Although the original application for demolition of the existing 19th century building and its replacement by up to 5 modern houses was originally refused on several grounds, a decision has now been taken which represents a complete U turn.

A disillusioned Bishopston resident who attended the Committee meeting said, "The extent of local opposition was almost totally ignored by many of the councillors. The attempt to appeal to a sense of history seemed to strike the wrong note with the planners, and at the same time the voice of the community seemed of little importance. I came away with the thought that if a developer wants to get their way -even if their plans get blocked at first- the threat of demolition seems to work wonders. They would appear to hold a gun to the head of planners if they are allowed to get way with this".

The following BCC document - the full Committee report - details the reasons for the initial rejection of the application and the subsequent reversal of that decision and makes for a rather long, but very interesting read. Note that it includes the original Bishopston Society's objections to the development as well as the other objections that were made:

Development Control (SOUTH AND EAST) Committee – 20 July 2011
Application No. 11/01571/F : 25 Seymour Road Bishopston Bristol BS7 9HS


SITE DESCRIPTION
The application site relates to land on the northern side of Seymour Road in Bishopston. The locality comprises a mixture of predominantly semi-detached and terraced residential accommodation of different periods, type and scale.
There is currently a two storey building located at the back of the application site with various outbuildings throughout the remainder of the site. None of the buildings on the site are listed. The dwelling and these outbuildings are now the subject of an approved Demolition Notice (10/04521/N). The site is enclosed by a 1.8 metre stone wall. There are no trees on the site which are subject to a tree preservation order.
The site is located close to the Gloucester Road (A38) and Ashley Down Road, where shops, other facilities and public transport routes are located.
APPLICATION
The application is for full planning permission for the construction of a terrace of five three storey 3 and 4 bedroom townhouses with associated landscape works, including provision on site for bin enclosures and cycle parking. The terrace will be set back 4m from the main road. The original wall which fronts Seymour Avenue will be retained. Each house would incorporate a floor area of approximately 160 square metres, over three floors with an internal width of 4.3m and a depth of 13.2m.
There is no car parking proposal on the site. The Applicants indicate that the site is in a sustainable location close to amenities in Gloucester Road and Ashley Down Road.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 10/04521/N - Demolition of residential dwelling and associated outbuildings - Prior Approval not required. Notice issued on 8 November 2010. 10/03111/F - Demolition of existing dwelling. Construction of 5 no. three-bed, single dwellinghouses, including off-street car parking, with associated landscape works - Refused on 23 December 2010 for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development would result in the removal of a heritage asset, as defined by Planning Policy Statement No 5: Planning and the Historic Environment 2010 (Annex 2), that contributes to local character and sense of place and therefore constituting an important element in the local urban landscape/townscape. The replacement buildings would neither respond to the local context or create or reinforce local distinctiveness and
would therefore harm the character of the locality. As such the development would be contrary to policies B1, B2, B4, B5,B6, B8 and B22 of the Adopted Bristol Local Plan 1997, PAN 1: Residential Guidelines (1993) and the guidance within Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development 2005, Planning Statement 3:Housing 2010 and Planning Policy Statement No 5 : Planning for the Historic Environment:2010.
2. The proposal would harm the amenities of adjoining residential properties by reason of loss of light/overshadowing and overlooking and associated loss of privacy. As such the Development Control (SOUTH AND EAST) Committee – 20 July 2011 Application No. 11/01571/F : 25 Seymour Road Bishopston Bristol BS7 9HS proposed development has potential to harm the amenities of the locality and would becontrary to policies B1, B2 and B8 of the Adopted Bristol Local Plan 1997.
3. The proposed development has not demonstrated that adequate arrangements would be made for the storage of bicycles associated with the proposed development. In the absence of sufficient cycle parking facilities (that would assist in reducing reliance on the private car as a means of transport to and from the development), this would lead to an increase in car use, thereby increasing traffic congestion and the associated environmental issues, including pollution and highway safety. As such, the proposal would result in an unsustainable form of development contrary to policy M1 of the Adopted Bristol Local Plan (December 1997) and the advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: 'Transport'. This refusal is now the subject of an appeal (APP/Z0116/A/11/2151417/NWF)
RESPONSE TO PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATION
The proposal was advertised on site and adjoining properties consulted directly. As a result 24 representations were received, 23 objecting to the application and 1 in support: Loss of existing building on the site (See Key Issue A)
- The current building is a popular local building which is in keeping with the other buildings.
- “The building which would be demolished is part of the area’s history and character; it would not be appropriate or in keeping with the other buildings in the area to replace it with modern dwellings.”
- Nothing has changed since the original application was refused. “The Planning Authority recognised its importance at the time of the previous application and in the absence of any change in circumstances should maintain that position.”
- Application fails to address the issue of a removal of a heritage asset. The Planning Statement takes the view that the site is not in a conservation area nor is it statutorily listed. The applicant has made no attempt to accommodate the farmhouse.
Design (See Key Issue B)
- Proposal would change the nature of the area.
- The proposed development is not in keeping with the surrounding Victorian buildings.
- Scale: “Although in terms of design this scheme can be considered a little step in the right direction, the scale of the scheme remains completely unacceptable and represents overdevelopment of the site.
- Concern that the proposed development is too ‘High density’ on a street which already has parking issues.”
- “the last thing we need is more crowding, especially when it comes to parking.”
- Two thirds of the existing house should be retained to “provide boundary treatment.”
- No shadow diagrams have been submitted.
- The application proposal would be contrary to Policy B2 – “The buildings do not accord with the Victorian style and character of the area.”
- There are no plans for refuse storage.
Amenity (See Key Issue C)
- Proposal would result in overlooking and loss of privacy. The rear louvers would not mitigate overlooking. Concern about their size and what would happened if they were removed?
- There would be no benefit to residents in Orchard Road, who would loose privacy.
Development Control (SOUTH AND EAST) Committee – 20 July 2011
Application No. 11/01571/F : 25 Seymour Road Bishopston Bristol BS7 9HS
Parking concerns (See Key Issue D)
- The addition of 5 new 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings could add an additional 10-15 cars parked overnight in the local area.
- Proposed development would not complement the existing architecture in the area.
- Surrounding roads are already under pressure with cars parking.
- “The suggestion in the Planning Supporting Statement that `adequate provision can be found on the street - is one of the most fundamentally flawed statements I have ever seen.”
Other issues raised
- If approved, the proposal will set a precedent for the demolition and redevelopment of the existing housing stock in the area.
- Why should the existing residents suffer to help the applicant maximise their return on this site?
- No local engagement has taken place.
One letter of support received from a neighbour of the site:
“It should be redeveloped as it has been empty for at least 7-8 years.”
OTHER COMMENTS

