children and elderlyresidents live.

The antisocial behaviour (ASB) that this establishment will inevitably bring to the area will causealarm and distress to the local residents. Any issues that may arise inside the premises (and dealtwith inside) will most likely rekindle outside on the street, causing noise, litter, damage and

harassment to those living nearby.

I fear that the issue of ASB will be especially prevalent when there are local football games,especially being so close to the grounds. Wetherspoons is renowned for hosting away fans andthis could cause a serious issue with local vs away fans are in one small area.

The severe lack of parking in Bristol is an issue, especially in the Horfield/Bishopston area. Thisissue will only get worse, particularly as the road outside allows a maximum stay of 1 hour onnormal working days. The staff and customers will have nowhere to park legally and this coulddisrupt the roads and local residential streets.

Taxi's who will be dropping and picking up customers will cause an obstruction to the road, this willbe a hazard to pedestrians, cyclists and other drivers trying to avoid the vehicles. There iscurrently no safe space for anyone to wait on the road.

The roof terrace which is planned into the current architecture is the same level of all of theadjacent flats and houses. The computer aided design plans show windows that would lookdirectly into the neighbours windows, therefore massively reducing the privacy. This is a veryunnerving thought, and not fair on any of these neighbours.

Thanks

Miss Morag Armstrong 30 THORNLEIGH ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to this application on the basis that in accumulation with the existingestablishments a pub of this size and proposed opening hours would harm residential amenity andpublic safety due to noise and anti-social behaviour..

I believe that a pub this size will result in an increase in the adverse effects of unsociablebehaviour that is disproportionate to the increase in capacity and that the proximity to other pubswill result in an additive cumulative impact to a level that is unacceptable, affecting many people. Itwill also create a precedent for other premises that have had license extensions refused.The noise assessment provided confirms that noise of people leaving will be loudest betweenmidnight and half past. The Guidance on which it is based states that noise from outside areas is asignificant issue for residents and recommends that outside areas should not be used after dusk /9 pm.

However it fails to consider the noise disturbance in neighbouring quiet streets or the noise ofbottles being transferred from the bar bins to the outside bins, .The following related to noise should also be accounted for- The assessment uses a flawed assumption, that the ambient noise will be loud due to existingpremises .. the sizeable pub will present a significant cumulative increase in noise levels at thattime.- Areas leading off Gloucester road, that are quieter to begin with where the effects will be largest -the noise assessment doesn'l consider this- The base noise levels do not take into account the stress associated with unpredictable noiselevel- Noise management measures proposed are specific to Wetherspoons and cannot be relied on if

for example the pub is sold, or management changes - the noise assessment itself concludes thatthe noise of people leaving is outside the control of the applicant- Doesn't consider the noise from bottles being emptied at the back of the premisesI disagree with the classification of the area as a town centre - away from Gloucester Road itself isprimarily residential and many of those properties will be adversely affected, and many of thesehouse young families.- Its not reasonable to consider only licensed premises within the 'primary shopping area' given theproximity to licensed premises outside the 'primary shopping area'.- To impose a busy beer garden 7m from someone's window is not right- There would be adverse noise impacts on people leaving the premises at half past midnight, asat that stage the majority of other traffic and pedestrians on Gloucester road will have died down.- The applicant states that adverse issues that arise post planning will be rectified .. but once theyhave consent - what motivation do they have? The mitigation proposed in response to theplanning refusal of the previous application objections seems only to be concerned with providingthe bare minimum - they don't address wider community concerns

I would also point out the following in relation to the findings of planning appeals that the applicantrelies on to support their case:- Classification of the planning nature of an area is a blunt instrument to be using - the planningdecision should be made based on the particulars of each area - the area surrounding thissubstantially sized pub is primarily residential. In no way is it appropriate to be open after 11- It's ridiculous to compare a decision made about a flat that is above an already operating pub,with more widespread antisocial behaviour that a pub of this size could bring to a neighbourhood- The test cases cited all relate to circumstances that are different form the application:o E.g. existing pubs and a ,limitation was imposed that there should be no food outside after 9o'clocko A decision made on the basis that the property affected was a 1-bed flat so wouldn't be home tochildren - does not apply to the residents near this propertyo A determination that because there was no music it wouldn't be noisy (anyone who's tried tosleep when people are congregating outside, know that to be flawed, and for this application itwould be necessary to consider noise from many people talking loudly (not just 2) - the applicantsnoise assessment also undermines the basis for this decisiono The over-ruling of local concern did impose limitations on opening hours for beer gardenI strongly object to the proposal, but if approved it should be only be on the basis of:- standard opening hours- roof terrace opening restricted to times that would not disturb young children asleep, and toremain closed on a certain number of days per week to provide respite to those living near by- machinery, currently located at he back, closest to residents, should be moved away from thelocation on the roof that causes most disturbance to people trying to sleep ... and the machineryshould only be allowed to operate if it can be shown that there is negligible increase in noise- more space for bicycles should be provided- they should engage with the occupants of houses that eh pub backs onto to determine the most

acceptable form of visual treatmentI also ask that appropriate weighting be given to those who would be most affected ...some ofthose supporting the development wouldn't suffer any adverse effects, by reasons of where theylive.

Mr Damian Sandiford 168 BRYNLAND AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

My garden backs onto the site in mention and would be affected negatively by thisproposal and significantly by the use of a roof terrace.A roof terrace connected to a weatherspoons pub of all premises backing onto residential housesis not acceptable on this part of Bishopston and I strongly object to this going through.I have young children as do the majority of the residents here. The addition of another pub(weatherspoons as well) this far up the Gloucester Rd is not acceptable and should not under allcircumstances go through surely there's a better use of a unused building in this area. This goingahead will increase noise, disturbance due to the type of pub this is and stress for all of the locals.A pub of this nature should not be located in a highly densely populated residential area.Thanking you,Damian Sandiford

Dr Maria Casado-Diaz 154 BRYNLAND AVENUE BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

The proposed change of use to Public House would have a detrimental impact of thequality of life and well being of the residents of Brynland Avenue. Our children bedrooms backonto the proposed development and we are very concern about the level of noise and disruptionthat the proposed public house would have on them. Also, we fear that this would increasedisorderly behaviour around our residential streets (particularly related to football matches) as it isthe case on a regular basis in relation to The Anchor. There are sufficient public houses in thearea and we strongly object to this proposal because of the negative impact on the neighbours'quality of life.

Mr Paul Bullivant 10 MAURICE ROAD BS6 5BZ BRISTOL   OBJECT

Dear sir or madam:

I wish to object to the proposed development for the following reasons :-

1] The proposed development of another licensed outlet is extensive and will potentially attractlarge crowds [including on a roof terrace] and this will inevitably have a detrimental effect on thequality of life of people living in adjoining properties.

2] On 'match days' it will also have a detrimental effect on the otherwise relaxed nature of thissection of the Gloucester Road.

3] The proposals are 'overdevelopment'. Local residents and visitors to the area would almostcertainly not object to a smaller scale development e.g. of a cafe or bistro, but the scale of theproposed 'pub' will have a significant and detrimental impact on the area as outlined above.

4] The scale of the development may also have a detrimental effect on the viability of otherlicensed premises on that stretch of the Gloucester Road.

I hope that you will take account of my serious objections when deciding this application.

Yours faithfully - Paul Bullivant

Mr Alan Bill 6 THORNLEIGH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Once again we strongly object to these proposals by Wetherspoons to create anotherlarge scale drinking and eating establishment on Gloucester Road where late night drinking andsubsequent rowdy behaviour is already a nuisance to us and is increasing all the time.There are already two public houses within 200 metres of this site, the Anchor and the Royal Oak,together with numerous other eating and drinking opportunities. This area of Bishopston/Horfield isa neighbourhood of largely family housing and is not a suitable location, nor is there any need, foryet another large eating, drinking and music venue in the area.We are also very concerned about the proposed licensing hours which can only result in anincrease in drunken shouting, litter, vomit and general anti-social behaviour and noise in thesurrounding area late at night and into the early hours of the morning. The proposal for outsideterraces at the front and back of the establishment will only serve to exacerbate this problemespecially in the summer months.Parking is already a huge problem in this area where there is already insufficient space for us asresidents and a new public house will only attract more people and more vehicles to thesurrounding roads preventing residents from parking anywhere near their houses and leading toeven more disturbance by vehicles manoeuvring late at night.We again recommend refusal of this application and will object to any further application made forthese premises to be developed specifically as an eating and drinking venue. We live about 100metres from this site and will be particularly affected by this development and the subsequentnoise problem.

Hilary and Alan Bill

Dr David Sweeting 154 BRYNLAND AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to this planning application. It will reduce residential amenity. The roof terracewill be noisy. It will attract more drinkers into the area, creating more anti-social behaviour. Thereare already enough pubs in the area.

And are Wetherspoons hoping that if they re-submit the application enough times, the council willsay yes in the end?

Mr Dan Birkby 60 OAK ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

There is no need to add chain pub to the Gloucester Road community. The independentretailers in the area help to create the community and will be affected by adding the type ofestablishment intended by this development.

The same chain purchased and ran a pub further down the hill on Cheltenham Road, which waswell known as a place for people to buy cheap alcohol at all times.

The noise and anti-social behaviour that would come with such a development is not in the bestinterests of the local residents.

I would request that this application is rejected.

Unknown  

Mr Richard Maddalena 355/357 GLOUCESTER ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

As a next door neighbour we object to this new planning application. It is clear the newagents have focused in their Planning Statement on the identity of the applicant; their background,existing operations and trading arrangements at other premises across the U K, when their currentapplication seeks planing permission for a land use (drinking establishment use class 4) andtherefore should carry little weight in this planing application. This is not a resubmission ofapplication 17/06228/f as implied on the application and does not mention the installation of newM&E equipment.

They state hours of opening are not relevant to this proposal when late night opening is one of thebiggest issues and relates to this total project. It is unclear how the roof terrace will operate orwhen closed how they intend to accommodate well over 104 patrons when removed to join theother 346 patrons still in the building on a Saturday night.

It claims proposed employees equivalent to 50 full-time staff required but this is considerably morethan quoted in supporting documents.

They claim Vehicle Parking is not relevant to this proposal when local parking is impossible in thesurrounding area so would be a big problem with their predicted high volume of customers andstaff to consider.

The site description should read as Bristol City Council statement in 2015 quote,"the application site is a long-term vacant retail and storage & distribution (Use Classes A & B8)premises within the primary shopping area of the Gloucester Road as defined by the local plan.The immediate area is mixed commercial properties within the centre and the surrounding streets

are generally residential in nature." When Storegap obtained the site and closed the two A1 retailunits and B8 storage facility in 2009 the site became vacant and remained in that condition on andafter the trading collapse of Storegap. As the existing floor plans show, the existing building hastwo separate A1 retail units and one separate B8 Distribution & storage unit, also a hauling-way toaccommodate articulated lorries and at one time they could enter the building until the entrancedoors were reduced in size., This Hauling-way is shown on the street map issued by the Councilon 23 August 2013 for a new bus stop. These three units and vehicle access would be theaccumulative loss if planning is granted for a Pub on this site, not just one unit.

