Application Details

Reference 20/00022/F
Address 102 Gloucester Road Bishopston Bristol BS7 8BN  
Street View
Gloucester Road Story
Proposal Construction of three storey extension comprising 9 apartments (use class C3), new ground floor retail space (use class A1) as well as conversion of existing loft to office use (use class B1a) (Resubmission of application 19/01527/F).
Validated 06-01-20
Type Full Planning
Status Pending consideration
Neighbour Consultation Expiry 30-01-20
Standard Consultation Expiry 29-01-20
Determination Deadline 02-03-20
BCC Planning Portal Application
Public Comments Supporters: 1 Objectors: 9  Unstated: 3  Total: 13
No. of Page Views 120

TBS response:

Public Comments

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

Bristol Civic Society welcomes the improvement to the Berkeley Road elevation whichhas a better relationship with the existing houses than the earlier submission. The Society still hasa number of concerns. We feel that the grey brick proposed for the westward extension is notappropriate. The materials for this extension should relate more closely to the materials of thenearby houses in Berkeley Road in order to better conserve and enhance the character of theConservation Area. It is not clear how one of the bedrooms in Flat 4 would be accessed. We arealso concerned that the flats over the new library could be overshadowed and overlooked by theproposal.

Mr Ben Smith 4 BERKELEY ROAD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

FAO David MacFayden, Planning Officer, BCC

Dear Mr MacFayden,

We would refer to our submission from "Planning Ventures" which gives a detailed response tothis planning application. However, we would also like to list a few additional points here.

- There are some potentially significant errors and omissions in the drawings, most notably theelevations show the "Spandrel Panels" to be in the last column of windows, on the western end ofthe site, but the plans of the flats show these to be in the next column along. This affects theinternal design of the flats.- As with previous submissions, there are no dimensions marked on the drawings other thanfinished floor lines. This makes some key dimensions and impacts on our property all butimpossible to determine, unless using Nicholas Morley's computer!- There appears to be only one entrance to the area marked "shop" on Berkeley road. Whilst thisis most welcome in terms of reducing commercial access on this residential street, it seemsstrange because we've also been informed that the area marked "shop" won't be part of theNailsea Electrical showroom, despite it having stairs apparently connecting to it? Can it be clarifiedif this "shop" is part of NE or going to be a separate business?- We would ask that the roofline of the sedum roof be adjusted so that the existing westernboundary wall is not made higher, but the desired height of the "shop" level is achieved with aroofline that slopes up/down from/to the existing wall. Such a slanting roof portion could havevelux-style windows, which would allow light into the 'shop" and surely make it more pleasant

inside? It is difficult to say how high the roofline is from the drawings supplied, but such acompromise was already agreed with the granting of the 2015 warehouse planning application.- Whilst the overall appearance is improved on the previous submission, we feel that some lightergrey stone (akin to no's 37, 39 and 41 Berkeley Rd, as shown in the Design and AccessStatement) would be more in-keeping with the street scene for the flats than the proposed darkgrey brickwork, which might appear too "heavy" especially when continued around the side andrear of the development?- The western boundary of the flats is now much closer to our property which will lead to a lack ofamenity and reduction in light / increase in shading which needs further clarification and a cleardrawing with dimensions to explain. We feel that the flats should, at the very least, be "notchedback" effectively removing "bedroom 1" from flats 1 and 5.- There needs to be screening from the terraces and the terraces need to be reduced towards thewestern wall - at the moment PL08 shows the terrace going right up to the western wall atop thesedum roof.- There needs to be a more detailed traffic report that accurately assesses the realistic impact ofthe changes to the site (some of which will improve matters, but other changes may be lessfavourable)- We would want a written enforcement that removed any further HGV deliveries onto BerkeleyRoad (shouldn't be a problem, because this is being verbally promised, but we'd like this in writingfor perpetuity).

In summary, we feel this is an improvement, but it still represents an overdevelopment of the site.We feel 9 flats don't represent the best 'quality of urban design.' They are too many for the area toproperly accommodate and we feel that existing accommodation in the library flats and thedwellings at the eastern end of Berkeley Road will lose amenity, be significantly overlooked andcould be disturbed by noise. We would propose that the four gable-ends be reduced to three, thatthe flats extend less deeply into the current yard space, and that the number of flats be reducedbut made into higher quality living spaces.

We feel that we are "moving in the right direction" though and welcome further dialogue to reach aconclusion that is a great deal and worthy compromise for all parties.

Yours sincerely,

Ben and Naomi Smith4 Berkeley Road.

Unknown  

● CIL Questionnaire Form, 5 January 2020 

The Proposals - Resubmission and Design Changes 

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

The proposals involve the partial demolition of the existing ground floor shop, and the construction of a                                 replacement new shop with 9 apartments above (4 x one-bed, 3 x two-bed, 2 x three-bed). The existing                                   Methodist church is also to be refurbished with an additional storey proposed within its existing volume,                               extensive new glazing along the Gloucester Road elevation, a truncated roof and restored window openings on                               the Berkeley Road elevation, and a number of new rooflights/roof dormers throughout.  

The proposals represent a re-submission of previously withdrawn Application Ref. 19/01527/F. According to the                           supporting Design, Access, Planning and Retail Statement (January 2020), the changes to the scheme now                             involve the following:  

● New scheme takes more influence from Berkeley Road street scene, with building mass greatly reduced ● Two and three-bedroom apartments are now dual aspect ● Ground floor retail along Berkeley Road redesigned with more glazed openings ● Number of new openings in existing Chapel reduced ● Parking Strategy rationalised given sustainable location  ● Information provided justifying partial demolition of chapel ● Terraces/balconies at second floor level omitted to preserve amenity for adjacent residents 

These comments outline the application site, the relevant planning history and the current planning policy context,                               and consider the key planning issues associated with the revised scheme. 