BRISTOL CIVIC SOCIETY
“This development is over intensive and we would prefer to see the number of houses reduced to four. We are also concerned with the design of the roof where the deep valleys could easily become blocked and difficult to maintain, leading to problems with damp.”
The COUNCIL FOR THE PRESERVATION OF ANCIENT BRISTOL
No comments received.
The BISHOPSTON SOCIETY:
“It is true that the houses will be far less intrusive on the street if they are set behind the existing wall, but in practise this development will add between 5 and 10 more cars parking on the street -
It is not realistic to assume that 4 bedroom houses will not have at least one and more likely two cars.”
The proposed front elevation is broken down into 5 small gables. This has no relevance in Seymour Road and the resulting elevation has no relationship with nos. 19 and 21 alongside and “simply looks diagrammatic and rather frantic”.
The houses look very tall and thin and out of scale with their surroundings.
The application has no proper Block Plan.
“The houses are extremely deep largely as the result of having an internal lightwell /courtyard as a feature for the main bedroom./ If this were omitted it would be possible to make each of the houses approx. 3m shallower on the upper floors. This would have the benefit of making the block much less dominant in the area.”
“In conclusion we recommend refusal on the grounds that the proposals constitute over development of the site, relates poorly to adjacent houses and will add substantially to on street parking in the area. We would recommend that the site be redevelopment with a maximum of 4houses. This would help to relate to the pattern of nos. 19 and 21, would look more appropriate and would be considerably less dominant.”

