Westbury Hill
October 12th 2021
Reference: Application No
21/04801/F
Proposal
to demolish 3no bungalows at 50,52,
For
the attention of Mr Tom Wilkinson - planning Officer for this application
Dear
Mr Wilkinson
This application is not simply a Demolition of some
older properties in favour of installing some more modern equivalents, it is a
wholesale Destruction of a familiar part of the much loved Westbury landscape
and a proposed removal of some of its centuries long social history.
It must be clear to planning officers by now that
the oldest square mile of Westbury, radiating as it does from the original
settlement by Saxon monks on the banks of the Trym in the 8th
century, now occupied by the 15th century Church and remains of its
College for canons, contains a century by century development plan. The number
of architectural styles in this small area is remarkable and they can tell a
social and political history of rich and poor in themselves.
The well expressed oppositions to the proposal from
over thirty neighbouring residents, for many reasons, are not the only
reactions to this plan. Many local people who have not written down their
concerns are horrified by this proposal to change the ‘face’ of Westbury at the
edge of its heartland.
These three bungalows represent an era:- with that
very popular domestic design of the 1920s, borrowed from India, when garden
design too was at its height - one when
tennis courts and tea gardens were familiar parts of the Westbury social scene
too, as a ‘middling sort’ emerged from the artisanal population, looking to find
a more leisured lifestyle in an area still surrounded by fields, that only
disappeared after world war two. There are no other bungalows in the old
village area to contribute to the architectural history of Westbury and so
should be cherished for that reason alone, apart from their function within
a mix of housing to accommodate all ages and stages of living. Core
Strategy proposals are thus very pertinent:
Ref: 1 BCS 18: “All new
residential developments should maintain, provide or contribute to a mix of
housing tenures, types and sizes, to help support mixed, balanced and inclusive
communities”.
Ref: 2 BCS 20: “Appropriate
density for any individual site will be informed by - ‘characteristics of the site and its local
context, ….plus the need to provide an appropriate mix of housing to meet
the community’s needs and demands’
AND 4.20.6 ‘Development will be sympathetic
to local character and provide high quality living environments….’
Ref 3: BCS 22 ‘’Development proposals will
safeguard or embrace heritage assets and the character and setting of areas of
acknowledged importance including conservation areas’
The sites in question for this application stand at
the border of the recently revised Westbury conservation area which extends to
include
…………………………………………
The Impact that loss of these three extensive and
well cultivated gardens and replacement by eight houses with small 7msq plots
will have in this part of Westbury, if these three sites are redeveloped
intensively as proposed in this application:
a-Loss of trees, hedges and extensive green
planting that improve air quality, shelter pollinating insects -especially much
needed bees- and provide visual amenity for relaxation and mental well being
(all the TV gardening programmes now emphasize the need for activity out of
doors, the benefits to body and soul and relief of stress – of even minimal
gardening -as any regular gardener would concur)
b-Loss of a mitigating element to overheating
in the environment – (Westbury village lies in a bowl at the foot of several
hills and on hot summer days the heat can be overwhelming and may well increase
quite soon with climate change)
c-Loss of a massive contribution to air
quality from existing green infrastructure. (Air pollution from the A4018, at
the far end of this proposed block of housing, is bound to increase as this
main route into
d-Loss of green space for vegetable production
– at a time when everyone is being urged to grow their own wherever possible
e-An overall degradation of the local landscape by
over development of these sites
f- Eight, minute gardens in mitigation, not fit for
purpose for family use, in terms of adequate recreation areas for children and
relaxation for adults in private surroundings, or for space to plant new trees
without creating masses of shade and dry ground in each small plot
The following
a-BCS 8 -section on green infrastructure lists the many types of
green infrastructure sites that can contribute positively to the quality of
BCS 9 –
4.9.5 advises similarly “the strategic green infra structure network is
complemented by further elements of GI such as less strategic open space…..private
gardens…trees, woodlands and landscaped areas. These elements of green
infrastructure have an equally important role in contributing to the
sustainability and quality of life within the city and are of particular
benefit to communities”
POLICY DELIVERY: “The impact of new
development on green assets will be assessed as part of the Development
Management Process”
BCS 20 –
also commits to a due scrutiny of the loss of existing green
infrastructure and its local context when higher densities of development and
more efficient use of land are under consideration
b-BCS 13 – “Development should adapt to
climate change through measures including: site layouts, design and
construction which provide resilience to climate change and the use of green
infrastructure to minimize and mitigate the heating of the urban environment”
It is
appropriate to note here that in the last week there have been reports
to government that there is less carbon emission from retention and
refurbishment of existing buildings than is produced by demolitions of
buildings for re developments
c-BCS 13 – “Green infrastructure can
include small scale features such as trees…green roofs…landscaping planned as
an integral part of site layouts and building designs….”