The Application Site 

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

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

There is an irregularly shaped tarmac service yard to the rear, enclosed by a stone boundary wall to the south.                                       There is a significant difference in levels here such that the library building is set down approximately 1.8m below                                     the yard, and includes a cut-away design feature facing directly onto the site (this cut-out is intended to                                   accommodate a large new tree, which was an explicit requirement of the approved scheme for the library                                 development under Consent Ref. 07/05629/F, however this has not materialised and there is a consequent lack of                                 soft landscaping around this building, in breach of the conditions attached to this consent). The apartments                               

above are slightly set back. The yard is contained to the west by a 1.8m block boundary wall with No.’s 4 and 4A                                             Berkeley Road. Vehicular access to the yard is via a single-width lane off Berkeley Road between the side                                   extension of Nailsea Electrical and No. 4. The service yard accommodates refuse bins along with six large metal                                   shipping containers which have been in-situ without planning consent and are very unsightly. Customer parking                             for up to 11 vehicles is provided along the Berkeley Road frontage. 

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

The site falls within the Gloucester Road Conservation Area. 

Relevant Planning History 

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

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

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

Finally, in March 2019 an application was submitted for the ​‘​Construction of 9 No. (2 bedroom flats) flats over                                     extended ground floor retail area, following part demolition of ground and first areas, and conversion of loft area                                   to create office space. External alterations to existing building and forecourt on Gloucester Road and Berkley                               Road Elevation including roof extension to tower’ (Ref. 19/01527/F).​ This was withdrawn prior to determination.  

Current Planning Policy Context  

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

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

In addition to the adopted Development Plan, national planning policy is relevant in the form of the National                                   Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2019). This sets out the Government’s presumption in favour of sustainable                             

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

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

Key Planning Issues  

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

Principle and Quantum of Development  

Residential Use 

Core Strategy Policy BCS5 confirms how the Core Strategy aims to deliver new homes within the built up area of                                       the city, to contribute towards accommodating a growing number of people and households. Furthermore, Core                             Strategy Policy BCS 18 states how all new residential development should maintain, provide or contribute to a                                 mix of housing tenures, types and sizes to help support the creation of mixed, balanced and inclusive                                 communities. It requires that residential developments provide sufficient space for everyday activities and enable                           flexibility and adaptability by meeting appropriate space standards. 

On the basis of these policies, the principle of further residential development in this location is accepted, however                                   as per Application Ref. 19/01527/F, the number of units proposed is still patently excessive and tantamount to                                 over-development for this particular constrained site, with insufficient private amenity space provided for future                           residents.  

Commercial Use 

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

The supporting Design, Access, Planning and Retail Statement (Section 9.0) confirms how Nailsea Electrical                           currently requires numerous deliveries of appliances/other items (as storage is on site) which creates difficulties                             for neighbouring properties and for the use of Berkeley Road for pedestrians and vehicles. Accordingly, it is                                 proposed that all storage will be moved off site to a dedicated warehouse, such that there will be no deliveries of                                         stock to the premises. It also confirms that the internal layout of the existing retail areas will be reconfigured and                                       expanded to create a larger shopfront to Gloucester Road and to improve the viability of the business. 

Whilst the removal of all storage and deliveries off-site is clearly welcomed, the expansion of the retail floorspace                                   is still of concern. The Design, Access, Planning and Retail Statement states how ​‘There is an increase in retail                                     area of 265sqm which clearly shows that there is no detrimental effect on Gloucester Road whatsoever’​.                               

However this would still result in a significant amount of retail space (905sqm, plus 117sqm of ancillary office                                   space) in a relatively constrained location.  

As per the proposals under Application Ref. 19/01527/F, the intentions for the retail space within the ground floor                                   of the scheme remain extremely ambiguous. The infilling of the entire existing yard would create a large retail                                   space in itself (simply described as ‘shop’ on Drawing No. PL08), which has potential amenity impacts (even if all                                     deliveries are taken off site, it could still result in significant increase in customers to the premises). There is no                                       guarantee that Nailsea Electrical will occupy the premises in perpetuity, and any future retail occupier could adopt                                 quite different trading/servicing arrangements. Similarly, there is no guarantee that the retail space would not be                               separated at some point into two self-contained commercial units (there is only a small set of internal steps                                   separating the two shop floor areas). If this is the case, the rear unit would likely be accessed directly off Berkeley                                         Road, and could potentially reintroduce all the delivery/collection problems for the residents here that this                             application is seeking to resolve.  

It is therefore critical that the proposed amount of retail space (just short of a ‘major’ development) and the                                     potential amenity impacts of this are clarified, controlled and adequately future-proofed at this stage. If permitted,                               we therefore suggest that robust planning conditions should be imposed to prohibit access/egress to the retail                               unit from Berkeley Road (other than use of the fire exit) and to restrict all stock delivery/collections associated                                   with the premises to the Gloucester Road elevation (if not located completely off-site).  

Quantum 

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

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

As shown on Drawing No. PL07, the proposed scheme will tie into the remains of the existing building and occupy                                       the entire rear service yard tight up to the boundaries, such that the site would be completely covered with                                     development. In fact, the layout is even denser than that proposed under Application Ref. 19/01527/F, in that the                                   proposed flats have now been shifted further towards the boundary wall and side access drive with No’s 4/4A                                   Berkeley Road (approx. 1metre). As per Application Ref. 19/01527/F, they will again extend approximately                           halfway down the length of the rear garden of No. 4, well beyond the two-storey rear extension to this property                                       which accommodates habitable rooms at both levels (first floor lounge and kitchen below, both with side and rear                                   windows). As shown on Drawing No. PL10, the imposing side (west) elevation will again dominate the outlook                                 from these rooms and have an unacceptably overbearing impact on the rear gardens of the properties at the                                   eastern end of Berkeley Road.  