Transport Development Management, City Transport has commented as follows:-
In contrast to the previously refused scheme on this site, the proposal includes no provision for off-street parking. However, the proposed houses are arranged as a continuation of the form of the rest of the street - terraced housing - whereby parking is on-street. The site is close to Gloucester Road which has a range of shops and other facilities and is well served by public transport, so it is reasonable to conclude that it is possible to live in this location without the use of a car for everyday needs. The lack of off-street parking for the proposed houses is therefore not
considered likely to result in an increase in demand for on-street parking that will cause highway safety problems.
Cycle parking must be provided in order to encourage cycling, thus complying with this Council's policy to deliver sustainable transport objectives including a reduction in single-occupancy car journeys and the increased use of public transport, walking and cycling. The plans include stores within the dwellings (under the staircases) that are large enough to accommodate cycle parking.
Refuse bins are shown within the front garden/forecourt area and will be accessible by refuse collectors from the highway.
There will be a redundant drop kerb vehicular access as a result of the development that should be reinstated as footway with full height kerbs. Standard condition C10 applies with advice I021.
Subject to the above condition we offer no objection to the application.
Archaeology Team has commented as follows:-
This team commented in some detail on the previous application. There do not appear to be any major reasons why those comments should be greatly amended.
The current building, dating to some time before 1839, results from the survival of a landscape consisting of large open areas with several large villas within this landscape, alongside Seymour
Road which was then largely undeveloped. This was radically altered in the early 20th century with the construction of terraced houses which survive today. The street scene was further altered by 1918 with the construction of further terraced houses on the south side, while retaining several of the earlier villas on the north side.
The survival of these earlier elements adds considerably to the value and interest of the current street scene. These elements are therefore important and should be retained. The construction of further houses adjacent to the Seymour Road frontage is not a reflection of the overall character of the street but is a modern interpretation of what does not currently exist, namely a uniform row of terraced housing whereas the true character is one of variety, of building styles and ages. No 25 Seymour Road is one of the earliest elements of this varied street scene.
Little justification has been given for the demolition of the building, other than the statement that it
is in a poor state of repair. However, it may well be that it can be restored - the reasons why this cannot be done need to be set out in detail. The loss of this heritage asset should therefore be fully justified in line with the policies in PPS5.

RELEVANT POLICIES
Bristol Local Plan, Adopted December 1997
B2 Local Context
B5 Layout and Form
B22 Sites of Archaeological Significance
M1 Transport Development Control Criteria
NE8 Protected Species
Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy – June 2011
BCS15 Sustainable Design and Construction
BCS18 Housing Type
BCS20 Effective and Efficient Use of Land
BCS21 Quality Urban Design
Planning Policy Guidance, Planning Policy Statements and Supplementary Planning Guidance
PAN 1 Residential Guidelines (November 1993)
PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development (February 2005)
PPS 3 Housing (June 2010)
PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment (March 2010)
PPS 09 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (August 2005)