The floorspace size over the last 5 years has changed considerably from their first application. Theoriginal gross internal tradable A1 floorspace has grown from 213 sq metres to the current A1 areaquoted as 1061 sq metres. Then their new A4 drinking establishment has grown from 430 sqmetres to 1191 sq metres, This space change reflects the predicted rise from 250 patrons 5 yearsago to the current predicted 450 patrons. This is the number stated in supporting documents asquote "between 00.00 and 00.30 on a normal Saturday night it would not be unreasonable toassume that for the worst case scenario, up to 450 patrons may leave the premises via GloucesterRoad between these hours" This can not be dismissed as not having a significant impact bycontinual noise which is all round 365 days a year with both background humdrum noise andsharp variations which would be harmful and disruptive effect on neighbours and residentialcommunity amenity.

No attempt has been made to improve the current front elevations architecture to compliment theother properties on the street. This includes the new first floor windows with the same design asprevious but without obscure glass. The new windows have clear glass with feature designs onthem, this change now enables the public to observe the street and residential flats opposite. Thegeneral public have never had access to the first floor before. The new enlarged window to thenorth side and visible from the street would not improve the appearance of the building, It wouldcreate new light pollution to the bedroom window of 355 opposite at night. The steel railings andgates at the front have no place on the high street,We strongly object to what was a metal fire escape now replaced by a new pre-cast staircase. Thetop section of staircase is open with an enlarged landing and with direct access to and from theroad, this could invite people to congregate on this landing with a loss of privacy to the sidewindows of 355 and extra late night noise. It could also become a permanent main exit route forconvenience from the first floor.A door shown on the side elevation is not correct?

The support visual of street /pub photo has distorted the surrounding street scene and does notreflect a true representation of the plans submitted. But the photo image does represent a terrible1970 city centre store, which should not be replicated on Gloucester Road

The proposed new structure to be erected on top of the first floor roof to contain new plant, has notbeen shown on plans before. This would increase the height of the building with new extraction

flue by 2.5 metres. This new elevated position will only help to send air and noise pollution further.It would not enhance the skyline. This new compound has no access and there is no safety barrieron this roof area. As constant maintenance is required by the manufacturers of the equipment itwould require access to this roof area. Most electrical equipment and the kitchen area are locatedat the rear of the property. This is a real concern should there be a fire at the rear of the property,there is no real access for fire services to get easy access to the back or side walls of the property.

The open door policy has been dropped in favour of no doors policy on the first floor new roofcovered area as part of the roof terrace.

We question the good neighbour policy which has not been evident for the last 5years. When J DWetherspoons have made no attempt to maintain the building, which include not repairing brokenwindows and bordering other windows, then erecting an 8 foot fence at the front and side. Duringthis period on at lease two occasion they have carried out internal work, requiring skips, largeexternal generators, toilet and wash rooms. Without notification or consideration of neighbours thegenerators ran all day and also on a Sunday.

The noise and climate supporting documents are both not based on historical facts and mayconstitute estimates, projections or other forward-looking statements and even though they arebased on reasonable assumptions, such forward-looking statements by their nature involve risksand uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results predicted. Forthis reason little weight should be placed on these documents

The balance of retail to other shops as stated in the support documents and reproduce from out ofdate data, shows it was at the tipping point of 50% had the previous application been approved.The situation now appears not to maintain this balance. Therefore if this application is approved, itwould not comply and have a negative impact on the ever depleting retail shops and otherindependent outlets..The current football match days are not without incident on Gloucester road. Away fans who havenot travelled by coach will walk past this site which can be quite alarming. As the proposed newpub could accommodate more or less approximately 8 % of an average gate attendance and havestated they would actively encourage local fans to visit and drink alcohol before and after matches,this dose not seem a responsible approach to local concerns.

We express concern at the ground floor extension and party wall which is not clear on itsconstruction and would impact vehicular access to our neighbouring property 355/357 GloucesterRoad, this significantly reducing vehicular visibility when exiting to the main road and endangeringpedestrians and cyclist is of concern.

In response to rectify previous observation they have found room for 19 storage bins but only 4public cycle spaces! And moved a large number of people from the ground floor to the first floorwhich is a worrying aspect.

We conclude this pub would have a negative effect on the local community, which is alreadyplagued by anti social behaviour, vandalism, drug use, late night noise, insufficient parking, withnoise and air pollution. It should be noted that outside this new pub the road is at one of thenarrowest widths on Gloucester road and they propose to stop extra lorries and taxies and exitover 450 people directly on the pavement outside with no barriers.The proposed development fails to respond appropriately in its design to the characteristics of thesite in relation to its location, with the rear wall on the town centre boundary line. Air and noisepollution goes directly into the residential areas both sides of Gloucester Road. If plans areapproved this could also effect any future development plans for possible housing at the rear.

The planning office should note this application conflicts with the cumulative impact area directive.The impact on the reduction of retail shops on Gloucester road. The proposed new extensions andnew roof terrace and new M&E plant all designed to increase the capacity of the Pub to over 450patrons plus staff would create many more issues than stated, one in particular is the fact abedroom at first floor level is located next door and would have health implications. The decision totransfer some seating capacity from the ground floor to the first floor has implications in manyrespects. The proliferation of plant material outside the two designated plant areas, with some onthe back wall outside their property boundary has unaddressed implication to noise and odourissues. Above all the negative impact a public house of this size and dwarfing the other two pubs itwould have on a suburban residential area can not be underestimated.

Ms J Maddalena 355B GLOUCESTER ROAD HORFIELD   OBJECT

I would like to strongly object to the proposed plans for change of use for 349Gloucester Road.This is a residential area with lots of young families. If the plan is approved, my son's bedroomwindow will only be the distance of the width of our driveway away from an enormous publichouse. The noise from people entering and leaving from before 7am and after midnight on a dailybasis will not only be a disturbance but a source of concern. This section of Gloucester Road isdeemed a CIA and as such it is strongly recommended that new and existing drinkingestablishments are limited in the sale of alcohol to prevent further public nuisance and disorderand anymore erosion of people's comfort in their homes.

The size of this plan is huge, seating nearly 350 and having a capacity for over 400. If the changeof use is granted, and Wetherspoons pull out as they have done at other sites we could have apub that's sole focus is on serving alcohol. Because of its huge capacity, there are bound to beproblems on match days.We already experience people using our driveway as a urinal and have to avoid stepping throughvomit as we walk past the bus stop on our way to school on a Monday morning. I fear thisoccurrence will only increase as Wetherspoons opening hours are so late and the bus stop is acongregating waiting point. The noise generated here is also amplified down the driveway as thewall of our building and 349 create a tunnel effect.

The noise from the roof terrace especially in the summer will mean we'll be unable to open ourwindows. I am also concerned about the noise from generators and plant equipment servicing anestablishment of this size.I think the cooking smells generated will also be hard to live with.

Our local area is not short of eating and drinking places. It does not need another establishmentwhose primary purpose is the sale of cheap alcohol. It can't be ignored that bringing a nationalchain of this magnitude offering cheap food and alcohol ALL day will negatively impact smallerlocal restaurants and cafes. Instead of having one vacant property, many businesses may close.Although the premises are in a state of disrepair and currently an eyesore, the look of the designfor the proposed building does not seem in keeping with the rest of this section of road which islargely shop area on the ground floor and residential flats above. The windows on the second floorin the new design will look out onto flats opposite.

Since the erection of the blue solid hoardings around 349 it has made exiting our driveway in ourcar very precarious as the visibility has been seriously compromised. The original layout of thebuilding has the wall angled some distance from our driveway and space for parking, allowingclear vision of pedestrians and traffic. Should it go ahead it will also add increased pressure onparking in the vicinity which is already a problem, and added problems to the road infrastructuregiven the narrowness of the road at this point, proximity to the bus stop and lack of staff andcustomer parking.

The site has great potential for regeneration into something the local area could really benefitfrom. Any redevelopment will create jobs and improve the location, however a public house is notright for this site and a Wetherspoons will have a detrimental impact.

Mr Mark Hepden 38 OAK ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Noise, the negative impact on local independent business, inevitable increase in mess,public nuisance and traffic. Families with young children living in close proximity will suffer terribledisturbance.

Mr Derek Wilton  WARRENS VILLAGE HOLIDAY VILLAGE COLEHOUSE LANE CLEVEDON   SUPPORT

No loud music at Wetherspoon establishment.Reasonable prices. Good food.Why not support this investment

Mrs Ruth Birkby 60 OAK ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Strongly object. This establishment will have a negative effect on the area, due to thecheep alcohol and very long opening hours. It will increase antisocial behaviour and noise levels.There are also already numerous cafe/restaurants/pubs in this area please don't put any hugeunnecessary establishments.

Mr Tim Prior 30 THORNLEIGH RD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Amended

The latest submission for this scheme has, to its credit, attempted to address some of the localpolicy guideline shortfalls of previous applications, as well as making some effort to mitigate theconcerns of the police, residents and councillors.

However, whilst welcoming suggestions to bring 349 Gloucester Rd back into use to serve theBishopston Community, as a local resident of nearly 30 years, I feel that, on balance, once again Ihave to object to the planning application as currently submitted for the following reasons:

1) Although the opening hours have been reduced to match those of the nearby Anchor Pub, thisapplication is still yet another another all day/late night drinking establishment in an area already,in my opinion, now overly populated with pubs, restaurants and bars. As previously pointed out,the location is in a very sensitive area, with a large residential population either side of theGloucester Rd, cricket and football grounds very close by, and a very large student population.How does the application address the Cumulative Impact Area (CIA) Regulations given that theapplication sits in such an area? To quote from the regulations, the CIA exists to: " create arebuttable assumption that applications for new premises licences or material variations willnormally be refused .... unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant that the operation of thepremises in question will not add to the cumulative impact already being experienced in the area."

There are several references to the location being in the 'Gloucester Rd Town Centre' (as well asin 'Bishopston Town Centre - which it is not!), and that as such residents should expect increasednoise and disturbance levels to those experienced in 'the suburbs'. This is a specious argument.

We already have a Town Centre - it's called Bristol, and to use the aforementioned 'Town Centre'designation as an excuse to shoehorn more and more late night drinking and eatingestablishments into a heavily residential suburb of Bristol, either side of one main street - theGloucester Rd - is unwelcome, and indeed becomes a self fulfilling prophecy over time if sufficientchecks and balances are not carried out.