In addition, whilst the removal of most of the west-facing balconies from Application Ref. Ref. 19/01527/F is                                 welcomed, a first floor terrace is still proposed with Flat 1, which will look immediately out onto the rear of No. 4                                           Berkeley Road and the rear gardens beyond. Whilst this is a dense urban area, this would be unreasonably                                   intrusive, particularly given the shift of the flats closer to this boundary.  

In summary, whilst the dense and disparate arrangement of buildings and spaces here is acknowledged, the                               layout and form of the revised scheme remains excessive and insensitive to this tight urban site, and does not                                     satisfactorily address the layout/density concerns with Application Ref. 19/01527/F. The covering of the entire                           yard would still result in no curtilage land to the new flats, which does not reflect the character of the area of                                           buildings interspersed with pockets of space. The proposed scheme is crudely crammed onto the site, and the                                 extent of site coverage tight up to the south and western boundaries (even tighter to the westen boundary) will                                     be oppressive and overbearing to the neighbouring occupiers. For these reasons, the layout and form of the                                 proposals do not accord with the guidance of Development Management Policy DM27.  

We suggest that this site is simply not capable of accommodating this quantum of commercial space, plus 9 new                                     flats. A more realistic solution would likely involve a three-gabled frontage to Berkeley Road, pulled well back off                                   the western boundary with the access drive/No. 4 Berkeley Road, and featuring nearer 7 residential units.  

Design and Appearance 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The design and external appearance of the revised scheme is shown on Drawing No.’s PL10, PL11, PL12, PL13                                   and PL16, however as per Application Ref. 19/01527/F, these drawings still do not provide sufficient illustration of                                 how the structure will actually present to Berkeley Road or relate to all of the neighbouring occupiers. Drawing                                   No. PL12 shows existing and proposed sections through the south of the site, and Drawing No. PL13 shows an                                     existing and proposed streetscene along Gloucester Road. Yet there are still no corresponding sections shown                             through the north of the site and no streetscene drawings along Berkeley Road, to illustrate just exactly how the                                     scheme will relate to the form and height of No.’s 4 and 6 and the wider residential streetscape here. It is                                         acknowledged that photographs of the Existing and Proposed Views along Berkeley Road have been submitted,                             

but these should not be a substitute for accurate drawings which show the full expanse of the street scene and                                       roofscape.  

With regard to the design changes since Application Ref. 19/01527/F, the gable-frontage form to Berkeley Road                               is welcomed, although the four ‘terraces’ have quite narrow proportions and possibly don’t reflect the wider                               frontages of some of the Berkeley Road properties. Similarly, whilst there are pairs and short terraces of two and                                     three Victorian villas along Berkeley Road, there are actually no terraces of four, such that this is not a typical                                       ‘grouping’ within the street. Again, it is difficult to appreciate how the form of the scheme will sit within Berkeley                                       Road, without a wide street scene drawing.  

The dual-aspect nature of the flats is an improvement, but the internal layouts are still awkward (Flat 6 has a                                       bedroom with a skylight only, and no outlook at all) and they appear ‘crammed’ into the new external shell with a                                         resulting poor relationship of windows to internal rooms (it is unclear whether the end snug/bedroom of Flats 1                                   and 5 are served by windows or a ‘green spandrel panels’, whilst the next window along within the                                   living/kitchen/diner is bisected by a dividing wall).  

The proposed ground floor windows within the terraced Berkeley Road retail frontage are an improvement on the                                 previously proposed blank elevation, however they are very domestic in appearance and the full height narrow                               windows appear awkward in relation to the building (the terraces lack visual hierarchy). Furthermore, the                             entrance to the bin store for the shop appears to be through a very modest single door - this would appear                                         slightly impractical for the size of bins involved?  

It is noted that the number of proposed rooflights across the church roof has been reduced from 14 to 5 (which is                                           welcomed), however 4 of these have been substituted with dormer windows (within the slope facing Berkeley                               Road) which may be equally prominent and incongruous with the original roof form.  

The omission of the terraces within the Berkeley Road frontage and to the rear of the 2nd and 3rd floors is                                         welcomed, however the revised proposals still include a western facing terrace (serving Flat 1) which will result in                                   direct overlooking into the gardens of No.’s 4 and 6, and introduce potential noise and disturbance for these                                   existing occupiers. 

Finally, it is noted that the new-build element will now be finished predominantly in dark grey brick (red-brick                                   proposed under Application Ref. 19/01527/F). Whilst there are a variety of materials and textures throughout                             Berkeley Road in particular, a dark-grey brick will be very dense and ‘heavy’ in appearance and could well jar                                     with some of the softer stonework, brick and finishes in the locality. Specifically, the proposed west elevation                                 (facing the side access lane and No.4 Berkeley Road) with no articulation will appear bland, blocky and                                 overbearing.  

