A contentious rear extension in Redland has secured planning permission despite fierce objections from residents who branded the development a “concrete hell”.
The property on Cranbrook Road received approval from Bristol City Council’s planning committee on Wednesday following a deadlocked vote.
The homeowners intend to construct the extension to accommodate an elderly family member.
However, neighbouring residents expressed alarm that their “little patch of paradise” would be destroyed by the development.
The planning committee B found itself evenly divided, with four councillors supporting the application and four opposing it.
Committee chairman Don Alexander ultimately exercised his casting vote to grant permission for the controversial project.
The development has sparked particular concern amongst residents due to the property’s location on a street characterised by dramatically sloping rear gardens.
Substantial excavation work has already commenced, with massive supporting structures erected on the site.
The planned extension is on Cranbrook Road in Bristol
|
GOOGLE MAPS
Local resident Graham Pears voiced strong objections to the scheme. “This is the wrong project for the wrong area,” he stated.
“It’ll transform our little patch of paradise into a concrete hell, because it’s a really green, verdant area, and it’s going to be a concrete pit with concrete walls all round it.”
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS
Mr Pears raised additional concerns about the extension obstructing natural light to his patio and rear rooms.
He also criticised the council for failing to conduct site visits to assess the development’s impact firsthand.
A planning committee at Bristol City Council approved the development
|
GETTYApplicant Dhanesh Singh defended the extension plans, insisting the development would not create privacy or overshadowing issues.
“There’s no overlooking, privacy or sunlight shadowing,” he explained.
“We’re not asking for the world, we just want somewhere for our kids to play with their grandad.”
Mr Singh disputed characterisations of the project as environmentally destructive.
“The garden isn’t going to be a concrete jungle. We want to put grass down and keep as much turf in it as possible,” he said.
The homeowner revealed the ongoing dispute had created significant hardship for his family.
“Financially, it’s been a strain,” he admitted.
“My kids live with a camping stove and an air fryer at the moment.”
The committee’s decision split along party lines, with Labour councillors Lisa Durston and Don Alexander joining Liberal Democrat Caroline Gooch and Conservative Bador Uddin in supporting the application.
Green councillors Guy Poultney, Lisa Stone, Mohamed Makawi and Abi Finch voted against the proposal.
Councillor Alexander justified his decisive vote by emphasising property rights.
“It’s not for us to stop people doing things with their back gardens in my opinion. There’s a liberties issue there,” he explained.
The committee chairman argued that their role was limited to ensuring legal compliance rather than aesthetic judgements.
“If he wants to paint his shed pink, he can paint it pink, and that’s his right,” he added.