2) In relation to the inclusion of a roof terrace it is worth repeating that The Boston Tea Party (100yards down the Gloucester Rd with a (much smaller) outside terraced area) submitted anapplication to serve alcohol in the evening, and this was rejected by councillors, who cited thefollowing reasons for the rejection: .- they believed that public nuisance would be undermined ifgranted - they gave great weight to residents' concerns regarding noise nuisance and looked tosee if these could be overcome with conditions on the licence but found that these concerns couldnot be assuaged through conditions - a 23:00 hours finish would affect the sleep of the particulardemographic within the immediate vicinity - they felt that alcohol without food would materiallychange the nature of the premises and would lead to the licensing objectives being undermined.

The Spectrum report included as part of this proposal concludes that:

'noise levels would be below late evening ambient noise levels .....except for the rear of houses onBrynland Avenue, where noise levels would exceed the ambientnoise levels by 3dB during a worst case peak trading scenario. This is due to the very low ambientnoiselevels measured at Position A, which was heavily screened to the nearby roads as result of beinglocated in the rear yard of the The Reclaimers. Ambient noise levels to the rear of the houses onBrynland Avenue are likely to be higher than those measured at Position A, as the rear of thehouses on Brynland Avenueare less screened to nearby roads, and in particular, Gloucester Road. Furthermore, the worstcase peak trading periods only occur for a handful of occasions throughout the year i.e. summerbank holiday evening when the weather is hot and there is no rain. For the vast majority of thetime, patron noise levels wouldbe comfortably lower than the ambient noise levels at the rear of the houses on Brynland Avenue.'

However, the above scenario will occur at the very times when residents are in their back gardenenjoying the late Summer evenings (or alternatively trying to get to sleep). The addition of a 2.5metre acoustic wall is noted, but It would seem that additional acoustic measures should beconsidered, or, as the report suggests, an earlier curfew imposed as a condition ofplanning/appeal as has happened previously in various Wetherspoon locations cited in the reportappendix, and in the overall Planning Statement (for example terrace opening only between1100H and 2100H at Wetherspoons,Station Rd, Oxted). In any event I would hope that in anysuccessful application, monitoring would take place at specific instances over the first year ofoperation to ensure that the levels calculated in the report are not exceeded in practice, and thatcustomer complaints are taken as seriously as Wetherspoons say they are.

Note that the opening hours of the terrace are stated as 0800H-2300H every day of the week -that is a very long period... every day of the week..., and I can imagine other occasions where itcould get quite noisy (around Christmas, and on football/cricket matchdays for example).

3) The number of customer cycle spaces is inadequate (4!) and should be increased for a venueof this size to encourage sustainable transport choices, and help 23control of air pollution which isa particular concern in this area.

4) The volume and content of comments submitted by local residents (i.e the comments fromthose close to the Site) objecting to this scheme, despite the risk of ennui from multipleapplications by the applicant over a long time period, should leave the council under no doubt asto the strength of feeling that continues to exist.

In conclusion, and for all the reasons stated above, I urge BCC to reject this application, and toconsider other uses of the Site which would better serve the needs of this area.

Mr Henry Beard 146 BRYNLAND AVENUE, BRISTOL BS7 9DY   OBJECT

I strongly object to the approval of an application to build a pub at this site.

Firstly, the approval of this application would cause excessive noise and disruption to the residentsof Brynland Avenue and directly affect the many bedrooms which are adjacent to the site.

Secondly, there is no reason for more pubs in the area. Six pubs are located within half a mile ofthis site and two within a few hundred feet. Another pub would only increase the antisocialbehaviour in a family residential area.

Lastly, I would ask the planning department to consider the government's strategy to cut bingedrinking and alcohol-fuelled violence (1). It identified that local authorities should control thedensity of licensed premises, including making the impact on health a consideration for this.

1. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/alcohol-strategy

Mr Henry Beard 146 BRYNLAND AVENUE, BRISTOL BS7 9DY   OBJECT

I strongly object to the approval of an application to build a pub at this site.

Firstly, the approval of this application would cause excessive noise and disruption to the residentsof Brynland Avenue and directly affect the many bedrooms which are adjacent to the site.

Secondly, there is no reason for more pubs in the area. Six pubs are located within half a mile ofthis site and two within a few hundred feet. Another pub would only increase the antisocialbehaviour in a family residential area.

Lastly, I would ask the planning department to consider the government's strategy to cut bingedrinking and alcohol-fuelled violence (1). It identified that local authorities should control thedensity of licensed premises, including making the impact on health a consideration for this.

1. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/alcohol-strategy

Mrs Linda Beard 26 HARTLEBURY WAY CHELTENHAM   OBJECT

I am a frequent visitor to this area (with family living close to the proposed site) and thelast thing it needs is yet another pub. There are numerous drinking establishments there alreadyand it will only attract further antisocial behaviour.

Miss Hannah Warren 90 THE ANCHORAGE GAOL FERRY STEPS BRISTOL   OBJECT

The Gloucester Road is an iconic part of Bristol famous for the independent shops andbusinesses. It does not need another pub - let alone a chain such as Wetherspoons.

Mrs Miranda McCabe 148 BRYNLAND AVENUE BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

I am a very near neighbour of the proposed development. Their boundary wall adjoinsmine. The houses that back onto the property in question typically have back bedrooms which arechildrens. The noise and any anti- social behaviour arising from this proposed development woulddisturb chidren in these back bedrooms. Typically, kitchens are also at the back of our houses.More imporatantly all our gardens would be affected by any noise and anti-social behaviour fromWetherspoons. They are well known for cheap alcohol and therefore at any time in whichresidents are in their gardens (weekends, evenings in the Summer and Bank HolidaysWetherspoons would also be open and therefore disturb the peace in all adjoining residentsgardens. There is no shortage of pubs on Gloucester Road and therefore no need for another one.I object to these proposals most strongly and do not wish the property to become a Wetherspoonspub. Furthermore, if the property is turned into a Wetherspoons without a garden I believe thiswould be the 'thin edge of thewedge' leaving it open to further development in the future.I oppose the proposed Wetherspoons wholeheartedly. Please do NOt allow it to happen.Miranda McCabe148 Brynland Avenue

Mr Martin Hill 198A STAPELTON ROAD EASTON BRISTOL   SUPPORT

This development will not only replace a derelict building creating employment withinthe community but will provide a premises in the area offering something different than what isavailable in the area

Ms Sarah Jinks 18 PARKSTONE AVENUE HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I don't think there is a need for another place to drink in this area as there are alreadyseveral pubs nearby and it could have an adverse effect on their trade. Whether spoons arepopular because they sell alcohol very cheaply and my concern is that particularly on match daysthere is likely to be heavy drinking and an increase in drunken behaviour, noise and violence.

Mrs Ann Meryl Widdecombe 10 DOWNEND ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I would like to support the application of a Wetherspoon restauranton Gloucester Road. It would be nice to have a British restaurant reasonably priced and bigenough and friendly to go for lunch or dinner on my own or take my Grandchildren. I am a retirednurse and widow and I love walking down Gloucester Road.Wetherspoons have restaurants in Clifton, Portishead and many other places. So, it would beconvenient to have one on the Gloucester Road.Thank you..

Mr Richard Wilson 28 PARKSTONE AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

I wish to object strongly to the development of a Wetherspoon pub in this location.

Bringing in a discounted drinking establishment will only have a detrimental effect on the local areaby increasing anti-social behaviour. This effect will be amplified on Saturdays with Bristol Rovershome games and pre/post match drinking.

The location sits in the middle of a 0.5km stretch of Gloucester Road that is already home to threepubs (Golden Lion, The Anchor and the Royal Oak) which service the local area.

Gloucester Road has a proud history of encouraging independently owned businesses to flourishalong its length. This is something to be cherished and preserved rather than willingly sold off tosoulless chains. Wetherspoon pubs simply do not fit in with what makes Gloucester Road special.

It is also a family friendly road which does not require a pub selling cheap drinks which onlyencourages binge drinking and anti-social behaviour.

Mr sanjeev singh 57 DONGOLA ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to this plan to open a Weatherspoon pub at the site. The area already has anumber of pubs which attract a number of people to the area. I believe a large chain like this, withcheap alcohol will attract unwanted attention to the area. The area is already very busy and morepubs, particularly ones with cheap alcohol will bring a number of problems:- congestion- anti social behaviour- parking- safety of local residents- noise

Mrs Daskiran Kaur 57 DONGOLA ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

i also object to this planning application. This type of establishment isn't needed in thearea as there are many other pubs. Instead the site should be more family friendly and a soft playshould be considered. I'm very concerned about anti social behavior and noise from the currentpubs on the road so this will add to it.

Ms Patricia Thorpe 32 RADNOR ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I wish to object strongly to the granting of planning permission for yet another pub onthe Gloucester Road.

The current building has been unattractively empty for years, however, that is not a reason toallow just any business to occupy the space. Wetherspoons could undoubtedly improve theappearance of the building but the social fabric of this largely family area is actually moreimportant than the look of a single building.

Like others who actually live in the vicinity of the site, I am concerned at the likely increase innoise, kitchen smells and potential increase in antisocial behaviour at times when a residentialneighbourhood should be able to sleep peacefully.

Moreover, there have been many occasions when the alcohol-fuelled behaviour of footballaudiences has closed other local businesses for several daytime hours on a Saturday due to theirexperience of rowdiness. This is only likely to worsen with access to even more, cheaper drinking.

Whilst Wetherspoons would create some jobs, these would ultimately most likely result in joblosses elsewhere on the street as the low-prices policy drove others out of business.

Finally, I feel that greater weight should be given to the points made by those who actually live inBS7 than to those writing from outside the area, e.g. from BS3 or even outside the city as in someof the supporting letters on this site.

Ultimately, the major problem here is that we already have critical mass with the current number of

bars and pubs. Please consider the above points carefully when considering this application.Thank you.

Mr Adrian Daddow 7 NEVIL ROAD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   SUPPORT

A wetherspoons is needed here in Gloucester Road, all of the existing pubs are now tooexpensive to drink in and you can't get a decent mixed grill anywhere along the whole ofGloucester Road! Believe me I know. The last petition raised against the proposal contained only12 signatures and you already have more support than that showing here. Also you haveapproved the halal restaurant Lona which many residents are very uncomfortable with and haveallowed the Turkish place to extend onto the pavement. I fully support having a Wetherspoonshere.

Mr Samuel Parker 107 CLOVER GROUND BRISTOL   SUPPORT

A much needed project.A derelict building will be rejuvenated, bringing jobs, growth and energizing the area - with limitedimpact on the road.

Every argument against it is tired, boring and misplaced.Whiteladies Road Wetherspoons was also faced with the same arguments and is thriving, as isthe area.I frequently visit the Gloucester Road visiting all the many varied businesses. (I lived here for closeto 30 years). This will be a massive POSITIVE for the area.