In summary, whilst the revised scheme represents an improvement on Application Ref. 19/01527/F, with regard                             to the requirements of Policies DM26 and DM3O: 

● It will not contribute positively to the character and identity of the area or reinforce its local distinctiveness                                   - the proposed terraced form does not reflect the proportions and groupings of the Victorian residential                               streets, whilst the western elevation will still appear monolithic and ‘heavy’ within the Berkeley Road                             streetscene;   

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

 ● Responds more appropriately to the existing Victorian buildings, but still involves a number of new ‘urban’                               

roof openings to the historic church;  

● Provides some activity to the Berkeley Road ground floor frontage, but does not provide a well composed                                 retail/shop frontage that reads logically with the residential flats above or make a really positive                             contribution to the streetscape here;  

 ● The closer proximity of the edge of the main block to No. 4 Berkeley Road in particular is unacceptable                                     

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

 ● Will not be visually subservient to the existing building - the new terraced element will be of equal height                                     

and prominence to the former church structure;   

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

● Fails to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring occupiers - the outlook and rear gardens to the                               (even-numbered) properties at the eastern end of Berkeley Road will be dominated by the scheme, and                               overlooked by the 1st floor balcony to Flat 1 on the western elevation;  

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

● The nine dwellings are tightly tucked into a small space, and appear ‘crammed’ into an external shell that                                   does not relate well to their internal layout. They represent overdevelopment for this particular site.  

In summary, whilst the revised scheme is welcomed, we are concerned that it still does not represent high quality                                     urban design. It could still contribute more positively to local character and distinctiveness, and take full                               opportunity to meaningfully improve the character and quality of the site and contribute to the public realm.  

We suggest that further positive revisions would involve a three-gabled frontage (finished in lighter grey stone                               more akin to No.’s 37-41 Berkeley Road and pulled away from the western boundary) a reduced number of flats,                                     improved soft landscaping, the omission/screening of terraces, the reconfiguration of the ground frontage glazing                           along Berkeley Road, and more articulation and variety within the external finishes and detailing throughout.  

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

Heritage 

In accordance with Policies BCS22, DM31 and national planning guidance, and proposals on the site should                               conserve and/or enhance heritage assets and the character and setting of areas of acknowledged importance,                             including Conservation Areas. The local significance of the Methodist church is outlined in the Gloucester Road                               Conservation Area Character Appraisal (Adopted April 2017). The document describes the chapel as ‘a local                             landmark’. whilst also describing ‘views towards the tower of the former Methodist Chapel’ as a key view in the                                     conservation area. 

The revised scheme proposes extensive double-height glazing across the Gloucester Road elevation of the chapel                             building. We recognise the need for a more modern workable shopfront and acknowledge that there is a balance                                   to be achieved in terms of introducing new elements and retaining original fabric, so do not object to this.   

Similarly, we recognise the need for improvements to the church and for it function and accommodate modern                                 uses. Accordingly, we welcome the reduction in the number of proposed rooflights across the church roof from 14                                   

to 5, although do have some concern that 4 of these have been substituted with dormer windows (within the                                     slope facing Berkeley Road) which may be equally prominent within the original roof form.  

We note that the end bay of the church is to be removed (and the roof above truncated) and replaced with a                                           glazed two-storey link between the historic structure and the new-build terrace. It is understood that this                               demolition is due to the bay being of ‘poor and dangerous’ construction. Whilst we are unclear as to why the end                                         bay and section above could not simply be reconstructed, we do not object to this.  

Finally, the re-opening of the central door on the Gloucester Road elevation and the restoration of a more                                   traditional window rhythm on the Berkeley Road elevation are welcomed.  

In summary, we welcome the improvements to the church and suggest that, on balance, any less than substantial                                   harm associated with the proposed alterations is outweighed by the public benefits of removing the clutter of                                 modern signage and reinstating some of the original features of the historic structure.  

Highway Access, Traffic impact and Parking 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The supporting Design, Access, Planning and Retail Statement (Section 9.0) confirms how it is proposed that all                                 storage will be moved off site to a dedicated warehouse, such that there will be no deliveries/collection of stock                                     from the premises. Whilst this is welcomed, the revised proposals still involve a total of 1022sqm commercial                                 space (905sqm retail, plus 117sqm office) plus 9 residential flats (including two family-sized units) on a relatively                                 constrained site and no Transport Statement has been submitted with the application - it is critical that this is                                     

now provided in order for the proposed transport arrangements/traffic impacts of the mix of uses to be properly                                   assessed.  

It is also critical that no future retail occupier of the building would reinstate deliveries/collections of stock from the                                     premises (particularly given that the rear service yard will be completely subsumed by the enlarged shop). If                                 permitted, all stock delivery/collections associated with the premises from the Berkeley Road elevation should be                             prohibited by a robust planning condition.  

In respect of car parking, the submitted Design, Access, Planning and Retail Statement states how there are                                 currently 9 customer parking spaces along the Berkeley Road building frontage (although all these involve                             vehicles reversing directly out onto the public highway, directly opposite a petrol filling station and close to a very                                     busy junction). The document states how these spaces will all be retained for customer usage (these should be                                   clearly identified on Drawing No.’s PL06 and PL07), but makes no comment on provision for the occupants of the                                     9 new flats. Whilst it is acknowledged that this is a sustainable location with good access to public transport, we                                       consider that this lack of provision for the flats is unrealistic - at least some of the residents will own cars (two                                           family-sized units are included in the accommodation mix) and there will be overspill/congestion in the                             surrounding roads as a result. The principle of car-free housing here is not necessarily in dispute, but again the                                     quantum of flats is, given the traffic movements it will generate.  

The secure, cycle store with capacity for 22 cycles is welcomed, although there is potential conflict with accessing                                   these through the customer parking area (again, customer spaces should be clearly identified on Drawing No. 's                                 Drawing No.’s PL06 and PL07).  

In summary, whilst the removal of all stock storage/deliveries/collections off site is very much welcomed, there are                                 still potential traffic impacts with the revised scheme which need to be addressed. The increase in retail                                 floorspace could well result in increased customer traffic, whilst the lack of car parking for the new residents of                                     the flats is unrealistic and will result in an inevitable increase in parking on the rest of the road which is already                                           overcrowded on both sides. For all these reasons, the revised proposals still do not adequately address                               Development Management Policy DM23, and a full Transport Statement and Travel Plan should be provided to                               demonstrate how they can be addressed and traffic can be better managed at the site.  

