A row over a proposed roof extension that has divided neighbours in Clifton Village was dismissed as a “storm in a teacup” as councillors granted permission. Fifty people objected to plans for 92 Princess Victoria Street on the grounds that it would overshadow back gardens and be overbearing and out of keeping with the conservation area.
But Bristol City Council development control committee agreed unanimously with officers’ advice to approve the works after hearing at least a fifth of the objections did not come from Bristol, let alone Clifton, and that the design and impact on the street scene was acceptable. Applicant Kathryn Green told members via a video message that while some neighbours were supportive, another had “chosen to wage a significant campaign” against her proposals for a third-floor mansard roof with dormer windows and second-floor refurbishment.
The single mum, who moved into the property in March 2020, said this involved leafleting, emailing and “stopping people in the street”. She told the committee on Wednesday, June 8: “While we have received support from a number of our neighbours, we have asked them not to get involved for fear of causing further unnecessary division in the street.
Read more: Tenants accuse Bristol City Council of "litany of broken promises"
“We have considered moving but I cannot let my teenage daughters see us being bullied out of our new home.” Next-door neighbour Colin Doak, who has lived in the area with his wife for 40 years, addressed councillors in person at City Hall urging them to reject the plans.
He said in a statement: “The design is of insufficient quality that harms the character and appearance of this part of the conservation area, and it adversely harms our privacy and amenity, particularly the enjoyment of our garden. This building will become substantially taller than ours.”
Another neighbour, Ranolph Harrison, wrote: “This planned construction will dominate the Princess Victoria Street skyline, casting my yard in shadow, and does not fit in with the historic character of the mews buildings on the street.” A planning officer said the scheme would not cause unreasonable overbearing or overshadowing and that the new roof would be set back and pitched so it was barely visible from the street
He said there was already a similar mansard roof two doors down from No 92, a two-storey 1970s terraced house surrounded mostly by Georgian and early Victorian properties. The officer said: “We think the design would be sympathetic to the roof space of the area, and the materials are used elsewhere in the conservation area. The street scene would be minimally affected and the impact wouldn’t be excessive or overly dominant.”
He said the design meant it would not resemble an additional storey on top of the building. Committee member Green Cllr Ed Plowden said: “This is a bit of a storm in a teacup.
“I can’t see that it does substantive harm to the conservation area. Princess Victoria Street is very eclectic in terms of its roofline and its buildings.
“If it was a perfectly formed terrace then maybe we would be concerned but they seem to have done what they can to ameliorate the concerns through negotiation and it looks like the gardens are really overlooked mutually already, so I will be supporting this." Committee chairman Tory Cllr Richard Eddy said: “While I welcome genuine, authentic local responses, I question how relevant some of the out-of-Bristol ones are here.”
He said the application would not harm the conservation area and there was no evidence it would adversely affect neighbours. Lib Dem Cllr Andrew Varney said: “I was really concerned when I saw the huge number of objections for what is a very modest scheme.
“I note that the scheme has been amended in response to some of those earlier objections. I don’t have any major concerns with this scheme.”