There is no evidence in the Design document of this
application that any effort has been made to observe these
conditions/suggestions during the redevelopment plans
BCS 23 – “Developments
should be sited and designed in a way as to avoid adversely impacting on
environmental amenity and biodiversity by reason of fumes dust ….and air
pollution…”
d- DM 15 includes the importance of growing food
locally as part of natural ecology
Finally: DM 21 on the redevelopment of private gardens
for housing purposes generally, states that in all cases, it will not
be permitted if the result is ‘harm to the character and appearance of an
area’ and that “development of front gardens should ensure that the character
of the street is not harmed and that appropriate boundary treatments and planting
are retained.”
It is very difficult to understand how the present
application can meet these conditions, given that the whole landscape aspect
and character of
The Inappropriate Design
of these Houses for the Local Context
While presenting an interesting and innovative
design for contemporary housing, it is totally inappropriate for this setting. Its appearance resembles
a set of buildings from the Industrial Revolution and would not be out of place
in a northern city where it would embody a nod in the direction of former
industrial sites and pay respects to the remains of historic 19th
century industries! In this context it is stark, bare and jars with every other
style of local domestic architecture in this neighbourhood.
The design presents a huge overdevelopment of the
site with masses of alien brickwork dominating what is at present a gentle and
discreet domestic area with housing nestling between varied forms of greenery
and which enhances that corner of
Policy References: BCS 20 emphasizes the need to
achieve appropriate densities of development according to context and BCS 21
states that new developments should deliver high quality design and “contribute
positively to an area’s character and identity, creating and re-enforcing local
distinctiveness”.
Policy DM 27: ‘Layout and Form’ states: “the
height, scale and massing of development should be appropriate to the immediate
context, site constraints and character of adjoining streets and spaces”.
Policy DM 26: ‘Local Character’ proposals should:
ii) “respect the local pattern and grain of development including the
historical development of the area”; vi) “respond to the height, scale,
massing, shape, form and proportion of existing buildings”; vii) “Reflect
locally characteristic architectural styles, rhythms, patterns, features” and
viii) “Reflect the predominant materials, colours and textures” in the area.
In the design section of this application the
height and massing of the buildings, reverse direction of the roof lines,
archway entry points and brickwork relief decorations, are all quite original;
but in no way do they enhance or even complement the existing architectural
styles in Stoke Lane that give individuality to each section, with stone
flashings and mullions to Victorian brickwork and pebble dashed or rendered
walls, bay windows, decorative porches and different doorways to the early 20th
century designs. This design concept is thus totally alien to the character of
this neighbourhhood and therefore should be refused.
…………………………………………..
The current Parking
problems for
It surely cannot have escaped the notice of many
planning officers dealing with applications for redevelopments in this area,
that repeatedly residents raise the problems of CAR PARKING DENSITIES. These
have become progressively worse and worse in recent years, not helped by the
introduction of RPZ in Cotham, Redland and Clifton, which has had the effect of
pushing city commuter parking further and further out of the city- to where? To
Westbury at present and we have now reached saturation point in the area
described below.
If your home is part of a terrace or early housing
development, especially in Stoke Lane, Canford Lane, Southfield Road, Cambridge
Crescent, Lampeter Road, the High Street, College Road, Church Road, Priory
Avenue, Eastfield and on Westbury Hill and Road, you may have to drive round in
circles for ages to find a parking spot for your own vehicle and finally put it
some long way from your home. In addition to having become the northern ‘Park
and Ride’ for
Furthermore, not only does Westbury have many
properties, by reason of historical development, that lack garages or frontages
suited to parking, it also has narrow streets that once were lanes for horses
and carts! At the Westbury village end Stoke Lane was built up at the end of
the 19th century and early 20th, when car traffic did not
exist except for the very prosperous and so no allowance was made for passing
traffic, while further afield, many larger houses have been made into flats-so
increasing on street vehicle ownership.
These properties, designed with four bedrooms
for family occupation in this now highly priced area and attracting incomers
from London who can afford the cost, will be occupied by middle and higher
income earners who are bound to own two cars for two working parents, but there
is only one space per household allowed.
In the past planners’ advice was to discount
parking problems as valid objections to redevelopments. However, this has now
changed, favouring an ‘allowance’ of 1.5 spaces for a four bedroomed
development. Where is the 0.5 for each of the 8 dwellings to come from in this
plan? On the road outside of course, but that is already fully occupied all day
and evening by other residents and commuters! Also, at the far end of the road
before the traffic light junction, there are parking restrictions for safety,
so removing some of the space shown in the plan. The existing three domiciles
have garages and adequate space for more than one vehicle within their
boundaries and so do not contribute to the congestion at that busy end of
Conclusion: After due consideration we hope
that this application will be refused in all aspects. Hilary
Long pp The Westbury Society