Impact on Residential Amenity 

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

As described above, the closer proximity of the flats, the long blank western elevation and the entire extent of the                                       site coverage, will dominate the outlook from the side and rear of No.’s 4 and 6 Berkeley Road and have a                                         significantly overbearing effect on these dwellings. The proposed 1st floor terrace (Flat 1) will also result in direct                                   overlooking into the gardens of No.’s 4 and 6, whilst the proximity of this terrace is also likely to result in noise                                           disturbance.  

Whilst the new flats have been reduced in height from Application Ref. 19/01527/F), the bulk, scale and mass of                                     the building may still result in a loss of daylight and sunlight to No.’s 4 and 6 Berkeley Road and we note again                                             that no assessment of this has been submitted with the application in respect of this issue.  

For these reasons, in addition to the daily traffic disturbance, the revised proposals do not safeguard the                                 amenities of neighbouring occupiers and do not comply with Policies BCS21, DM27 and DM30. If permitted, we                                 suggest that robust planning conditions should be imposed to require some soft landscaping treatment to the                               western boundary of the development and obscure screening to the proposed first floor terrace to Flat No. 1.  

Sustainability and Drainage 

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

Policy BCS13 requires development to contribute to mitigating and adapting to climate change and to                             demonstrate this through a Sustainability Statement, proportionate to the scale of the proposals. Policy BCS14                             requires development to include measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from energy use, and to                             incorporate renewable energy sources to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from residual energy use in buildings                             by at least 20%. Policy BCS15 requires the integration of sustainable design and construction measures in new                                 development, whilst Policy BCS16 expects all development to incorporate measures to reduce surface water                           run-off (30% target in other urban areas). 

The revised application is accompanied by a Sustainable Energy Statement. This confirms that a 20.40%                             reduction in emissions from residual energy use in the new scheme will be achieved through the incorporation of                                   28 No. PV panels on the flat roof. Whilst this reduction is welcomed, it is the minimum necessary to satisfy the                                         policy requirement and the applicant should be encouraged to install as many panels as are viable. Some                                 electrical car charging would also be a useful addition for customers.  

It is also noted that a sedum roof is proposed which will help to reduce surface water run-off, although there is no                                           curtilage space remaining within the site for water to actually disperse to. Whilst the roof feature is welcomed, it                                     is unclear on the proposed height of this, and suggest that it would be visually beneficial (for the residents of No.’s                                         4 and 6 Berkeley Road) if the sedum roof could be tapered down towards the western boundary. We also                                     suggest that details of its precise specification and how it will be maintained should be requested.  

For these reasons and in the absence of further information, we do not currently consider that Core Strategy                                   Policies BCS15 and 16 are adequately addressed.  

Refuse/Recycling Provision 

Development Management Policy DM32 requires all new development to provide shared recycling and refuse                           bins of sufficient capacity. The location and design of this should be integral to the design of the development. In                                       assessing proposals, regard will be had to the level and type of provision, location (with satisfactory access for                                   users and collection operatives), the impact of the provision of visual amenity (having regard to the need to                                   minimise the prominence of the facilities and screen any external provision), the impact on the health and amenity                                   of neighbouring development, security against pests, vandalism, unauthorised use. Recycling/refuse storage                     should be kept separate from cycle storage, car parking and key circulation areas. 

The proposals relocate the existing refuse and recycling provision for the retail unit from the rear of the site to the                                         front of the building fronting Berkeley Road, whilst the store for the new flats is located in the centre of the                                         building. Both will require access directly adjacent to the customer car parking, and this should be clearly                                 identified on Drawing No. 's Drawing No.’s PL06 and PL07 to ensure there are no conflicts.  

Drawings 

Finally, as mentioned for Application Ref. 19/01527/F, the submitted application drawings are insufficient in parts.                             An additional section drawing should be provided to demonstrate the existing and proposed building heights                             across the north of the site (in particular showing the original building and the relationship with the projecting                                   rear extension of No. 4 Berkeley Road). An additional street scene illustrating the proposed scheme within the                                 context of Berkeley Road is also essential, and some 3D drawings would be extremely useful in illustrating the                                   height and profile of the roof to the proposed rear ‘shop’ and how this relates to the adjoining boundary wall and                                         neighbouring dwellings.  

Drawing No.’s PL10 and PL11 label the Proposed East and West Elevations inaccurately (should they be                               switched?). 

Summary 

To conclude, Mr and Mrs Smith and Mr and Mrs Kittow continue to acknowledge the contribution that Nailsea                                   Electrical make to the local economy and to the vitality and viability of this part of Gloucester Road, and do not                                         wish to hinder their business. They very much welcome the revised proposals (particularly the removal of all                                 storage/deliveries and collections from the site) and recognise the need for a pragmatic approach to the                               restoration of the church in particular, but still remain concerned about the overall quantum and impacts of                                 development that is being sought here. This is a very constrained urban site with very near residential neighbours,                                   and in their current form these proposals still do not properly deliver on contextual, sensitive mixed-use                               development.   

Both parties are keen to engage in constructive dialogue with Nailsea Electrical and officers to reach a more                                   modest residential scheme that is more appropriate and inkeeping in terms of scale, density and design, and will                                   involve lesser impacts on residential amenity, heritage assets and the local highway network. They would                             welcome a meeting to find a reasonable way forward.  