Sam P

Mr Stephen O'Shea 8 FENTON ROAD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I strongly support this application to bring a longstanding eyesore back into use.Wetherspoons offers a different experience to the existing outlets in the area.All the current Wetherspoons in Bristol are well run and trouble free. There is absolutely noevidence to support the expressed concerns about noise and antisocial behaviour.Two pubs have closed in recent years on this stretch of Gloucester Road (The Old Fox and TheVictoria).

Mr Kieran Wales 35 DONGOLA ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Wetherspoons are more than just a pub they are a community offering. Older peoplecome in the morning and take advantage of the warm comfortable lounge and vfm food and drink.Breakfast and lunch for all and the evening after work crowd and evening drinkers can enjoy avast range of drinks at good prices. The pub chain are employers and provide value pub grub. Thesite has been derelict for years and will never amount to anything other than another piece ofgrime for graffiti and filth to collect. Let's welcome this neighbour.

Miss Yvonne Scallan 35 DONGOLA ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I fully support this planning application. The majority of Wetherspoon establishments arefrequented by all sections of the community and often become a meeting place for the oldergeneration. They offer reasonably priced meals as well as drinks. As someone who has livedlocally for many years this is something that the communitywould benefit from. As well as bringingemployment to the area. The site has been derelict for far to many years and can only beenhanced by wetherspoons.

Mr Dylan Sebastian Evans 134, NORTH ROAD ST ANDREW'S BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I'm writing in support of this application. I've lived in and around Gloucester Road onand off for twenty years. For people on a low or fixed income, amongst whom I count myself, thecost of drinking and eating out in many of the area's established licensed premises is prohibitivelyhigh, meaning that they and I simply cannot afford to do so. I believe that the proposedWetherspoon's would increase competition, reduce prices, raise standards, and give more cash-strapped locals like me the opportunity to get out of the house once in a while and enjoy somegood quality food and drink in comfortable surroundings and at affordable prices.

Mr Paul Curtis FLAT 308A GLOUCESTER ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I live, across from this derelict eyesore which has been vacant for at least 15 years. Ithink it's a great opportunity for this part of Gloucester road to be rejuvenated and also creatingemployment in this area.

Mr gary king 31 MILNER RD HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Gloucester Rd needs a Wetherspoons to bring some competion tothe existing pubs to bring prices down and into line with other areas of Bristol.

Mr Stan Gruncell 405 FILTON AVENUE HORFIELD BRISTOL  

In principle I agree with the development, however there appears to be insufficienthighway considerations. No trip impact assessment has been undertaken. There is insufficientcycle parking provided. Four spaces are not sufficient for a development of this scale, let alone onGloucester Road, which is a well known cycle route. I agree with the location of the parking (in thecurtilage of the development, undercover), however, it does not appear they have been designedappropriately. They are an afterthought to the process. Once this aspect has been rectified, I fullysupport the development.

Mrs Tina Stait 40 BEVERLEY ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I would like to express my support for this application for Wetherspoons on GloucesterRoad. The use Gloucester Road daily for either shopping or socialising/eating out and I feelGloucester road needs a variety of places for local people to enjoy, many of the independentbars/cafe/restaurants are very expensive. Whilst I enjoy these places occasionally with my partnerit is too expensive to take my family of six and it would be advantageous to have a cheaper optionso we can choose to eat out together.

Mr Aaron Wade 22 STATION ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Been waiting for this Wetherspoons to come forward for years. Please support andapprove this application.

Mr Marc Rath 5 SELBORNE ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Gloucester Road is already extremely well-served for pubs, cafes and restaurants -another is not needed in the area.

The introduction of a Wetherspoons pub to the street will damage its standing as a hub forindependent traders and businesses.

A new pub in this location will create problems for neighbours, with the generation of extra noise,litter, anti-social behaviour, traffic, parking issues and air pollution.

The proposal should be rejected, as it has been on the many previous occasions it has beenbrought forward. It's clear the derelict building at 349 needs to be redeveloped but this is thewrong plan for this site.

Mrs Louise Baird 144 BRYNLAND AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

This business proposal will be right in my back garden and hugely affect my life.

I don't want the increased noise, cooking smells and noise nuisance.

I won't be able to relax in my back garden in peace.

I'm worried about possible increased antisocial behaviour with cheap all day drinking - especiallyduring times a big sporting events.

It will spoil the Gloucester Road that we ll know and love.

Mr Timothy Baird 144 BRYNLAND AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

This business proposal will be right in my back garden and hugely affect my life.

I don't want the increased noise, cooking smells and noise nuisance.

I won't be able to relax in my back garden in peace.

I'm worried about possible increased antisocial behaviour with cheap all day drinking - especiallyduring times a big sporting events.

It will spoil the Gloucester Road that we ll know and love.

Mrs geraldine Baird 144 BRYNLAND AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

This business proposal will be right in my back garden and hugely affect my life.

I don't want the increased noise, cooking smells and noise nuisance.

I won't be able to relax in my back garden in peace.

I'm worried about possible increased antisocial behaviour with cheap all day drinking - especiallyduring times a big sporting events.

It will spoil the Gloucester Road that we ll know and love.

Mrs Jacqueline Williams 2B PEN PARK ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Miss Megan Williams 41A SMITHCOURT DRIVE LITTLE STOKE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

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

The previous reasons for refusal for this application were that:

1Failure to demonstrate that acceptable standards of amenity and living conditions would bepreserved at adjacent premises, specifically due to: opening hours; outdoor areas (including theroof terrace); plant and noise generating equipment; general site management resulting indetrimental activity, noise and disturbance; loss of light to 347 Gloucester Road due to the roofterrace wall; and public safety.

2Failure to create an appropriate legible and high quality interface with the adjacent public realm,specifically in relation to the ground floor terrace and partition screening.

3Lack of policy compliant cycle parking facilities and unacceptable access arrangements forservicing, deliveries and refuse collection.

4Failure to demonstrate policy compliant contributions to reducing the impacts of climate change.

Examining each of these points in turn for the new application:

1The opening hours of the proposed pub would now be in-line with nearby establishments,

specifically the Anchor. In addition, more plant room space has been added which should help tomanage the noise impact from equipment, and stepping back the terrace wall should alleviate theproblem of loss of light to 349 Gloucester Road.However, the substantial roof terrace remains, which will cause considerable disruption toresidents. I appreciate that the applicant has added a wall to act as an acoustic barrier, but I donot think that the barrier will block out all of the noise. Furthermore, the noise from a terrace insuch a position will be audible from a large distance, and will disrupt many residents in the area,especially late at night.In addition, whilst a management plan was provided, I do not feel that this adequately and fullyaddresses all of the concerns raised previously regarding site management (noise/disturbance)and public safety.

2With regards to design, particularly at the ground floor, I concede that some improvements havebeen made to the design with regards to the external entrance area and removal of the summeropening doors on the frontage. However, I remain unconvinced that this design interfaces well withthe adjacent public realm in a high quality manner. This is especially obvious in the 3D mock-up.

3Cycle parking has now been added to the design, which is a positive step. The proposals havealso been amended with regards to deliveries and refuse collection, which seem like an improvedsolution. Certainly these arrangements do not seem out of step with similar establishments onGloucester Road.

4The applicant has now demonstrated that the development can achieve a carbon saving in excessof the policy target.

Whilst it would appear that the third and fourth reasons for refusal have been addressed, I am ofthe opinion that the first and second ones have not been satisfactorily addressed by the applicant.As such, I maintain my opposition to this application on grounds of residential amenity, noise,public safety, site management, and public realm interface.

Unknown  

Councillor referral form 19/07/16

Notes:

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

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

accepted from members within the same Neighbourhood Partnership Area

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.

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 any of the area committees (Central, South and East, or North).

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

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

situation.

Mrs Hannah Ward 49 CHURCH ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I fundamentally object to this application plan for the following reasons.

1. The many families that live in this area will be adversely affected by a Wetherspoons pub thatoffers cheap alcohol to its customers, especially on match days when some football and rugbyfans have often had too much to drink and have to be managed by the police. As it stands I willavoid the Gloucester Road to keep my family safe during these times. Cheaper availability ofalcohol will only make the situation worse.

2. We already have six pubs close to this end Of the Gloucester Road so therefore there is noneed to have any more.

3. Our council has a social responsibility to discourage drinking alcohol to excess and a puboffering cheap alcohol at all hours is irresponsible and wreck less.

4. There are several vulnerable people, all with addiction problems, that spend an awful lot of timegoing up and down the Gloucester Road, often in a threatening/intimidating state of mind. Thesepeople are not properly supported by the council as it is. Allowing a Wetherspoons into the localarea could only make their problems and in turn the problems of the local community worse.

Ms Sue Lloyd 11 ARTHUR MILTON STREET BRISTOL   OBJECT

I strongly object to this application on the following grounds:-

1. Licensed premises saturation. Gloucester Road and the surrounding roads already have aconsiderable number of licences premises, most of which are local independents. A number haveclosed in the past few years, indicating that saturation point has been reached.

2. Noise levels, especially on a Friday and Saturday evening, will disturb the neighbouring streetswhich are residential.

3. Traffic and parking. There is no available parking around the Gloucester Rd., area and wealready have considerable problems with pavement parking, corner parking and other obstructiveparking which mean that local pedestrians (and residents) who have mobility scooter, wheel-chairor baby bugger users cannot safely negotiate the pavements, and are often forced to the narrowroads , navigating traffic which does not necessarily keep to the speed limited. This is patentlyunsafe. On match days, (Bristol Rovers, Glos. cricket club), additional public transport, pedestriansjoining and leaving the grounds, cars trying to park somewhere local, all add to traffic congestion.Another pub will contribute to the pressures which already provide temporary gridlock.

4. Gloucester Rd has an air-quality problem, so any venue which attracts more traffic willcontribute to this environmental degradation.

For these reasons which I have outlined, I object to the planning application.

Mr Pat Carolan 81 THORNLEIGH ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

The area is already well served by pubs, cafes and restaurants so the need for aWetherspoons is open to question. The loss of a retail space increases the existing imbalancealong the Gloucester Road towards outlets serving food and drink. I think some considerationshould be given to sustaining the Gloucester Road as a shopping area so I don't personallysupport the change of use.

The economic argument for increased employment is also questionable as no one can predict ifopening Wetherspoons will lead to the closure of other licensed premises. The nearby Victoria /"Queen Vic" pub has been boarded up for some time which suggests the pub trade generally isunder some pressure.

The Planning Statement prepared on behalf of Wetherspoons to justify the proposed developmentseems to lack attention to detail. To quote item 6.19 "The Site is located in Bishopston TownCentre where, as a town centre location, noise levels are expected to be higher than a suburbanlocation". Firstly the application is for 349 Gloucester Road, Horfield and secondly Bishopston isnot actually a town. It concerns me that Wetherspoons are looking to justify additional noisenuisance by wrongly describing the area as a "town centre" and if you choose to live in a "towncentre" you should expect additional noise and disturbance.