KEY ISSUES
(A) HAVE THE REASONS FOR REFUSING APPLICATION 10/03111/F BEEN OVERCOME?
The first reason for refusing application 10/03111/F related to the removal of the existing building on the site, which is a heritage asset as defined by PPS5.
The current landscape of Seymour Road reflects the historic development of the road, with some of the large villas from the earlier 19th century still surviving (eg no 29 and nos 1-4 Horfield
Court), alongside late 19th and early 20th century terraces.
The building to be demolished dates to the first half of the 19th century, probably constructed in the 1830s. It is depicted on the Tithe Map of 1839 and is not shown on the few earlier maps that depict the area, although these are not detailed enough to rule out the possibility that the building may date back to the early part of the 19th century.
The landscape as depicted in 1839 and in more detail on the 1st edition Ordnance Survey of 1882 is one of fairly large villas set in formal gardens, with a large orchard to the rear. Several former quarries are shown - limestone quarrying was widespread in this area, probably from the medieval period.
This landscape of large houses set in generous gardens was radically altered by 1903 when extensive terraces of houses were built, along Seymour Road, Seymour Avenue and to the rear along the newly created Orchard Road (within the former orchard).
The main building on the site therefore meets the definition of a historical asset of significance, as defined in Annex 2 of PPS 5.
PPS5 states that the value of a heritage asset as a non-renewal resource should be recognised and change should be intelligently managed to enable heritage assets to be maintained for a long period of time; they should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, and where possible put to an appropriate and viable use that is consistent with their original use (and thus reduce the consumption of new materials). In achieving this, their positive contribution to local character and sense of place should be recognised and valued, and if to be lost, a record kept of their historic significance for future generations. When considering the loss of heritage assets, account should be taken of the desirability of new development making a positive contribution towards the character and local distinctiveness of the historic environment including scale, height, massing, alignment, materials and use.
In this case, although the Applicants have already sought and been given consent to demolish the buildings on the site (10/04521/N), there is still a need to refer to PPS5 and the tests related to its loss and replacement with the proposed development.
PPS5 Policy HE8 states that the effect of an application n the significance of such a heritage asset is a material consideration in determining the application. PPS5 Policy HE7 includes tests which have to be passed in considering applications related to development affecting heritage assets. In this case, account has been taken of evidence provided with the application, consultation responses, including the comments of Bristol Civic Society and the Bishopston Society, relevant historic records and expert in house advice (set out above).
Full regard has been paid to the nature of the significance. It is noted that the advice from the Archaeological Officer of the Council in the absence of survey work demonstrated that it cannot be converted it should be retained. Due mainly to the fact that the Demolition Notice is already in place, the Applicants have not provided a survey of the building demonstrating that the existing building could not be converted.
It is not accepted that the heritage asset makes a positive role in place making as required by PPS5 HE7.3. However the retention of the building would have had a neutral impact on the maintenance of sustainable communities and economic vitality in the area as required by Policy HE7.4. On balance and taking into account the Demolition Notice, it is concluded that there are insufficient grounds for the Local Planning Authority to insist upon the retention and adaptation of this heritage asset. It is nevertheless recognised that the grounds for not retaining the heritage asset were never met and that it was correct to refuse application 10/03111/F.
In terms of Policy HE7.5, the design of the proposal is a departure from the scale, alignment and materials of the existing buildings on the site. Design of the proposal is addressed in Key Issue B.
There is no evidence of deliberate neglect or damage undertaken in the interests of obtaining planning permission.
The requirements of PPS Policy HE.7 have not been met. However it is considered that the loss of this heritage asset can be justified on the grounds of bringing this site back into use. Relevant conditions tying in the demolition of the buildings on the site to the new development are recommended. Furthermore in accordance with the requirements of Policy HE12 of PPS5, it is recommended that a condition be attached to any permission requiring the developer to record
the heritage asset to be demolished.
Despite PPS 5 being material to the consideration of this application, the building is neither listed or in conservation area and its demolition is outside the control of the control of the LPA and could not be resisted. Overall it is considered that the first reason for refusing Application 10/03111/F cannot continue to be supported, primarily because of the Demolition Notice.
The second and third reasons for refusing Application 10/03111/F are addressed in Key Issues (C) and (D).