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

Yours sincerely  

 

Lyn Jones 

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

 

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

This is an improvement on the previous application but still needs changes to addresssome issues.The proposed dark grey grey brickwork, slate roof and dark grey aluminium window frames do notfit in well with surrounding properties.The two street trees in Berkeley Road adjacent to the development need protection. One wasplanted a couple of years ago to replace a large tree which had sustained vehicle damage. Thisyoung tree, which was paid for by local residents, has already been knocked over and damagedseveral times by Nailsea vehicles. Having parking spaces immediately behind the street tree willlead to further damage. Therefore please:1) to reduce the likelihood of vehicles damaging theyoung tree while accessing the parking space some physical deterrent to be placed 1.5m eitherside of the tree where the site borders the pavement. For example a wall or bollards. Alternativelymaybe the two adjacent parking spaces could be replaced by a cycle store or bin store on theforecourt.2) ensure that during demolition and construction works as a condition of planning eachstreet tree must be enclosed by 2m high fencing (eg. heras) so they are protected from damage 3)ensure that as a condition of planning if the trees are damaged during demolition or constructionworks Nailsea Electrical is obliged to pay BCC to replace the treesA large shop floor with no on-site storage would indicate high levels of traffic as stock is sold andmore shipped in. There is no indication of how traffic would be managed. Before permission isgranted the applicant should provide details of anticipated traffic movements so we can assess theimpact.Solar panels are commendable but seem to be a token gesture, there is roof space for at least50% more panels on the new build and substantially more on the rear elevation of the old chapel.The path with railings at the north fringe of the sedum roof, adjacent to the rear windows of the first

floor flats, provides an open invitation for the residents (who are provided with no garden space) toaccess the roof. The path extends beyond the building to the east edge of the sedum roof givingresidents opportunity to overlook the neighbouring properties as it is immediately above 4/4ABerkeley Road. The path should instead terminate prior to the east face of the first floor and aprivacy screen extending to above head height be installed at the end of the path.Parking in Berkeley Road is generally congested during the working day, the change of use fromwarehouse / distribution hub to retail should reduce the numbers of Nailsea staff parking here.Overall I don't think the flats will make parking problems any worse.

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

This is an improvement on the previous application but still needs changes to addresssome issues.

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

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

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

The proposed dark grey grey brickwork, slate roof and dark grey aluminium window frames do notfit in well with surrounding properties.

The two street trees in Berkeley Road adjacent to the development need protection. One was

planted a couple of years ago to replace a large tree which had sustained vehicle damage. Thisyoung tree, which was paid for by local residents, has already been knocked over and damagedseveral times by Nailsea vehicles. Having parking spaces immediately behind the street tree willlead to further damage. Therefore please:1) to reduce the likelihood of vehicles damaging the young tree while accessing the parking spacesome physical deterrent to be placed 1.5m either side of the tree where the site borders thepavement. For example a wall or bollards. Alternatively maybe the two adjacent parking spacescould be replaced by a cycle store or bin store on the forecourt.2) ensure that during demolition and construction works as a condition of planning each street treemust be enclosed by 2m high fencing (eg. heras) so they are protected from damage3) ensure that as a condition of planning if the trees are damaged during demolition orconstruction works Nailsea Electrical is obliged to pay BCC to replace the trees

A large shop floor with no on-site storage would indicate high levels of traffic as stock is sold andmore shipped in. There is no indication of how traffic would be managed. Before permission isgranted the applicant should provide details of anticipated traffic movements so we can assess theimpact.

Solar panels are commendable but seem to be a token gesture, there is roof space for at least50% more panels on the new build and substantially more on the rear elevation of the old chapel.

The path with railings at the north fringe of the sedum roof, adjacent to the rear windows of the firstfloor flats, provides an open invitation for the residents (who are provided with no garden space) toaccess the roof. The path extends beyond the building to the east edge of the sedum roof givingresidents opportunity to overlook the neighbouring properties as it is immediately above 4/4ABerkeley Road. The path should instead terminate prior to the east face of the first floor and aprivacy screen extending to above head height be installed at the end of the path.

Parking in Berkeley Road is generally congested during the working day, the change of use fromwarehouse / distribution hub to retail should reduce the numbers of Nailsea staff parking here.Overall I don't think the flats will make parking problems any worse.

Ms Linda Kuusik 9 BERKELEY RD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

Nailsea electric 29.01.2020

Whilst this application has some improvements to the previous one, there are still various issuesthat need to be addressed.This is still too dense a development for the plot. The flats are small, and crammed in. As we havesaid before, 9 flats are too much for the site.I am concerned about the lack of amenity space at the rear, and the fact that the development isoverbearingly tight to the boundary wall with No.'s 4/4A. There are a lot of unanswered questionsabout the potential use of the "shop" that is labelled as such, infilling the current yard space, underthe proposed sedum roof. This needs to be clear.The height of the scheme is improved, but the east elevation is still overbearing, particularly as it isnow closer to side and rear of No.'s 4 and 6 Berkeley Road. There is also a potential privacy/noiseissue from the rear terrace of flat 1.

Another concern is parking. It is not clear how many customer/staff parking spaces are proposed,and clearly this number of new flats will have an impact on parking on the road.Furthermore, we need a proper traffic statement to show that there has been a proper study of therealistic impact of the development on traffic levels in the road. Transport arrangements and trafficimpacts are critical to the proper development of this siteThe application does not include a street scene, to show how the development will sit within thecontext of Berkeley Rd. Also, I would say that some 3D drawings to illustrate the height and profileof the roof to the proposed rear 'shop' (and how this relates to the adjoining boundary wall andneighbouring dwellings) are essential if the owner wants to promote his ideas for the development

with local residents.I would like to see the owner offering more design refinements and more information.

