TRESA has made a further statement of objection to the proposal for the over-development of the site, including an ugly towerblock, at Totterdown Bridge. We urge Totterdown residents to object to the application at the link below:
Unfortunately the Bristol City Council planning website keeps crashing so if you are unable to make a comment online, you can email: development.management@bristol.gov.uk and remember to include the planning reference 18/04620/F
The text of TRESA’s recent statement is below:
18/04620/F | Construction of 152 new residential dwellings contained in three buildings comprising of a 15+2 storey tower, a central block ranging between 6 and 7 storeys and eastern block at 3 storeys. Additional uses include ground and lower ground floor commercial (B1 Use Class) office space, car & cycle parking, refuse & recycling storage and associated landscaping. (Major). | Former Esso Garage Bath Road Totterdown Bristol BS4 3AG
TRESA (Totterdown Residents Environmental & Social Action) community interest company retains strong objections to this application. Some minor changes have been made to the application, but these do not address the fundamental concerns raised by TRESAcic, residents, other organisations and key consultees. We trust our previous comments will be taken into consideration and we would like to make this further statement.
TRESAcic is in favour of sensitive redevelopment that is in keeping with the surrounding residential area, respects views to and from the Totterdown escarpment, provides good quality homes for a mixed community, and acknowledges the importance of the wildlife corridor along the River Avon.
Bristol’s current Local Plan and site allocation detail this site as being suitable for approximately 40 units. The application originally proposed 160, and this has now been reduced to 152 as a token gesture. The proposal for 152 dwellings continues to be gross over-development of the site.
The site is not in the city centre. However, the developer cynically suggests “whilst the site falls into the category of an Inner Urban Area, we would suggest that it could also be considered part of Bristol’s City Centre, given its short distance from local amenities and Temple Meads” [18_04620_F-URBAN_LIVING_RESPONSE_PART_1-2073800.pdf.p10]. We strongly object to this attempt to manipulate the designation of the area in order to increase the density of the development to a level that will put pressure on the local area.
The proposal will adversely impact on the surrounding neighbourhood. The developer acknowledges “the local area is generally low-level buildings” and the tower will be incongruous and overbearing. It is gobbledegook to assert “The tower has been designed to inform a spatial hierarchy, where built form and public realm can be afforded equal importance.” We agree with Bristol Civic Society’s assertion: “The tall building design is not good enough to satisfy Policy BCS21 – Quality Urban Design or acceptability criteria set out in SPD1 – Tall Buildings.” However, we would reiterate that this site is not suitable for a tall building at all.
We strongly support the statement of another objector: “The proposed scale and form of the proposal will create a new kind of barrier separating the cascading hillside village of Totterdown from the wider townscape.” It is not true, as the developer suggests, that “a tall building will sit comfortably within the context and have minimal impact on existing views”. Updated views provided in the TALL BUILDING ASSESSMENT ADDENDUM PART 2 and PART 3 illustrate how incongruous and overbearing the proposed tower is. In addition, views from the riverside walkway on the opposite of the river are missing (the views provided are from Albert Road). These views are critical and were one of the main reasons a previous tall development was refused following appeal.
The current proposal conflicts with several Bristol City Council planning policies including the Local Plan, the Spatial Plan, the Site Allocations, BCS21 and the SPD-Tall Buildings.
We note the applicant appears to be suggesting that residents in the development will be able to park their cars in the narrow Victorian Streets of Totterdown closest to the development. We question the assessment of the number of available on-street parking spaces and the plausibility of the overall parking strategy for the proposed development. TRESA accepts the development has good public transport links, and is within walking and cycling distance of the city centre (depending on ability). However, it is not realistic to presume that parking will not be an issue if 152 dwellings are built (especially as this is not the only development proposed along this part of the Bath Road below Totterdown). The only realistic solution to parking issues is to significantly reduce the number of households in the proposed development.
The quality of local consultation has been very poor. The developer argues: “The scheme underwent two public consultations throughout the design process. During these the design team engaged with local residents and stakeholder groups to understand local aspirations and priorities for the area” [18_04620_F-URBAN_LIVING_RESPONSE_PART_1-2073800.pdf. p11]. TRESAcic, and many local residents, consistently expressed concerns about the height of the buildings and over-development of the site. Unfortunately, these concerns have been either misrepresented or ignored.
TRESAcic is extremely concerned that the proposed development will adversely affect the wildlife corridor along the River Avon. We cannot see any meaningful attempt by the developer to acknowledge the importance of biodiversity by, for example, commissioning a thorough ecological report. It is essential that all appropriate up-to-date reports are commissioned and provided. Sensitive development that supports biodiversity along the River Avon wildlife corridor towards Temple Meads will be an asset to the city for many years to come and will be in line with Bristol’s (and the UK’s) Biodiversity Action Plan.
We urge the planning department in Bristol City Council to reject this application because of the height of the tower, over-development of the site, lack of compliance with several key BCC planning policies, and lack of respect for the surrounding built and natural environment.