Finally I think many people are concerned regarding public order and public safety on match days.I share these concerns.

Dr Ailsa Peron 4 BRENT ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

As a local resident to the Gloucester Road area and specifically to the locale of theproposed development, I would like to object to the proposed change of use of 349 GloucesterRoad to a public house. First, I object on the grounds of concerns over increased noise and anti-social behaviour, particularly relating to football matches. Currently we have a few public houses inarea in question, but they are sufficiently distributed such that match day visitors are spreadacross a wider geographical area and therefore cause less overal disturbance. Similarly, on non-match days, restricting the density of public houses in that area helps to manage noise anddisruption.

Second, I object on the grounds of conservation, with regard to the nature of Gloucester Road. It isan area which strongly promotes independent shops and restaurants, and I don't feel that a chain-brand public house such as Wetherspoons is consistent with this environment and ethos.

Miss Emily Williams 164 BRYNLAND AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

This is now the 4th time that Wetherspoons for the same planning permission. This isnot a pub that would fit with the area - the licensing requests are Outside of the Hours of otherrestaurants and pubs in the area. Having this type of venue with cheap food and booze so close toa football stadium in a residential area will leave no end of issues with noise, violence and disorderin what is typically a quiet and safe neighbourhood. On a summers day the terrace garden will beincredibly disturbing to all neighbours that currently back on to the property

Mr Chris Price 11 SPARROW LANE PORTISHEAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Enjoy these pubs and often visit. However this close to stadiums is asking for troubleand not something the area needs or can support

Mr Russell Fry 7 HENLEAZE PARK BRISTOL   OBJECT

I strongly object to this application. This chain of pubs encourage high volume low costdrinking. Their establishments are hotspots for antisocial behaviour. Gloucester Road has becomea fantastic area due to the independent businesses which give a great feel.

The area is friendly and welcoming. I have confidence taking my children there, this will change ifyou allow this development.

We have some wonderful and unique places in Bristol and Gloucester Road is one of them. Let'snot allow that to be spoiled.

Thanks

Russell

Mr Thomas Fowler TENNYSON ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

The Gloucester Road community prides itself on its independent businesses, pubs,restaurants and cafes. Gloucester Road already has plenty of reasonably priced pubs which,unlike Wetherspoon, are invested and tightly integrated within our local community.

We don't want or need a national chain to suck the life and money out of our community.

Mr Will May  116 BRYNLAND AVENUE BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

The proposed public house would bring additional late-night noise and traffic to aresidential area that already has some problems with parking and anti-social behaviour in theevenings. The area has a range of lively independent pubs, and a chain is likely to undercut them,lessening the distinctive quality of one of Bristol's most famous independent retail areas. The roofterrace will bring additional noise.

Mr Sam Lusardi BRYNLAND AVENUUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

This application has come back multiple times but my core objections remain.

I live on a road is parallel to Gloucester Road and therefore we have to expect some noise, but myview is that an additional pub will add to what is already a very noisy environment and is notnecessary.

The area is already very well served by pubs: the Anchor, the Lazy Dog, the Drapers, the RoyalOak, the Sportsman and Annexe, and the Golden Lion are all within less than 5 mins walk of theproposed new premises.

In addition, the bottom of the north section of Brynland Avenue west side already suffers from twoconsistent sources of noise: patrons of the Anchor, as noise echoes off buildings and down thestreet, but also the cold storage unit in the Co-op car park which kicks in and hums away at anygiven time at all hours (and obviously worse in the summer).

There is no good argument I can see that we need an additional pub in terms of choice or access,and in particular a pub with a roof terrace where even more noise locally will dissipate. We shouldbe trying to lessen the issue, not increase it.

Finally - the character of Gloucester Road is to a significant extent driven by its appeal as a streetof independent shops and establishments; approving a chain pub here will sadly further diminishthat.

Mr Martin Hall 49 CHURCHWAYS CRESCENT BRISTOL   SUPPORT

What a great ideal to turn this hideous building into a super pub with drinks and food ata realistic prices.

Ms Elizabeth Porter 35 WELLINGTON HILL HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Gloucester Road prides itself in working towards and maintaining an ethos ofindependent shops, community focused local retailers and environmentally friendly practices. Wealready have wonderful, high-quality cafes and bars that have that local, sustainable ethos, suchas The Drapers Arms, The Lazy Dog, The Royal Oak and The Tinto Lounge (not to mention all thesmall cafes).

There are regular campaigns encouraging people to support small businesses in this area, which Ibelieve local residents do indeed support.

Therefore, the last thing this stretch of Gloucester Road (which is surrounded by a predominantlyresidential area) needs is a national pub chain that will be financially detrimental to the otherbusinesses in the area, due to its overly cheap, low-quality beer and food.

Additionally, the plans show a roof terrace. This is the last thing that is needed in that residentialarea due to noise concerns.

Mr Ivan Thompson 357 GLOUCESTER ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Myself and my partner live right next door to the proposed building. Living on a busyroad with several pubs and bars already we have had members of the public who have damagedour cars, littered in our driveway, blocked our driveway leaving us unable to leave our property,urinated and been have sick on our driveway on several occasions. By introducing a well known'cheap' pub where alcohol prices are so low, it will undoubtably attract more individuals who will beroaming the streets of Gloucester Road extremely intoxicated. Not only that but the roof terracelooks right into both our property outdoor area and our driveway, meaning the likely event offurther damage and litter to our cars and driveway.We strongly feel that a Weatherspoons will not only damage local businesses but cause moreproblems among the youngsters that live locally and bring further disturbance in the local area.

Ms Alexandra Geddis 92 THORNLEIGH RD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Another large public house is not needed on the Gloucester Rd area of Bristol andwould have negative social and environmental Impacts on the neighbourhood.This area of Bristol is proud and supportive of its many independent shops and businesses: pleasedo not allow this large chain the opportunity to destroy its character and community.

Mrs Liv NOACK-Cox 13 SELBORNE ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Not in keeping with local, independent shops and pubs. A big corporate company pubwill also have a bigger negative impact with large groups of football supporters on local gamedays.

Mr Nicholas Williams 17 OLVESTON ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Gloucester Road is a unique place in that it has been sustained by groups of largelyindependent businesses . This adds character and provides a well balanced shopping amenity forall ages . Introducing a large food and drink outlet will not bring people to the area and will onlytake away from existing businesses . There are concerns about the effects of alcohol in societyand this will not be helped by the availability of cheaper alcohol . Long opening hours willencourage drinking and inevitably lead to some degree of anti social behaviour . I object and urgethe Council to support its own Local Plan objectives .

Ms D Web 204 GLOUCESTER RD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to Weatherspoons opening up here for several reasons. It will be a large cheapchain pub which is not in keeping with the special independent nature of the very specialGloucester Rd. It will attract a lot of extra traffic, both for deliveries and customers which the areaneeds to discourage as this is already a problem. I am also concerned about more drunk anddisorderly behaviour. There are more than enough pubs and bars in the area already. AdditionallyI believe that Weatherspoons has owned this building for some years which has stopped a moreinteresting and appropriate business moving in.

Dr Peter Box 11 LANCASHIRE ROAD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

I have previously objected to a similar application relating to the property.I still believe that the extend of the proposal is too invasive.There already exists a plethora of eating and drinking establishments in the immediate area' onemore of the size proposed will add to the already considerable nuisance that the others generate.In particular the external roof terrace will be extremely noisy.Also the business can only add to the parking problems in the area: problems which the councilhas recently attempted to alleviate by spending large sums of money on double yellow lines.The council will surely shoot itself in the foot if this application is passed.

Mrs Mags Bainbridge CHURCH HOUSE 23 CHURCHWAYS CRESCENT BRISTOL   OBJECT

The current vibe of the Glos Road is in the main small independent businesses thatwelcome families in to their establishment.Whetherspoons is not that type of business it attracts hard and fast drinking types and has noplace in out community.

Mrs Tricia Worthington 8 WANSCOW WALK BRISTOL   OBJECT

Having lived on Brynland Ave for 10 days I support the locals in objecting to theWeatherspoons application. It is my belief a large pub will result in an increase in unsociablebehaviour, rubbish and additional traffic. Please do not allow this application

Miss Susi Manns 44 WESSEX AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

Gloucester Road has a proud history of supporting independent retail and food anddrink venues. We now have some significant supermarket chains and allowing wetherspoonswould further damage the road reputation. There are also other local pubs this chain couldsignificantly hinder. I do not support this application and the culture Wetherspoons brings with in.

Ms Grace Walsh 4 CLEVEDON ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Wetherspoons serve plenty of cheap beer and spirits. How will this affect other smallerpublic houses on the Gloucester road? They are in no position to compete with the mightWetherspoons. It is likely to cause them to go out of business; what makes Gloucester road agreat place to be is its variety. Having a roof terrace is also a bad idea. Not sure who would wantto sit on it, given the amount of noise and pollution on Gloucester road and, the roof terrace wouldadd to the noise. Drunken people shouting half the night. No thanks. I've been to lots ofWetherspoons in several different towns in the last year or two and I would always avoid them,given a choice. As I say, noisy and bad for local businesses. If there was nothing else already inthe area, then I would be more supportive.

Mr R Farrar BRYNLAND AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

This proposal concerns me mainly because of the potential noise. I live behindGloucester Road so am under no illusions that I will have peace and quiet at all times. I like thebuzz of this city road. However there are intrusive noise issues which often diminish the enjoymentof living here. There is already a popular pub - The Anchor - on this section of the road, (as well asthe well supported Royal Oak further up). There is an odd noise problem from the Anchor wherebythe noise from the rear terrace seems to echo off the backs of the houses making the noise seemto come from both the pub and the houses i.e. doubly loud. So another pub potentially doing this isof great concern to me. The new Coop refrigeration unit also hums very audibly throughout thenight and the council have done nothing about this despite complaints. So I also have no faith thatthe council will do anything about any noise complaints should the development occur. And itseems a lazy use of that building. What about a useful community space or better still an electricpoint car park to encourage cleaner car use?

Miss Susannah Wisz TENNYSON ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Gloucester Road does not need a Wetherspoons! Please! There are so many greatpubs/bars already. Lets not take away from local businesses (yes, some are small Bristolianchains as well) that could be already struggling in these uncertain times. Wetherspoons will bringsome jobs to the area but in my opinion this will not outweigh the inevitable negatives such asunsociable behavior and noise, more begging and promotion of round the clock, cheap drinking(next door to a betting shop!). Our community needs more day centre's for family's, vulnerableadults, children and the homeless. I strongly believe this would not be a positive addition to ourlocal community. Bristol Council please don't let this happen.