Ms Linda Vousden 5 BERKELEY ROAD BRISTOL  

In principle I support this proposal as I feel that anything is potentially better than NailseaElectrics in its current state, and (hopefully) it will be the end of the Xmas Tavern, although I amnot totally convinced.Regarding the main points in the proposal: The gable ends are more in keeping with the Berkeley Road style.There has been some debateabout the finishing of the gable ends on view in Berkeley Road - we would support a random stoneappearance (similar to Nos. 4 and 6) and if it were done in the local stone that would beappropriate.It would have to be real stone, not prefabricated slabs so it wouldn't appear 'tacky'.I have some reservations about the planned use of the retail space on the ground floor - thereneed to be assurances that this would not become, for example, a bar. I understand that it couldbe let as a retail space, which would be of grave concern as it could be used as anything from atoyshop to a betting shop without a 'change of use' being necessary. I understand that there have been some objections by the residents of the new flats and by otherresidents in Berkeley Road regarding the light and / or view being blocked and I understand theirconcerns. There is also an issue of being overlooked due to the height of the proposed flats,,which also applies to Nos.4 and 6 Berkeley Road. Therefore, in support of our neighbours andfriends, I seek some clarification on that basis.There are some other knock-on effects which are worth noting:- The reduction in deliveries wouldbe welcome if alternative warehousing facilities were available- There is not much mention of whatwould happen regarding the parking in Berkeley Road - it is already difficult, and I often have mydrive blocked.

- There is no mention of bicycle / e-bike / scooter parking spaces (which the new green city shouldbe encouraging) - The experience with the ongoing 'development' of the old Bristol North bathsdoes not fill me with confidence about the projected 10 months duration of the proposed works.Would Berkeley Road have to be closed? What arrangements would be in place for residents'access?-Overall though , I am not against the development - but the proposal still needs some work.

Mrs Helen Marsden 23 BERKELEY ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

The building materials proposed are not in keeping with the area.

There appear to be no plans to manage the additional traffic and the exit/ingress to thedevelopment at an extremely busy junction, where visibility is often blocked by delivery trucksloading and unloading, immediately opposite the busy exit/ingress to the petrol station opposite.

Mr Jonathan Kittow 6 BERKELEY ROAD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

There are some welcome additions as against the previously submitted (andsubsequently withdrawn) scheme for the site, notably the height of the development being lowerthan the highest point of the roof structures of 4 and 6 Berkeley Road (assuming this is indeed thecase) and the façade facing onto Berkeley Road being more in keeping with the immediateresidential vicinity, including gable ends and removal of proposed balconies. My comments aretherefore as follows:

- The site plans are out of date and do not show the footprint of neighbouring properties accurately(most notably the rear projection of 6 Berkeley Road). Consequently, the loss of amenity causedto 4 and 6 Berkeley Road by the noise and overlooking of the proposed South and West facingwindows and terraces, is understated. Moreover the drawings contain inaccuracies, for examplethe location of the "Spandrel Panel" (pastel green) does not match between floor plans andelevations.

- It appears that the sole access (other than front access on Gloucester Road) to the large shoparea for deliveries and refuse storage / removal is much closer to existing residential dwellings at 4and 6 Berkeley Road than is currently the case. This is likely to give rise to a very significantincrease in traffic including commercial deliveries and collections on the doorstep (literally) of theexisting residential dwelling at 4 Berkeley Road, leading to significant loss of amenity to localresidential dwellings on both sides of the lower end of Berkeley Road. I strongly propose thataccess for delivery / collection to and from the commercial retail aspect of the developmenttogether with refuse storage / collection for the commercial retail aspect of the development bemoved onto Gloucester Road. I note that the stated intention of the owner / developer is to split the

retail space into two (existing showroom fronting Gloucester Road and a separate shop to be letout fronting Berkeley Road) this constitutes over development of the site, but my only overridingcomment is that there ought to (as a condition) be no delivery / refuse or customer access oregress from Berkeley Road.

- The development as proposed lacks soft landscaping. Additional soft landscaping along theBerkeley Road frontage would improve the visual impact of the unbroken concrete hardstandingfronting Berkeley Road, which would be much more in keeping with the existing frontages ofresidential dwellings all along Berkeley Road.

- The drawings are unclear in respect of: 1) how high the sedum roof is intended to be, and 2) it'sprecise specification together with any firm obligation to maintain it into the future. This is vitalgiven its important influence on the development.

- The South facing rear terrace of flat 1 extends westwards past the West boundary of the dwellingit serves. This would give rise to unnecessary and disproportionately excessive noise andoversight from such terrace. I propose that this terrace be curtailed by a wall at its West end in linewith the boundary of flat 1, preventing a direct line of sight into the gardens of 6 and 4 BerkeleyRoad. I also propose that as a condition of any consent, the glass balustrades encasing theterraces be opaque in order to minimise overlooking of neighbouring properties at 4 and 6Berkeley Road.

- None of the drawings shows the extent the projection of the development Southwards as againstthe existing property or as against the neighbouring properties at 4 and 6 Berkeley Road.Nevertheless it is very clear that there is proposed very significant full height projection of the rearof the residential aspect of the development past the rear of 4 and 6 Berkeley Road Southwards.This would cause marked overshadowing of 4 and 6 Berkeley Road and their gardens. I proposethe rear Southward projection be reduced.

- Without prejudice to the preceding point, and given the significant loss of amenity to 4 and 6Berkeley Road by virtue of the unobstructed line of sight into their gardens from the South andWest facing windows and terraces of the proposed development, I propose that the impact bemitigated by soft landscaping, specifically, a substantial trellis (at least 2 meters tall) or a wall (atleast 2 meters tall) along the Western boundary of the site (continuing from the Western most wallof the proposed flat 1) preventing a direct line of sight from the terraces into 4 and 6 BerkeleyRoad and going some way to reduce noise impact.

