The area on the corner of Goolden Street and Bathwell Road is going to be redeveloped. The developers have proposed that 9 flats (intended for up to 34 people) will be built to look like 7 houses. Whilst it’s great to see development of this land, the development will:
- Be three storeys high – and will feel a lot higher to those living on the downhill side (Stanley Hill, Summer Hill and Goolden Street);
- Be built right up to the pavement with no front garden area (so won’t look like local houses and consequently will feel imposing); and the new residents of these flats will face significant safety concerns from vehicles on a daily basis.
- Block out the view of the church for many residents, impacting the character of the area and a view visible across the city; and will
- Only have space for 2 bikes per flat and will have no car-parking spaces. The houses will also reduce current on-street parking availability.
- By cramming in as many residents as possible have an impact on local services (roads, amenities and doctors etc.) yet the services have received no extra funding, at a time when there are also significant developments occurring nearby (e.g. the 300 new homes at the Paintworks, less than 5 minutes’ walk away/ St Michael’s Dr’s closing).
- Look significantly unlike any of the neighbouring houses. It is proposed that they are brick with colour panels around the windows – unlike anything else locally.
In November 2016 a development was already agreed for the Scout Hut section of this land – for 6 additional houses. TRESA (Totterdown Residents Environmental and Social Action) are supportive of local developments, particularly where they are built to consider the quality of life of the future residents of the new development and the quality of life of the existing residents in the immediate vicinity.
If the following major changes were made to this development, we would welcome the addition of new housing as we want our area to be part of the solution to the housing crisis.
However in its current form, this development will have a highly detrimental impact on the current residents. We strongly urge the developers and council to make the following changes:
- Reduce to two storeys high only – thus ensuring the neighbours’ homes aren’t being looked into and don’t lose light; and that the new residents aren’t experiencing the alienating impact of being ‘packed high for profit’.
- The flats should be set back from the main road, with small garden areas, to prevent the new residents’ safety being compromised from being on a dangerous road known for its rat running (540 cars in 1 hour 40 minutes were counted on this narrow, residential Victorian street). If the flats are built directly onto the street as is currently proposed, it will be only a matter of time before a vehicle crashes into the building or a serious collision takes place, due to the rat run, the awkward camber with which many drivers struggle, and the frequent use of this road by lorries. In addition changing to set-back gardens will ensure this development is more in-keeping with the houses in the vicinity, and prevent the flats from looking imposing. It will also prevent the new residents from having people looking into their windows as they pass by on the street, as is common with flats with no set-back.
- The flats should only be two storeys high to prevent the iconic view of the church, a focal point for the neighbourhood being completely blocked from residents living around it.
- The flats should have car parking as it is highly unrealistic to expect 34 people plus visitors to have no cars. Tenancy agreements reflect a limit on car ownership.
- Funding should be released to help local services (roads, doctors etc) as part of the S106 or CIL system.
- The flats should be rendered and painted in colours in keeping with the houses in the immediate area.
If you would like to respond to the planning application – in support or against – you will need to refer to specific planning rules and do so by 1 February 2017 (links below). We have put some information together to help you and would welcome your action on this important matter.
|DESIGN and POSITION:|
|Size of building
– excessive height with large mass and bulk
||DM26i, DM26vi, DM27
DM29x NPPF 58
|Position of buildings
– extends to the line of the pavement
– will block view of church
|Local landmarks/focal features affected||
|Design and style
– architectural styles, rhythms, patterns, features
– predominant materials, colours, textures, landscape treatments and
– design of new buildings
– texture, pattern etc.
NPPF 126 (the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local
|Green infrastructure/ spaces||
|Privacy and daylight||
|SAFETY AND OTHER:|
||DM27iii (climatic conditions)|
|Density of dwellings||
||Bristol’s core strategy document Diagram 4.20.2: Examples of Residential Densities
states 120 dwellings per hectare (dph) for Totterdown.
|Diversity and demography||
|Highway Safety and Parking provision||
|Appropriateness of plot (history)||
||DM37: Unstable Land|
|Appropriateness of plot (drainage)||
||DM27 Landscape Design iv|
|Recycling and Refuse Provision||
|OTHER DOCUMENTS||These documents are also available online at http://bit.ly/2jBMVyK||Reference in document|
|THERE ARE NUMEROUS ERRORS AND INACCURACIES IN THIS DOCUMENT
Indicating a lack of care, due diligence and professionalism.
2.1 Wrong street name
The communal entrance to the proposed flats would not be accessible by any delivery/removal vans
www.fixmystreet.com/report/819602 (photo&video evidence)
|THERE ARE NUMEROUS ERRORS AND INACCURACIES IN THIS DOCUMENT
Indicating a lack of care, due diligence and professionalism. This raises concerns about the trustworthiness of the developer to follow through on their ‘intentions’ outlined in the document.
The introduction mentions associated parking – there is none with this development.
16_05428_F-PROPOSED_ELEVATION___SECTION.-1538838 shows the glazing considerably
smaller than those on the front facing windows.
1.3c Mentions the technologies being considered for ‘Station Approach site” This has no relevance to this development. Again a cut and paste approach showing no diligence in the specifics of this site.
3.0 Mentions “flat roof” for solar panels. Incorrect. The roof is made of multiple valleys and peaks mainly on an east west aspect therefore less suitable for solar panels.
|There are obvious cut and paste errors and incostistencies.
7. Waste Storage and Collection – no notes regarding collection
11. Foul Sewage ‘Unknown’ – this is a major issue as the main sewer is broken see photo below
‘The location of the sewer; running through the site, parallel to the road edge, this creates a non-developable zone to the rear.’ (16/01311/F DAS)
How will surface water be disposed of? Soakaway – drains are over capacity already
BCC (re16/01311/F) Arboricultural Team: ‘The proposed site is being heavily developed with little or no green space being provided for the future occupants. This in turn has caused a complete loss of any natural visual amenity the site currently possesses and causes the loss of all green infrastructure assets on site. This is in direct contravention of BCS9, DM15.’
|GEOTECHNICAL REPORT||This document was produced in 2008 for a different proposal therefore outdated .
Site area 0.02ha – incorrect
Building Level ‘necessitate the removal of up to 3m of soil to achieve foundation level’ – excessive excavation
‘Former oil tank’ contamination (from a garage)
‘The new foundations must not overstress the sewer…’ – the main sewer is already in a vulnerable state
|CONTAMINATION REPORT||Dated 2008.
‘Former oil tank… intend to remove all traces of oil… 115-130m3 non-hazardous soil’ to be excavated
Other links for Highways Safety issues
https://www.fixmystreet.com/report/819602 Stanley Hill photos