Mr Paul Stopler 19 CHURCH RD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

no neccessary plenty of other better drinking establishments

Mr Edward Hall 4 WESTON CRESCENT HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Whilst the current building is an eyesore, Bristol desperately needs new housing stock,not a new pub on a street already brimming with pubs.

I would instead suggest that this space should be included in the Local Plan review for residentialdevelopment.

Specifically, to the request for a J.D. Weatherspoons to be built, I am in strong opposition. Thereare many pubs, cafes, and restaurants on the Gloucester Road which cover a wide price rangeand a full suite of tastes. The Weatherspoons would clearly reduce the trade in these existingpubs. I believe that the new pub would therefore be job neutral as employees would be let go atother pubs in response to lower trade.

I also believe that many of the other pubs, cafes, and restaurants are owned and operated byBristol companies, keeping the money within the Bristol economy. Pubs such as the Anchor andTinto Lounge are a credit to the local area in their approach to improving the aspect of the localarea.

In short, I fully expect that the derelict building at 349 Gloucester Road should be redeveloped, butas housing, not a national chain pub which will extract money from the local economy.

Mrs Sarah Rauf 2 CRICKLADE RD BISHOPSTIN BEISTOL   OBJECT

I feel that this new public house will bring noisy drunk people to a residents area. Thecheap drinks at this chain attract heavy drinking which is not what we want for our community. Itwill also take trade away from other public houses on Gloucester Road that are charging more fordrinks because their buying power is not so great if not part of a big chain. Gloucester Road is aplace for independent trade not big chains.The public house is right next to a betting shop, where is the moral, ethical & social values aroundthat.

Mr Adam Baker 130 KEYS AVENUE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I believe that approval of the application for the property would draw more people to theGloucester Road area, thus benefiting other local businesses.

Ms Airlie Fife 17, CHURCHWAYS AVENUE HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

We already have a large number of bars on the Gloucester Rd. A venue of this size willbring increased drinking and noise which will impact on nearby families. As a national chain theyare likely to undercut other local and long standing venues which will have a negative impact onthis much valued shopping area.

Perhaps a better use for this building is for small retail units with accommodation above.

Miss Amy Keith 22 DARNLEY AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

Not needed or wanted

Mrs Julie Hector FILTON GROVE HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Completely unwanted and unnecessary. Don't spoil what is currently a very lovelyindependent street with another chain public house.

This will completely spoil the atmosphere of the local area and attract unwanted people into thearea.

Don't let this happen

Mrs Omeyoma Smith 28 WESTON CRESCENT BRISTOL BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to JD Weatherspoon's application to acquire 349 Gloucester Road and developthe site into a public house.

There already are various pubs, bars, coffee shops, cafes and restaurants in the area. Most ofthese are locally and independently owned - so they provide a direct benefit to the local economy.

A Weatherspoon will not add any value to the local economy. In fact the company capacity to buyand sell cheap drinks (and arguably, low quality food) will be detrimental to existing localbusinesses and reduce the quality of offering available to residents.

It will also be detrimental to the social fabric of the community - with more cheap drinks leading tomore consumption and subsequently more anti-social behaviour in an area where the majority ofresidents are families with young children.

The proximity to a betting shop and to club sports sites are also a deep concern - in terms offacilitating anti-social behaviour.

This is clearly just a money-making opportunity for the company; with absolutely no considerationfor the community, residents' quality of life, or consideration of existing businesses.

It would provide absolutely no short nor long term benefit and I urge the council to refuse thisapplication once and for all.

Ms Barbara Bloomfield 20 EGERTON ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

The whole of the UK envies Bristol and Gloucester Road as the 'longest independenthigh street in Great Britain.' We now have something like 13 outlets for the big five supermarketsbetween Stoke's Croft and Horfield so our crown is slipping. I object to Wetherspoons on groundsof noise, amenity, parking and the kinds of issues that come with outside drinking (on the terrace).It's not as if Glos Road doesn't have loads of other exciting venues!

CheersBarbara

Mrs Kirsten McMelvin 56 HIGHBURY ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

This is not in keeping with the ethos of the area and will promote social issues such asday drinking, begging, anti social behaviour.

Mr William Goodey 15 TOP FLAT TORTWORTH RD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I live off Gloucester Rd because of the small interpreted puds and restaurant

Mrs Philippa Hynes 18 CHERITON PLACE WESTBURY   OBJECT

By allowing this application from weatherspoons you (Bristol City Council) will beallowing the small independent traders in Gloucester Road to go out of business along with theassociated behaviour issues around too much cheap alcohol. Bristol is rightly proud of itsindependent roots and the council should support that

Mr Rob Wiltsher 62 BISHOP ROAD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

The Gloucester Road has now reached saturation point for bars and pubs & is in majordanger of tuning into another Whiteladies Road 'strip'. Please refuse this application and introducebalance into a very mixed community area

Mrs Kate MacLeod 58 FALMOUTH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I do not think another Pub is needed in this area, especially one from a large chain thatis not in keeping with the local neighbourhood. Gloucester Road is one of the last real independenthigh streets and we need to fight to keep it this way. Local shops, small businesses. Theapplication is not in keeping with this at all. There is plenty of avalible pubs for locals to use soanother is not needed.

Mrs Karen Loughlin 23 TYNDALLS PARK ROAD CLIFTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

Already enough pubs in Gloucester Road & Bristol Council should be supportingindependent retailers not multinationals

Dr Anna Kennard 255 GLOUCESTER ROAD, BISHOPSTON BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

I strongly object to this proposal, on the grounds that there is absolutely no need in thearea for a new licensed premise and nothing that the proposed pub offers cannot already be foundin the many other restaurants, cafes and pubs already open in the area. The impact of such a bigpub in terms of noise and antisocial behaviour would be considerable, and then there is the issueof parking. Where are the customers supposed to park? Parking in the area is at a premium evenfor residents. Furthermore, a big chain pub is not in keeping with the character of GloucesterRoad, which is full of small independent shops with an emphasis on local. There should be acogent reason for granting this licence in a cumulative impact area like Gloucester Road, and thepromise that the building will be pretty or that some low-paid jobs will be brought to the area is notit.

Mr Terence Fagg 24 LONGMEAD AVENUE BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

There are sufficient Public Houses and drink supply outlets along the Gloucester Road,especially this part of the Gloucester Road.The additional parking problems in an over parked area will cause additional strain on the area. Isuspect very few jobs will be introduced. An external roof terrace will most probably cause excessnoise for residential neighbours.

Mrs Eileen Newby 14 STADIUM ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Too many pubs Too rowdy

Mrs Georgia Barnes 9 DOONE RD BRISTOL   OBJECT

There isn't a need for a large chain on Gloucester Road - the area should be focused onlocal and small businesses. Wetherspoons do not provide any sustainable/organic/locally sourcedproducts, they make profit from supporting excessive drinking that the area doesn't need (just lookat the problem already on Cheltenham rd). Gloucester Rd should be a family friendly and thrivingLOCAL community with a value add offering, not just cheap environmentally damaging andunhealthy boozers.

Mr Steve Shaw 10 BEVERLEY ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

We do not need an outlet providing extremely cheap alcohol at prices that are onlypossible by bullying smaller pubs into closure and refusing to pay staff a living wage.

Mrs Christine Meiser 22 ST ALBANS ROAD WESTBURY PARK BRISTOL   OBJECT

Unsavoury reputation for rowdyness and disturbances to surrounding areas.

Ms Rosemary Field 120 KENNINGTON AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

We have far too many pubs etc. Students need to see there are other aspects of liferather than pubs etc.

Mr Sergio Garcia-Huidobro 23 WATHEN ROAD ST. ANDREWS BRISTOL   OBJECT

Gloucester Road character will be obliterated with the inclusion of a pub likeWetherspoons.

The area needs decent mixed-use buildings for housing and recreation and a diverse, excitingnightlife, not 'another pub' or 'Brexiters' place.

They want to serve alcohol from 09.00 in the morning! This will have a serious impact on the localbusinesses as well as the amenity of local residents.

As Will Self says about Wetherspoons: "Such places are murdering good old-fashioned boozerswith their discounts on bulk-bought fizzy slop" We don't need it in Gloucester Road!!

Mr Richard Field 15 HAZELTON ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

As a resident of BS7 I am very aware that there already exists a vast number of outletsselling alcohol on the Gloucester Road. I cannot believe there is a need for another one.There are already numerous cases of antisocial behaviour in the locality and it would be immoralto support the opening of another outlet fuelling this behaviour.

Mr Malcolm Orsborn 48 MAPLE ROAD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

The area is already replete with eating a drinking establishments more suitable for theneighbouhood. Parking is already a nightmare, and more congestion around the residential areaaround the site would be vastly detrimental to the area. There are already many sightings of drunkpeople on the street, and there is a betting shop next door which would make an unsavourycocktail. The nearby Co-op which is a good local late night shopping facility could easily become aplace of intimidation as the Wetherspoons 'pile it high and sell it cheap' ethos would most surelyprove to be an intrusive and unpleasant addition to the family-oriented demographic of the area.There is plenty of petty vandalism in the area, and Wetherspoons would feed this further.

Mrs Janie Ankers 51 CHURCH RD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I strongly object to this proposal. This is an area with a high demographic of families,one of which is mine. We already suffer from issues with parking in the area, and noise levels fromstudents. There are many other public houses and restaurants in the immediate vicinity and so thisis just not needed. What is more, we feel a large chain company will impact on the local area'scommitment to shopping and supporting independent and local businesses on the `Gloucester Rd.We do not need another chain, or a pub that will impact on existing pubs and add to antisocialbehaviour we already get from local drinkers.

Mr Phillip Ankers 51 CHURCH ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I objected to all previous applications by Weatherspoons for this change of use andredevelopment and my comments still stand for this further application. A change of use to apublic house will create a place that is not in keeping with the Gloucester Road's designation in2017 as Bristol's Independent Quarter. Although some chain outlets occupy the Road the majorityremain independent. A chain public house will tip that balance and detract from the independentnature generally. The Gloucester Road has a number of public houses within close proximity ofthis site. Introducing a further public house will not add to the amenity of the area and willcontribute to noise (people and mechanical for M&E plant), air pollution (extracted smoke andfumes from the kitchens - food sales being the key profit making activity for this chain of pubs),litter and refuse (broken glass, cigarette butts from smokers not using the rooftop smoking area),vermin (attracted by food waste including seagulls, rats and foxes) and potentially unmanageableanti-social behaviour (especially when football matches are on at the Rovers' ground as this willinevitably become a pre and post-match gathering place due to the discounted alcohol and foodon sale). Whilst competition in business is always to be encouraged, this chain will be detrimentalto existing businesses of a similar nature and will create (especially on match days) an area ofGloucester Road that will be actively avoided impacting neighbouring businesses. The site isserviceable from Gloucester Road only that will cause congestion on the road during deliveries.