- We propose restrictions on the carrying out of the development (including inter alia prohibition ofnoisy on work before 8am and after 6pm, prohibition on burning waste on the site and obligationsto minimise dust).

- I note there is no parking at all for the flats. This will inevitably cause the tenants to park on

Berkeley Road, exacerbating an already substantial parking problem in the vicinity. I propose the"customer parking" on Berkeley Road in fact be allocated parking for the flats. There arenumerous shops on Gloucester Road, none of which have or need parking for customers.

- Selection of materials appears to be inconsistent across the submitted plans. We propose acondition of any approval is use of natural stone either matching adjoining properties at 4 and 6Berkeley Road, or matching the natural stone with which the existing church building on the site isconstructed, at least for the North facing facade fronting Berkeley Road. Further and in thealternative, I propose a condition that the dark grey brickwork is textured, rather than entirelyuniform in colour.

Mr David Brown 11 BERKELEY ROAD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   SUPPORT

This application meets one of the main objections made by neighbours to the previousone, namely that it replaces the high rectangular design with one with a gabled frontage that is nohigher than the adjacent buildings. The modifications to the old chapel seem to be broadlysympathetic to its original character.

Although not stated in the application, we are advised by the applicant that this development willretain the showroom and administration whilst warehousing will be relocated elsewhere. Thiswould remove the high number of heavy-vehicle movements from the site. The relocation of about9 warehouse staff to the new site would also relieve local parking of their needs; this will beweighed against the additional parking requirements of the new tenants (although we note theywill have access to forecourt parking outside business hours).

We trust that the concerns of immediate neighbours will be given proper consideration. Ourremaining concern might be that the proposals for retail space on the ground floor are somewhatconceptual at this stage so we are unable to assess how stock and customer movements willeffect things.

However, in themselves, removal of the present commercial frontage on Berkeley Road and muchreduced attendance of heavy lorries and vans are likely to improve the appearance and quietenthe ambience of the street significantly. Having been firm opponents of the previous design, wethink this one has the potential to improve the local scene for the good.

Miss Emily Hall 9 THE LIBRARY APARTMENTS 100 GLOUCESTER ROAD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL   OBJECT

I am against the planning proposal (Application No 20/00022/F) for many reasons:

The development contains a new high sloping roof segment (connected perpendicularly to thecurrent sloped roof) that appears to be so close to our property that it will completely enclose our(currently very open) terrace and overshadow our glass kitchen doors, which are one of the mainsources of sunlight and daylight into our apartment.

The main upward extension (facing backwards onto the sedum roof) has a high number ofwindows (at least six? hard to tell) facing the same terrace and kitchen doors, causing an area ofour property that is now totally private to become very exposed. The Flat 1, 3 & 4 terraces in theplan, that are replacing what is now a blank brick wall, would have a clear view straight into ourliving room and would cause us and other apartments a massive reduction in privacy.

The parking on Berkley Road is already very difficult, so it seems impossible for a number of newresidents, all compressed into such a tight area, to find regular parking without causing a massivenuisance to all current residents in the area.

Additionally, the junction at the bottom of the road is also regularly busy with large queues of cars,a situation which 9 additional apartments will worsen.

Dr Andrew Hogg 31 BERKELEY ROAD BRISTOL   OBJECT

I can not support this application.

The development is for quite high density dwellings developed in a style, which is partly influencedby the other houses on Berkeley Road, but no where else are the properties in grey brick. Thedevelopment is therefore out of keeping with the rest of the road.

Townhouse-styled apartments are proposed - but the nearby neighbouring properties are semi-detached. So it is not sympathetic with the current housing.

The proposed development also detracts from the chapel, now used as the Nailsea Electric Shop.It is higher than the roof line of the chapel and detracts from it.

Perhaps most serious though will be the impact on traffic and parking. Berkeley Road is usuallydouble-parked upto capacity. There appears not to be parking provision for the proposeddevelopment - and even if the 9 spaces associated with the business were totally allocated to theproposed properties [which they are not], there would be the knock-on effect of customer anddelivery parking for the shop. It is had to imagine where there is space for 9 vehicles and of courseresidents in the proposed development may have more then this number.

Traffic flow along Berkeley Road is often quite slow with cars attempting to pass each other.Likewise the junction is often hazardous during morning rush hour. I read no proposal of how toaccommodate the extra cars associated with 9 new properties and how to manage the trafficassociated with a thriving electrical business.

In summary, I believe there are many reasons why this proposal is flawed and it should not beapproved.

Mr Andrew Leggatt 93 BERKELEY ROAD, BISHOP BISHOPSTON BRISTOL  

I generally think the development would improve the look of the area and providesvaluable homes for people. However, I have a couple of issues that ought to be considered andpotentially be made into planning conditions;1. The proposed materials do not fit into the local streetscape. Concrete grey bricks are not seenanywhere on Berkeley road. I suggest they face the gable fronted flats with coursed penant stone,as used in the church and some of the reference buildings used in the planning application (43and 43a and 41) Berkeley road.2. Traffic on Berkeley road is very difficult, especially at this junction. Please fit traffic calming tothe road as a condition to this application and manage the parking all the way up Berkeley road asa part of this application.3. Currently the parking and placement of the lorries for the operation of Nailsea Electrical presenta hazard to pedestrians and road users, especial early in the morning when there are peaks intraffic. Please place a condition on the applicant to not park or load vans and lorries before 10each morning. This will make it much safer for all concerned at this location.

If these conditions are met, I would support the application.