(B) IS THE DESIGN OF THE APPLICATION ACCEPTABLE?
External Appearance and Layout
The characteristics of the immediate area are a series of buildings of different periods. Government guidance reinforced by BLP policies requires development to be sustainable, high quality and inclusive and positively contribute towards the locality. PPS 5 further reinforces this and requires, when considering the loss of heritage assets, that account should be taken of the desirability of new development making a positive contribution towards the character and local distinctiveness of the historic environment including scale, height, massing, alignment, materials
and use. PPS 3 states that development that is inappropriate in its context or fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area should not be accepted.
The application has incorporated an analysis of how the existing development contributes towards the character of the area and how the proposed development would improve its quality.
The Design and Access Statement states that:-
- The principle feature of the design concept is a reinforced building line which will serve to create additional enclosure to Seymour Road by the continuation of the building line of those properties positioned to the south west of the site (paragraph 4.2).
- Additional space is provided between the new buildings and the existing buildings on Orchard Road.
- The existing stone wall fronting Seymour Road will be retained with openings added.
- Private amenity space will be provided to the rear.
- External appearance following the general characteristics of the neighbourhood
incorporating a terraced format, with the use of bays and incorporating materials to match surrounding development (secured by relevant condition).
These broad design principles are supported and will assist in ensuring that proposed development respects the quality and character of the surrounding area, consistent with the requirement of Policy BCS21.
The application proposal is not regarded as an overdevelopment of the site. The proposed dwellings would sit comfortably within the site and will provide sufficient amenity space for future residents.
The Bishopston Society states that breaking down the front elevation into 5 small gables, has no relevance in Seymour Road and the resulting elevation has no relationship with nos. 19 and 21 alongside. It is accepted that the proposal represents a departure from nos. 19 and 21. However,
Seymour Road is characterised by dwellings of a variety of styles and it is considered that the application proposal will add to this character.
Sustainable Design Core Strategy Policy BCS15 states that sustainable design and construction will be integral to new development in Bristol. Policy BCS21 states that new development in Bristol should deliver high quality urban design.
This application was submitted prior to the adoption of this Policy and therefore when it was registered there was no requirement for it to be accompanied by a sustainability statement demonstrating how the requirements of this policy are met. The proposal is therefore contrary to this policy. However in mitigation it is noted that the proposed development will be designed with Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 targeted.

Internal Space
The Core Strategy Policy BCS18 states that 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. As part of this there is a requirement that residential development provide sufficient space for everyday activities and to enable flexibility and adaptability by meeting appropriate space standards. In support of this, reference is made to the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) Housing Qualities Indicators, which states that 4
bedroom dwellings should have an internal floor area size of 75 square metres. In this case, the plans indicate that provision is made for approximately 160 square metres of internal floor space.
Landscaping
Private amenity space is provided as part of the scheme to the front and rear. A relevant condition requiring that the details of the landscaping scheme shown on the approved plan are implemented is recommended.

(C) WILL THE AMENITY OF SURROUNDING RESIDENTS BE PROTECTED?
Government Guidance reinforced by the Core Strategy and BLP policies require that residential development is high quality and does not impact negatively upon the amenity of the locality.
The proposed residential development would be located at an appropriate distance from properties on the opposite side of Seymour Road and to the rear in Orchard Road. Following on from the previous refusal, the proposed second floor windows on the rear elevation have been reduced in size. This will ensure that any overlooking of residents in Orchard Road will be minimised. The distance of approximately 20m from properties on the opposite side of Seymour Road will mean that these properties will not be overlooked. The application proposal is also set at an appropriate distance from 21 Seymour Road and Horfield Court.
For these reasons the second reason for refusing application 10/03111/F is overcome.

(D) IS THE PROPOSAL ACCEPTABLE IN HIGHWAY TERMS?
The BLP policy M1, in accordance with government guidance seeks to reduce reliance upon the private car, to encourage the use of alternative modes of more sustainable forms of transport, to reduce road congestion and to improve highway safety.
The application site is situated within a reasonably sustainable location reasonably close to the Gloucester Road and Ashley Down Road and associated shops and amenities and public transport routes and would be acceptable in this respect.
The application proposal makes no provision for parking. However the comments from Transport DM (set out above) is that this is acceptable.
Secure cycle storage in the front garden is proposed and would be acceptable in transport terms, although a combined bin (refuse and recycling) and bike store would not be, and therefore a relevant condition requiring details of the cycle and bin storage including details of how the two will be separated forms part of the recommendation. Overall though, the third reason for refusing10/03111/F is overcome.

CONCLUSION
The primary consideration in the determination of this application is whether the reasons for refusing Application 10/03111/F have been overcome. On balance it is concluded that they are.
While it is regrettable that there is no grounds to retain the heritage asset on the site were submitted, the Demolition Notice which is now in place means that the existing buildings can be removed at any time. There is no means by which the Council could prevent that. In the light of this it is considered important to ensure that a record of the heritage asset is made by the developer of the site, consistent with PPS5 Policy HE.12.
The design of the scheme has been amended to take account of the concerns about the impact on neighbouring amenity. The scheme will not result in a loss of amenity to neighbouring residents and accordingly represents an appropriate response to the site. Adequate provision for bicycles and bins are made and there is adequate amenity space for future residents.
Overall the application proposal has the benefit of bringing this site back into use. It will provide additional family housing and therefore contribute towards housing provision in Bristol and is therefore supported.