In short, this site should remain as its existing use class for retail (or even as a mixed use schemeincorporating badly needed residential units) and be put back on the open market byWeatherspoons to allow others to bring forward as more sensitive development that enhances thecharacter, independence and most importantly the community of the Gloucester Road that makesthis high street unique - not a chain pub that's sole purpose is to maximise profit with little or nolinks to the surrounding community.

Miss Helen Watts 20 ASH ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

The property has been derelict for a long time and although I'd rather see anindependent business there I believe it's unlikely there would be an independent with the fundingto take on such a project as the building looks like it needs a lot of work. That being the case I'd farrather it be a Wetherspoons and still be something for the community than for it to either sitderelict for ten years or to turn into soulless flats. It would be good if consideration could be givento appropriate licensing hours and a style which is in keeping with the area, but aside from that, asothers have commented Wetherspoons are often well run establishments which are good value forpensioners and those on low income.

Unknown   SUPPORT

Mr David Jones 87 OAK CLOSE LITTLE STOKE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I would like to support this application (19/04991/F) if only for the fact that no one elsewill be likely to take on this derelict building and it will remain derelict and in an ever worseningcondition for the foreseeable future. I have never witnessed any trouble in a Wetherspoon pub. Itwould also bring more people and business generally to the Gloucester Road.

Mr Daniel Markham FLAT 379C GLOUCESTER ROAD, HORFIEL BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Over the years of being a resident in this location I have grown weary of the poor andderelict state of the current building.

A new public house is exactly what is needed to create more jobs and opportunities for this area.

I can't understand those that oppose a new establishment in the area. It is mainly due to currentpublic houses providing a poor service due to a lack of competition.

Let these establishments either sink or swim based on their and not due to a fear of competition.

Mr Zachary Ward FLAT 379C GLOUCESTER ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I believe that a Wetherspoons would be positive for the area. The current building hasstood for years and is an eyesore. It also attracts undesirable behaviour such as drug use andalcoholism to fester in its surroundings, to the point that the nearby bus stop has becoming anintimidating place for locals. Wetherspoons have a good reputation for making qualityrefurbishments of old and disused buildings such as the one in Fishponds and Corn street. Iunderstand that some locals are afraid it would ruin the local independent atmosphere, but ibelieve that this refurbishment would encourage more money and jobs to flow into the area. Thelocal public houses are seen by many to be overpriced leaving a gap in the market for a cheaperalternative. I think it is also important to note that Wetherspoons does not show sports or have livemusic. Meaning that the establishments which do have these would still have a niche in themarket. The Anchor is also a large chain pub and it hasn't closed local businesses. The only waylocal cafes and businesses can go out of business is if we, the locals do not use them. We shouldencourage competition and let the consumer decide

Dr Matthew Davies FLAT 18 ALLEN HOUSE BRISTOL   OBJECT

Large chain bar/ restaurants opening (like Witherspoons) will undoubtedly take awayvital income keeping unique independent local bars & restaurants afloat. This will wreck thecharacter of the area, destroy its individuality making it like any other bland boring sole-less innercity area across the country. People flock to Bristol voting it the best city to live in UK because ofits uniqueness, Gloucester Road being the epitome of that. Any council that were to grant planningpermission for developments would be clearly not have best interests of Bristolians at heart andwould lose my vote indefinitely

Mr COLIN STEPHENS 210 FILTON AVENUE HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I can understand the community concerns in not wanting another public house but thesite at the moment is a total eye sore and has been for many years. Weatherspoons, as far as Ihave experienced, run a safe and community conscious public house. The people frequenting therest of the public houses in Gloucester Road perhaps are those that may cause problems for thecommunity. Weatherspoons is affordable for many on limited income, perhaps that is why there is"anti another public house" from other businesses in the area.

Mr Nicholas Davies 21 SPRINGFIELD AVENUE HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

This organisation does not care for the local community or it's staff. It has campaignedto avoid paying it's staff a living wage. It has ignored the fact that the local community hasrepeatedly rejected it's attempts to obtain planning permission here.

It is not in keeping with the local area. The Gloucester Road is famous for it's uniqueness. AWetherspoons pub will just be another step towards our amazing local community becoming justlike every other dull high street. High streets across the country are dying because they havenothing special to offer. We don't want to lose what we have here.

Mrs Eleanor Davies 21 SPRINGFIELD AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

I object to this planning proposal. Bristol, and Gloucester Road in particular are wellknown and loved for their independent shops, cafes, bars and restaurants and this planningproposal goes against this. The building of a Wetherspoons pub but be one step towards creatinga soulless 'cloned' high street which I feel would be a very sad move. I was also very disappointedto learn that Wetherspoons have a reputation for not paying their staff the living wage which issomething I think most Bristolians would not wish to support if they knew this. I totally appreciatethe need to have reasonably priced venues but there are other local options which need localsupport.

Mr Christopher Tucker 42 RADNOR ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Having lived in the area for over 43years I have seen many changes on the Gloucester Road, thebiggest being Pub closures. I have been in many weatherspoon pubs and hotels, and have alwaysfound them to be excellent. The amount of money that has to be spent on this derelict eyesore ishuge and a credit to the company, but they do specialise in this form of development. Alsocreating jobs for young people in the hospitality industry is also a plus. I hope that this is finallyapproved,and it has my support, evolving is just part of what makes the Gloucester Road special..

Mr Tony Myers 27, FILTON GROVE HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

The derelict site on the Gloucester Road has been an absolute eyesore, for a decade ormore.

A Wetherspoons would eradicate that, plus bring employment to the area.As someone who very much enjoys all the diverse amenities that the Gloucester Road provides, Ihope that the application is approved.Tony Myers.

Mr Craig Broderick  239 DOVERCOURT ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

An excellent location for a Jd Wetherspoon public house and that offers a cheaperalternative than other establishments in the near vicinity. There are no local pubs in the Lockleazeany longer meaning the older generation feel alienated as they can no longer socialise as to theexpense of going out for food and drink on the Gloucester Road but the Jd Wetherspoon chainoffers affordable socialising , it also will bring commerce to the surrounding area.The other thing to be considered is that the premises at 349 Gloucester Road has been aneyesore for as long as I can remember and Jd Wetherspoon have an excellent record ofrestoration of these buildings in a thoughtful way ie: disused bingo halls and cinemas etc oftenkeeping many of the properties original decor . It's a most definite yes from me.

Mr Adrian Daddow 7 NEVIL ROAD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   SUPPORT

It would be superb to have a Wetherspoons here in Bishopston and, considering youhave allowed a new Turkish restaurant just down the road from there, I fail to understand why youhaven't allowed this before. You cannot get a decent mixed grill anywhere along Gloucester Rd.and all of the local pubs are far too expensive to frequent. Please allow this. Regards

Mrs Catherine Tyrer  75 CHURCH ROAD HORFIELD   OBJECT

Object on grounds of size of pub proposed, noise, anti-social behaviour associated withthe proposed use, traffic, impact on amenity of local residents and design.

Mrs Aurona Brooks 87 BISHOP ROAD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I long for the day Wetherspoon's opens on the Gloucester Road. They provide goodaffordable food & is family orientated. I am surprised that the council has missed out on thebusiness rates that would have been collected over the years that Wetherspoons has been deniedplanning permission. The site in question has been an eye sore, but has recently been tidied up,but it would be much better if the area could be put to good use.

Mr David Brooks 87 BISHOP ROAD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Wetherspoons is a great success in other parts of Bristol. Many other food & drinkoutlets on the Gloucester Road are not independent, but part of a chain, so the argument againstWetherspoons is not valid on that point. How can Bristol City Council justify putting up council taxwhen they are failing to collect business rates by leaving a property deliberately vacant.

Mr Jimmy Byrne 30 EXMOOR ST BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Badly needed Wetherspoon. In the area. No reason to oppose it. Not everyone canafford Gloucester rd prices.

Mr Gary Peters 1 WOODHOUSE GROVE HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

This will be an asset to students pensioners and locals of modest means. A greatAlternative to the overpriced wellington, inn on the green, lazy dog, and grace. the last few yearshave seen the loss of the vic and the fox in this area.

Mr Simon Wilton 40 MOND ROAD WIDNES   SUPPORT

This application would be great Gloucester rd. An affordable venue for families etc toeat out.

Mr Darren Marsh 23 KINGSMEAD ROAD SPEEDWELL BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I think it's time Gloucester Road had a weatherspoons with all the other pubs with highprices will be good for Gloucester Road

Mr Chris Brown 49 OVERNDALE ROAD DOWNEND BRISTOL   SUPPORT

As a frequent visitor to the shops/bars/restaurants of Gloucester Road I would welcomethe addition of a Wetherspoons public house to the region.

As much as I like the independence and variety of the current bars/restaurants they can be quiteexpensive and rather samey - I frequent other Wetherspoons in Bristol and always find themfriendly and competitively priced which is especially welcome for the older residents.

Their range of drinks is also very good and always at a good price - something that cannot be saidfor the other bars in the area, so if anything they would add to the variety and character ofGloucester Road and not detract from it.

Mr Paul Dunstone 15 ELMHURST ROAD HUTTON WESTON   SUPPORT

It would be a great addition to that part of Bristol. And fill a gap that is missing in thesocial dynamic of the area.

Mr mark revill 61 PARKSIDE GARDENS BRISTOL   SUPPORT

cheap affordable drink and food, whats not to like ?

Mr Robin Kellett-Navellou 21 CRICKLADE ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

This is a repeated attempt to ram through another vast pub on Gloucester Road despitethis application failing multiple times before.

This will attract more noise, rubbish and disorder on Gloucester Road and there is already morethan sufficient pub provision already.

Also Gloucester Road is not a place for chains and by allowing this, the Council further dilutes thespecial character of our street.

Finally I would note that as a funder and active propagandist for Vote Leave, Wetherspoons is nota suitable business for one of the most remain parts of the United Kingdom. They are not welcomehere and never will be.

They also do not pay their staff the Living Wage, which is disgraceful.

Please do not allow this awful business onto our Gloucester Road.

Dr Neil Wellman 97 DONGOLA RD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

This is the latest in a succession of applications over the last few years, all of which Ihave supported. I therefore again support Wetherspoon's latest proposal to convert and makegood use of a building which for many years has stood derelict, is no doubt a haven for vermin,and is an eyesore on the street.

Furthermore, I believe that a Wetherspoon would both provide additional local jobs and add to theamenities of the local area by offering more choice and options for both refreshments and food. Inparticular, and judging from my experience of other Wetherspoon pubs, it would offer anaffordable, quiet, family friendly environment when compared with the wall-to-wall sports TVand/or music of other local establishments.

