By Shane Gibson
Residents have written a letter expressing strong opposition to the proposed development of a former bank in Gloucester Road North.
The letter states that residents of Braemar Avenue, Braemar Crescent and Belmont Park consider the proposal to convert the old HSBC bank at 27 Gloucester Road North to a seven-bed house to be unreasonable.
According to the plans set out by development consultants Pegasus Planning, the “proposed building would comprise four floors at the western part of the site, fronting Braemar Crescent/Braemar Avenue (although the top floor would be set back) and three storeys at the eastern part of the site, fronting Gloucester Road North”.
The residents cited houses in multiple occupancy (HMO) sandwiching, noise impact, an inadequate energy strategy, overheating and background noise to occupants and the impact on parking and traffic as their reasons behind the objection.
The residents acknowledge the need to address housing shortages, but state that in its current form, this proposal is a “major concern” and urge South Gloucestershire Council to reject the application.
The residents welcome future proposals with an involved discussion for a more reasonable development of the property.
Annette Clarke who runs local community service centre SHE7, volunteered to speak for the committee of residents who wrote the letter and in her role as the chair of the SHE7 charity.
Ms Clarke said: “I don’t think that they have given any consideration to the local area. The sandwiching of HMOs would cause problems, from what I understand it is too close to other HMOs. There will be issues with ventilation due to windows that cannot be opened properly and noise from heat pumps that they plan to install.”
The residents believe that the proposal goes against the spirit of the HMO 2021 supplementary planning document (SPD) and would result in “sandwiching” of the nearest residential properties due to the scale of the proposal and proximity to property boundary.
The residents’ letter also highlights their concerns regarding parking and transport.
They question the appropriateness of including Filton Road car park — which accounts for half of the available capacity — given that South Gloucestershire Council has announced parking charges will be introduced in all car parks under its operation starting this spring.
The letter covers details of the parking survey submitted with the application which gives equal weighting to parking spaces on Northville Road, Park Road, Broncksea Road, and Filton Road to those on Braemar Crescent and Braemar Avenue.
Annette’s personal point of objection focuses on parking and traffic concerns effecting SHE7.
She said: “The area around the bank is surrounded by double yellow lines. I cannot see how any additional parking can be accommodated. And there is nowhere for additional vehicles involved with the construction.
“I am speaking for SHE7 here, but we do not want parking blocking our forecourt. The building is used primarily for over 50s. We need the forecourt clear to allow people coming to SHE 7 to access the building.”
The residents believe that much of the parking burden is more likely to fall upon Braemar Crescent and Braemar Avenue, yet the survey data shows that there is insufficient capacity on these roads for the minimum seventeen parking spaces required.
Furthermore, there is no provision for accessible parking as required by the Residential Parking Standards 2013 SPD.
Finally, the letter states that there is no mention of facilities being provided for the construction vehicles and traffic. And they ask, where is the assurance that construction traffic and vehicles will not obstruct emergency vehicle access to Braemar Crescent.
Annette added: “I’ll add that Belmont Park has only one entrance in and out, and they too must be considered for emergency access.”
In the planning statement submitted by Pegasus Group, it reads: “A detailed assessment of the impact of the proposed development on residential amenity, character and distinctiveness, highways matters, and environmental matters has been made and is included within this planning statement.
“The conclusion is that there are no detailed reasons why planning permission should not be granted for the proposed development.”
To view and comment on the propsals, visit developments.southglos.gov.uk and search planning application P25/00196/F