REASON FOR APPROVAL
The decision to grant planning permission for the development proposal has taken account of
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and concluded that the proposals accord with the policies of the Development Plan listed in this report.
Specifically it has been concluded:
i) The proposal is considered to provide high quality housing consistent with Core Strategy Policies BCS18 and BCS21.
ii) The proposal site is considered to be in a sustainable location and the provision of a density residential development is in accordance with PPS3.
iii) The proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, in accordance with retained policies in the Built Environment Chapter of the Local Plan.
iv) The proposal would not cause harm to residential amenity consistent with Core Strategy Policy BCS21.
v) The proposal would not be harmful to highway safety or the convenience of road users in accordance with Saved Local Plan Policy M1 of the Local Plan.
Full regard has been paid to all other material planning considerations including representations made in respect of the application and the Demolition Notice 10/04521/N.

RECOMMENDED GRANT subject to condition(s)
Time limit for commencement of development
1. Full Planning Permission
The development hereby permitted shall begin before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: As required by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as
amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Act 2004.

Pre commencement condition(s)
2. Construction management plan
No development shall take place including any works of demolition until a construction management plan or construction method statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved plan/statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The statement shall provide for:
* Parking of vehicle of site operatives and visitors
* routes for construction traffic
* hours of operation
* method of prevention of mud being carried onto highway
* pedestrian and cyclist protection
* proposed temporary traffic restrictions
* arrangements for turning vehicles
Reason: In the interests of safe operation of the highway.
3. Submission of samples before work starts
No development shall take place until samples of all building materials to be employed in the construction of the approved scheme; have been submitted to and been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved samples.
Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory.
4. Submission and approval of landscaping scheme
No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of hard and soft landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection, in the course of development. The approved scheme shall be implemented so that planting can be carried out during the first planting season following the occupation of the building(s) or the completion of the development whichever is the sooner. All planted materials shall be maintained for five years and any trees or plants removed, dying, being damaged or becoming diseased within that period shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted unless the council gives written consent to any variation.
Reason: To protect and enhance the character of the site and the area and to ensure its appearance is satisfactory.
5. Prior to the commencement of development on site, details of the arrangements for the storage of bins and bicycle storage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of the separation of bins and bicycles. The approved scheme shall be completed strictly in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of amenity of the site.
6. No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision of surface water
drainage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The drainage works shall be completed in accordance with the approved
scheme.
Reason: To ensure the provision of a satisfactory means of surface water disposal.
7. No development shall take place on site, until a detailed record of the existing buildings on the site (the 'heritage asset') have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to comply with the requirements of PPS5 Policy HE12.
Post occupation management
8. No further extensions
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order) no
extension or enlargement (including additions to roofs) shall be made to the
dwellinghouse(s) hereby permitted, or any detached building, without the express
permission in writing of the council.
Reason: The further extension of this (these) dwelling(s) or erection of detached building requires detailed consideration to safeguard the amenities of the surrounding area.
9. No Further Windows
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order) no
windows, other than those shown on the approved plans shall at any time be placed in the elevation of the building/extension hereby permitted without the grant of a separate planning permission from the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the adjoining premises from overlooking and loss of privacy.
List of approved plans
10. List of approved plans and drawings
The development shall conform in all aspects with the plans and details shown in the
application as listed below, unless variations are agreed by the Local Planning Authority in order to discharge other conditions attached to this decision.
Existing elevations & survey & site location plan, received 15 April 2011
Proposed elevations & floor plans, received 15 April 2011
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Bristol Civic Society 17 May 2011
Transport Development Management, City Transport 25 May 2011
Archaeology Team 2 June 2011


 
 

NOTE: the articles shown above are merely the most recent 10 in our Planning section. There's lots more as you'll see by clicking through to the sub-sections Commentary, Architecture, Licensing and Policies.