Whilst by no means gourmet dining, Wetherspoon is renown for its good value for money mealsand range of well kept and well priced beers (often local, thus supporting local businesses).

I know that there are some concerns regarding the density of licensed premises on GloucesterRoad, but would point out that over the last few years both The Old Fox (now a restaurant) andThe Old Vic (now boarded up) have been closed and thus a Wetherspoon would only partiallyoffset such pub closures (In doing so I not count The Drapers Arms as this is a micro pub with veryrestricted opening hours: even if one did then this would merely reinstate the status quo).

In relation to such concerns, I understand that Wetherspoon has provided detailed statementsregarding their planned customer control and security arrangements. I would add that in mypersonal experience of visiting many Wetherspoon outlets, both in Bristol and around the country,customer control has never been an issue. In fact, I have never encountered the sort of behaviour

(including violence to myself) exhibited in some other local pubs in a Wetherspoon outlet.

I know from following previous applications that various local groups and some residents ofBrynland Avenue have objected to previous proposals on the grounds of smells, noise, crowdcontrol etc. However, I note that in response to such concerns Wetherspoon have consistentlymade adjustments to to accommodate to them. There is also a faction who object on the groundsof the notion of the 'special sanctity' of the Gloucester Road. In light of the number of coffee shops,fast food outlets, charity shops and some-such, I believe such claims to be ill-founded and askwhether they would prefer that the premises remain a derelict?

In relation to this, following the last application's refusal, I was told by a local Councillor thatalternative proposals and/or uses were in the offing. However, I have yet to see any evidence ofthis and in their absence I feel that, if we are to remove this eyesore, make good use of thepremises, provide extra local jobs and affordable amenities, then Wetherspoon is 'the only gamein town'.

I therefore fully support this application and see no valid reasons for it to be rejected.

Mrs Estelle Wellman 97 DONGOLA RD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I am fully in support of this application as I feel that it would remove what is currently aderelict eyesore and provide an additional amenity and jobs to the area.

Mr Robin Bowers 16 EMBASSY WALK ST GEORGE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

It would be a great addition to the area and would help to clear away an eyesore thathas been unused for years

Bristol has lost so many community venues ( public houses ) and it would regenerate some of thelocal community

Mrs Isolda Fuller 47 LONGMEAD AVENUE BRISTOL   OBJECT

There are plenty of pubs along Gloucester rd and it would be better to open this spaceupfor community use

Mr Neil Pirie 53 FALMOUTH ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

First, I would point out that these premises were not a disused Co-op.Second, I note with surprise that most of the support statements are from people who live nowherenear the site; and indeed would be hard pushed to get there via any kind of public transport. Theyare ill suited to comment on the application as a community facility.The area does NOT need another pub. There is good variety, nearly all of whom serve good food.One disadvantage of a pub is that it requires a lot of deliveries, and the arterial thoroughfare onwhich this site lies, does not need even more delivery vehicles interupting buses and cyclists andcars.

A final objection to this applicant is that it hs a very discriminatory policy regarding wht it offers -that is, no BelgiAN beers, and probably no European cuisine.We do not need another watering hole for football supporters before and after matches.

Mr Chris Knight 112 DOWNEND ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I wholeheartedly object to a vast chain pub opening on Gloucester Road.

Pubs locally are already closing down without the pressures of 'copy & paste' establishmentsopening up. We should be supporting local businesses who then spend their profits locally, not amorally dubious company who doubtless use creative accounting to minimise their tax bill.

The beauty of Gloucester Road is in the character of independent businesses. There are plenty ofcafes and restaurants locally who's food offers excellent value for money. We mustn't allow thewatering down of our local character.

This space should be converted into social housing instead.

Mr Philip Adams 21 LUCKINGTON ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Great idea, suitable for the area offering affordable food and refreshments to the localpopulation. A different venue to the other over priced establishments in the vicinity.

Mr Martin Sealey  78 ROYAL ROAD MANGOTSFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

I think it would be good for the area gives you a bit more of a choice of where to go for adrink and something to have a meal on Gloucester Road

Ms Cher Lawless 92 BROMLEY RD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

We have been waiting for this for years.People may moan about a wetherspoons being on Gloucester Rd and refer to the independentnature of the road, but they're happy to use one of the two or three tescos. 2 co-ops a sainsbury'sand a morrisons.Life moves on. A wetherspoons will be a welcome change to the often overpriced drinking holesthat are already on Glos rd.Who wants to pay £4.70 for a pint?I would love a wetherspoons and fully support it. We're not all middle class people here who owntheir own homes and I feel like the only people who are objecting are snobs.

Mr Neil Greenwood 385 GLOUCESTER ROAD HORFIELD BRISTOL   OBJECT

Gloucester Road in famous for its stretch of independent businesses, it remains one ofthe incredible landmarks of Bristol and to allow a Wetherspoons would open the gates to all otherchains and before long it will be come another faceless, failing high street.The venue will actively promote irresponsible drinking, cheap & long hours, It will seek to close alllocal cafes and bars by undercutting them and the effect will be devastating on the area that is soloved.

Ms AS Schmidt 43 QUARRINGTON ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

This is a further attempt to establish this chain on an independent high street despitemany failed previous applications.

There is a vast variety of pubs and cafes on Gloucester Road already and the associated noise,drunkenly behaviour and rubbish driven by cheaply sold alcohol will only diminish the uniquecharacter of Gloucester Road and will drive out smaller independent businesses.

Bristol West was one of the highest Remain voting areas in the country, a business avidlysupporting and promoting Brexit is simply not welcome here.

Mrs J Lee SPRINGFIELD AVENUE HORFIELD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Mrs Emma Taylor- Stubbs 117 BRYNLAND AVE BRISTOL   OBJECT

A roof terrace would be very noisy, especially in the evenings for neighbouringresidents.Also Wetherspoons promotes cheap drinking which will increase anti-social behaviour in the area.There are many other pubs within a 5 minute walk of this proposal and I don't think the area cansustain more

Mrs P Esmaili 7 DONGOLA ACE BRISTOL   OBJECT

Not this again? Please take a good look at where the comments of support are comingfrom. Very few from the local community. I imagine most comments have been made by workers,friends and families of Wetherspoon.

For those of us affected almost daily by anti-social behaviour from the existing drinking holes,please don't make it even worse. Really rather fed up of picking up bottles, glasses and yes,cleaning up vomit from drinkers from my driveway! So unless Wetherspoon agrees to do a dailysweep of the area, this proposal does NOT get my vote.

Mr Martyn Howlett 643 MULLER ROAD MULLER ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

The more competition the better . Reasonably priced ale is a positive

Mr William Woodman 71 RADNOR ROAD, BISHOPSTON, BRISTOL BS7 8RA   OBJECT

How many more times are Wetherspoons going to try to get this application passed.They have been turned down 5 times already and don't seem to realise that another drinkingplace, especially one that sells cheap drinks and will undoubtedly attract more anti-socialbehaviour, noise, mess and petty vandalism, is not wanted here. Gloucester road, quite rightly,has a reputation for being one of the longest road of independent traders in the UK, and as suchhas a unique and interesting selection of shops and premises. Allowing Wetherspoons to move incould open the floodgates to other national chains and destroy the character of the area. I noticethat quite a few of the comments in support of this application come from outside this area,whether they are genuine I do not know, but surely the people having to live near this proposedestablishment and will be most affected by it should have the final say on the outcome of thisapplication.

Mrs Madeleine Ashton 6 DOWNEND ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I feel there are enough pubs close to this unit already, and this particular brand is not inkeeping with the current feel and atmosphere of the area - mostly the local residents are familiesand it would be preferable to have something more functional and family friendly at that location.

Mr Aaron Ball 22 GATCOMBE DRIVE BRISTOL   SUPPORT

A Wetherspoons would be ideal for Gloucester Road with their affordable prices for foodand drinks unlike most of the other bars and pubs in the area

Mr Steven Purnell  2 MANOR GROVE PATCHWAY BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Fully support this

Mr Ricki Paddon  18 ST GEORGE ROAD BULWARK CHEPSTOW   SUPPORT

I feel having a J D Wetherspoons up Gloucester Road would be an amazing edition to avast array of pubs. Not only is Wetherspoons one of the most recognised Hospitality company'swithin the U.K., there also isn't a Wetherspoons pub on Gloucester Road. Having a Wetherspoonson Gloucester Road would be good for the locals and other Bristolians.In this day and age where alcohol prices are going up, it would be good for home supporters ofBristol Rovers F.C to have a cheap drink and meal before the game.. especially for those withfamilies who are on a budget!With many students living on or around Gloucester Road, it would be a good pub to have forstudents also on a budget.

Chelsea FC have a Wetherspoons at Fulham Broadway which always does a fantastic trade andmakes for an amazing atmosphere.

I'm all for the Wetherspoons being built on Gloucester Road, and the sooner, the better!

Mr Jon Friesner  62 DONGOLA ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I feel the size and scale of this proposed development is a real concern, not only interms of the physical development of the site but also the local impact on residents wrt noise etc.

Mr Martin Peacock 37 BYE MEAD EMERSONS GREEN BRISTOL   SUPPORT

This would make good use of a site that has been empty and neglected and bringcompletion and employment.Given that this is on a main road noise, traffic etc. effects will be insignificant.Additionally Wetherspoons offers a place for lower income residents to meet, drink (notnecessarily alcoholic as ) eat and socialise as a community.The nearest Wetherspoons is quite some way away so is a better use of the site than thesaturation of convenient supermarket stores etc.

Mr Bryn Goodhead 57 OAK ROAD BRISTOL   SUPPORT

Wetherspoons have evidently tried to mitigate the concerns from the previousapplication with this submission.

The previous underlying points still apply:The building has been derelict for a long time and is an eyesore;Granting of the application will provide additional employment;The site is on a main road, so noise increase is likely to be minimal or unnoticeable vs. baseline.

Mr chris mountain 17 MAPLE ROAD, BISHOPSTON, BRISTOL BS7 8RD   SUPPORT

I support this improved application as I believe it will bring competition to the pubs inGloucester Road which is badly needed.

This site has been an eyesore for too many years and something needs to be done. There is ahistory of selling alcohol from this site as part of it was a "Booze and News" shop.

I am a customer of Wetherspoons in other towns and am happy for them to be in this part ofGloucester Road.

From this part of Horfield we have lost over the last few years The Queen Vic and The Fox Inngaining The Drapers Arms. With the addition of this establishment we would regain the status quo.

With regard to complaints about it affecting individual exclusive nature of traders on GloucesterRoad. This would be the case from the Golden Lion towards the centre. This part of GloucesterRoad hardly has an exclusive air... Betfair and the Co-op,,,

If this planning application comes to fruition I believe will be good for the area and I fully supportit...