Application Details

Reference 20/00268/F
Address 72 Church Road Horfield Bristol BS7 8SE  
Street View
Proposal Demolition of existing residential garage. Erection of dwelling.
Validated 03-02-20
Type Full Planning
Status Pending consideration
Neighbour Consultation Expiry 02-03-20
Determination Deadline 30-03-20
BCC Planning Portal Application
Public Comments Supporters: 0 Objectors: 6    Total: 6
No. of Page Views 147

TBS response:

Public Comments


We object in the strongest possible terms to the proposal 20-00268-F for the followingreasons

1 - Residential amenity would be harmed due to the overbearing size of the application. Theproposed building would be crammed into a space that would represent a loss of privacy,boundary space with an increased sense of enclosure.

2 - The drainage, run-off, from the adjacent field often floods the back lane on which the presentgarage/workshop sits and the new proposal would exacerbate this problem further.

3 - The proposal intends to dig a floor underground to negate undue height. However, this onlyhighlights the inappropriate scale of development when new plans are subterranean.

4 - Access to the back lane would be seriously inhibited with only a small turning space left - largercars/emergency vehicles would find it impossible. Cars would be forced to reverse back fromMilton Road onto Church Road and this could be potentially dangerous.

5 - The design of the proposal is out of keeping and does not fit within the back of an Edwardianterrace.

Indeed, such an over-development of the proposed site, completely out of character with thebucolic nature of the rear terrace, the adverse visual impact and obviously overbearing scale,together with the problems regarding highway safety and congestion, mean this proposal is whollydetrimental to the local area.


In principle, I do not object to the proposed development and indeed welcome theenhancement to what is currently a largely underused and at times unsightly patch of ground, butdo have a number of questions principally relating to the continued access to the lane at the rearof the property that I share with the owners of the adjacent properties (74 to 80 Church Road).This access is very long standing and unrestricted is to be retained under a deed of covenant.Until I have received the assurances and/or changes in the proposed plans

To place my comments in context, I am not in very close proximity to the site being two housesfurther up road from the proposed dwelling and as such would not be impacted by overshadowingor loss of light from the rear of my property. I do have an attic extension that would overlook theproperty and from the plans it is unlikely that we would be able to view inside the property throughthe proposed roof lights nor the side window on the northern elevation.

As mentioned above, my principle concerns are regarding the access to the lane from MintonRoad. These are:

1. Vehicle access

While the width of the lane adjacent to the proposed dwelling will be maintained at a width of 2.5m.This is achievable following the recent ground works undertaken by Mr Blackwell to remove alarge proportion of the bank that exists between the lane and the border of the playing field at therear of our properties.

Whilst access to the lane appears possible for small vehicles, I would like to see an assessment ofaccess for long wheelbase vans, such as for removals or deliveries. I also store my small 11ft

sailing dinghy at the top of the lane and I would require the ability to remove and return it whileunder tow behind our Mazda Bongo van.

2. Water Drainage

For approximately 8 months of the year, particularly following sustained rainfall, the lane is subjectflooding from water run-off from the playing field. This water drains into the lane predominantlyfrom the rear of the garage at the top of the lane (belongs to number 80) and at a pointapproximately to rear of 78. At times, the water continues to flow for weeks after heavy rainfall onto the field.

This water is largely contained to a ditch that is regularly redug and kept clear, down up to the rearof our property at 78 Church Road, the water being largely retained into the ditch. From the rear of76 Church road to Minton Rd, the run-off tends to flood the entire lane where is then drains intoMinton Rd.

Our concern is that no account has been taken for redirecting this water to a suitable drainageculvert within the proposed 2.5m wide access at the rear of the proposed dwelling. Based on theplans, this water would be concentrated into the much narrower lane where the volume of watercould lead to the degradation of the existing hard core and make the lane impassable.

There is also the risk to flooding both the proposed dwelling and the alley at the rear of theproperties further down Church Rd (from 74 down) - the plan indicates that there is a downwardslope from the lane to the alley down the side of the proposed dwelling.

Consideration for the redirection of this water needs to be included in the plans. This couldinclude:- removing some of the bank to the rear of 78 and 76 Church Road, widening the lane- providing a more permanent lined drainage culvert from the lane down into Minton Rd, thoughthis would reduce the width of the lane adjacent to the proposed dwelling


We would suggest that this structure would be wholly inappropriate for this situation forthe following reasons:

It is situated far too near other dwellings and would therefore compromise the privacy of theinmates of these houses. Whatever amendments are made, this structure will still overwhelm thespace and surroundings in which it is built.

Whatever clever arguments put forward by various Consultants, the fact remains that this wouldbe an intrusive and dominating feature within the area. The fact is that the right words can makeanything sound enticing, when it is not necessarily so.

All the various schemes and excuses cannot disguise the fact that this structure is entirely out ofkeeping with the rest of the neighbourhood, what with the sedum roof and the bedrooms halfunderground.

The foundations for this structure will need to be extremely deep, taking into account the sinking ofthe ground floor. We believe this would be compromising to the houses close by.

There would obviously be a serious loss of light to neighbouring properties due to the shortness ofthe gardens. Also, the proposed building would be both overbearing to rear rooms and reargardens.

The site is currently used to park the owners cars and currently the rain water drains off the fieldbehind and floods the site before entering the drain on Milton Road.


Ref application 20/00268/F.It is my belief that this proposal is not in keeping with the surrounding properties. Cedar cladding isnot in keeping with Edwardian houses and would be an eyesore.

The plans talk about housing 3 occupants. Most people these days have a car. The surroundingroads are already congested beyond belief and residents have to often park a considerabledistance from their houses especially late evening.

The proposal only accommodates one vehicle. Talking about buses and bikes doesn't meanpeople will use them!

The turning point at the end of Milton Road would also be adversely affected meaning people maywell have to reverse back down the road onto Church Road if they cannot find a space and thiswould be dangerous. Church Road is known to be one of the worst rat runs in Bristolalready.

This plot of land is too small for development and will make the area look crammed in andunattractive. This application should be refused.


I own the garage at the top of the back lane from Milsom road , where the proposedbuilding is to be erected and this garage is in constant use.

The proposed building would compromise this access to my garage by extending into the lanethoroughfare and as such make the turning into the lane from Milsom road difficult and hazardous, in addition to the current numerous parked cars in Milsom road

Unknown   OBJECT

Kind regards,Zoe Miller