Cllr. Councillor Alistair McNair and Cllr. Anne Meadows

BH2026/00234 – 65 Ladies Mile Road

10^th March 2026:

Please accept this letter as our objection to the above planning application. We have five key objections to this proposed development: overdevelopment and loss of character of the area; overdevelopment of a site close to a public park; loss of privacy for neighbours; increase in off-road parking; setting a precedent for overdevelopment across the city.

This proposal sets out to construct a two-bedroom bungalow in the garden of a House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO). In the conditions of the HMO (BH2024/01772), the number of inhabitants was reduced from 9 to 7. Residents are therefore rightly worried that the proposed bungalow may be converted into another HMO, leading to significant overdevelopment of the neighbourhood, or at the very least increasing the density of housing and residents to an unsustainable level as suggested by the conditions applied to BH2024/01772.

Regarding the character of Ladies Mile Road and Mackie Park. As can be seen from Fig.1 below, Ladies Mile Road, and properties adjacent to Mackie Park, have large gardens backing onto the park creating a consistent green outlook attractive to wildlife. This development would remove the majority of the garden of 65 Ladies Mile Road.

Fig. 1: highlighting the significant green space of this part of Patcham.

The proposed dwelling will be extremely close to Mackie Park. Properties along Ladies Mile Road are set well back from the park, allowing a sense of greater openness and greenery. However, the proposed development would result in a dwelling built right up to the park’s boundary, giving a sense of encroachment and overlooking into the park, given its height and scale. It would not be “a sensitive and appropriate use of the site, in keeping with the residential character of the area” as stated in the Planning Statement (p3.).

Fig. 2: highlighting the proximity of the proposed development to Mackie Park.

Regarding the property of 65 Ladies Mile Road in particular. As can be seen from Fig 3 below, the garden of 65 Ladies Mile Road is large with ample space for planting and lawn, complementing the green environment of the park and neighbouring properties. It also provides space for the seven residents of the HMO.

Fig. 3: highlighting the extent of the current garden which features significant planting in keeping with surrounding properties.

If the separate dwelling is constructed, there will be significant loss of green space for the residents of 65 Ladies Mile Road, leaving mostly concrete and paving rather than space for lawn and planting, which would be in opposition to the surrounding neighbourhood, and contrary to CP10 Biodiversity which requires “the conservation, restoration and enhancement of biodiversity where possible.”

Residents are right to be concerned that the seven inhabitants of 65 Ladies Mile Road will be confined to a much smaller outside space, contrary to CP14 Housing Density which states that “residential development should be of a density that is appropriate to the identified positive character of the neighbourhood.” This reduction in outside space is likely to lead to greater noise disturbance and loss of privacy for neighbours given how close the property is situated to 67 Ladies Mile Road, and given the excessive number of people that will be living on this site confined to a much smaller plot.

Fig.4: plans of proposed development showing significantly reduced outdoor space for the seven inhabitants of the HMO at 65 Ladies Mile Road.

The Planning Statement (p.20) states that

The dwellings design ensures there is no harm to outlook or privacy concerns to nearby occupiers. The proposed dwelling would therefore have a no impact upon the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjoining properties. The scheme is therefore compliant with Policy DM20 in regard to neighbouring amenities.

This is clearly not the case. The residents of 67 Ladies Mile Road are right to be concerned that they will be overlooked from the property which will have windows and doors close to the boundary looking east towards their garden, severely impacting their privacy.

In addition, as can be seen from Fig.5 below, the residents at 67 Ladies Mile Road will not only lose their view north but will lose a significant amount of view over the park.

Fig. 5: outlook from 67 Ladies Mile Road which will be lost.

While it is welcome that off-road parking is planned, there is space for only one car, when the property has two bedrooms, which may suggest the requirement for two cars or more. Ladies Mile Close is very narrow (see Fig. 6), lacking in space for any extra vehicles which another dwelling would attract – not only residents but visitors. Ladies Mile Road also lacks space for extra vehicles, especially being in close proximity to Patcham High and Junior Schools. The Local Planning Authority are therefore right to “have raised the loss of parking capacity as a potential issue within the pre application advice.” (Planning Statement p.20).

The Planning Statement points out on p.12 that “CP9 Sustainable Transport promotes the use of sustainable transport modes and requires appropriate parking provision to be included within developments.” However, this will no longer be the case for the HMO at 65 Ladies Mile Road which is set to lose its cycle storage.

While the HMO at 65 Ladies Mile Road was given permission, conditions were attached. One of these, condition 4, states:

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied as a sui generis HMO until the cycle parking facilities shown on the approved plans have been fully implemented and made available for use. The cycle parking facilities shall thereafter be retained for use by the occupants of, and visitors to, the development at all times.

It is unclear whether the shed is currently being used for cycle storage in line with condition 4, which we feel should be investigated prior to considering this proposal, but more importantly, the proposed development would be built on top of the shed allocated for cycle parking facilities, and no replacement cycle parking facilities has been suggested for the HMO.

Residents are also concerned with the fact that a crossover is planned very close to where a streetlight is currently situated. While the crossover may not require the removal or movement of the streetlight, plans often change, and residents are right to be concerned that this light may be endangered in what would be a dark street without it.

Fig. 6: streetlamp close to the proposed development

We contend that this proposed development would result in “unacceptable loss of amenity to the proposed, existing, adjacent or nearby users, residents, occupiers” given its closeness to Mackie Park, contrary to DM20 Protection of Amenity. It would set a dangerous precedent across the city were garden plots next to parks allowed to be built on, as it would result in a significant loss of the biodiversity and openness found in areas surrounding parks.

Should the Local Planning Authority consider granting permission, we request that it is brought to Planning Committee for determination where we reserve our right to speak to our letter and the application.