TRESA was pleased to see this detailed objection to the Mead Street/York Road development, from a knowledgeable local resident, which we have reproduced in full below. You can learn more about, and object to the proposal, here:
________________________________________
Planning Application at York Road, ref. 21/06878/F
I wish to object to this unsatisfactory planning application for a number of reasons:
– The design is poor
– The proposals are over-large and over-height
– The proposed housing density is too high
– Insufficient weight has been given to noise, air quality, community or environmental concerns
The bulky towers loom over the street and their surroundings in an unfortunate way. Almost all public realm has been given over to very tall buildings too close to the boundaries. The overall appearance is blocky and grim, and adding upper floors of dark grey metallic cladding has not helped.
Single aspect flats face each other in vast walls only 18m apart leaving no privacy for the prospective residents, particularly as their balconies would be only 14m apart. Internally, the flats are served by dark narrow corridors 30m long with a single window at one end and windowless lift shafts at the other.
The enormous height of the proposals would dominate the local landscape and obscure one of the most famous and iconic views in Bristol. Although submitted drawings do not indicate it, the upper floors would look down upon nearby houses which are currently on top of a high escarpment. The buildings would likewise blight the surrounding area and plots of land.
On the West side, the building has been shown 1.5m from the boundary with a façade filled with single aspect flats. Assuming the adjacent site were to be developed in a similar fashion, flats would be touching distance apart across a man-made canyon. This is an unacceptable approach, blighting nearby landowners with gross overlooking problems, quite part from the associated fire risk due to the effective exposed areas on this side.
The design has completely failed to acknowledge the unique position adjacent to the river, a major road and pedestrian route as well as the nearby topography. It is bland and anonymous and appears to have been designed in isolation from the City altogether.
I understand that the City Council is developing a planning strategy for this area in conjunction with the Whitehouse Street area, which would hopefully establish some relevant guidelines in consultation with local residents and businesses. Presumably the current and proposed Mead Street schemes are designed to jump the gun on this should certainly be refused until a proper strategy for re-development is established.
The proposed density according to numbers submitted with the application would be over 500 dwellings per hectare, not including the extensive commercial and servicing areas on lower floors. The Bristol Urban Living SPD – Making Successful Places at higher densities indicates that an upper limit of about 120 units/Ha would be appropriate in this ‘Inner Urban Area’ and makes no mention of commercial activities. According to BCS20, the Totterdown escarpment, one of the highest density urban areas in Bristol contains 120 dpH. The proposal for more than 4x this would clearly be excessive with overcrowding and poor social outcomes resulting.
The Urban Living SPD also states that ‘a poorly designed tall building can have a detrimental impact on the historic townscape of a city like Bristol’ and ‘ the topography and skyline of a city like Bristol.’ This proposal would do all of that if permitted to proceed.
The Internal Daylight Assessment indicates that many of the apartments will be miserably dark with those on the lower levels having low light levels and almost no view of the sky, yet concludes this would be acceptable. There is also an assumption that the remainder of the site would remain undeveloped, and relies on having surrounds which are single storey to achieve the results that it does, something that is mostly unlikely to remain, and which is referred to in the Design and Access Statement.
The report on overshadowing nearby properties indicates that the new development would completely blight and overshadow the closest buildings which are within the Bedminster Conservation Area, as well as blocking winter sunlight from existing flats across the river, yet again concluding that this will be acceptable.
The Health Impact Assessment submitted with the application completely fails to identify an air pollution strategy or address problems beyond identifying that there may be one, despite the site being directly on a busy road within the Air Quality Management Area. The size and bulk of the building would contribute to trapping polluted air within close proximity, exposing pedestrians, road users and residents to unacceptable levels of pollutants.
The Wind Desktop Appraisal acknowledges that no wind tunnel or CFD study has been done. It speculatively uses data from a site 7km away and reduces predicted wind speeds by over 50%. This generic approach is unlikely to produce a correct result as it completely fails to recognise the unique topography of the area and the river valley. The conclusions that there would be little adverse impact of wind funnelling on the surrounding roads, paved areas and residents are laughable to anyone familiar with the locality.
The Tree Survey locates and classes all existing trees on the site and recommends that all except one should be kept, preferably with the surrounding green space. However the proposed scheme removes every single one so the buildings can be larger. The proposed replacements are not likely to fare well, sited in hard landscaping 2m away from the 11 storey cliff faces of the buildings. Claims in the Ecological Assessment that landscaping and biodiversity would increase by removing all trace of existing trees, shrubs and greenery are not credible. No mention is made of bats which are known by residents to inhabit the area and use the river and escarpment for feeding and as a travel corridor. The proposals are very likely to interfere with current bat transit and roosting.
The Noise Assessment Report submitted examines little except the impact of existing noise, mostly traffic, on the new residents, and concludes that many of the flats should have their windows sealed shut, with artificial ventilation, though no proposals are made as to how this would be done. This type of design is generally considered unacceptable by current standards. There is no consideration of the considerable impact the residents would have on each other, or other nearby residents, facing a wall of other flats a short distance away with open balconies likely to give rise to considerable disturbance. This type of design is deeply flawed and known to give rise to many complaints. The proposed adjacent seating and café areas are only likely to make matters worse.
The Heritage Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment praises its own scheme yet somehow manages to miss the evidence of its own carefully selected and presented photomontages – that the scheme represents an awful blot on the landscape viewed from almost any angle and lurks over the nearby city in a threatening manner, blocking or spoiling views of the famous escarpment from almost all angles, and sitting uncomfortably beside the Listed structure of the foot bridge.
The Sustainability Statement claims great things in terms of energy saving, yet fails to mention that buildings above 6 storeys are known to become progressively less efficient and more energy intensive the higher they go while introducing long term maintenance problems.
The Transport documents and Design and Access Statements do little to address the parking problem thrown up by the development, other than stating that little parking would be required. 14 disability standard spaces are allocated to flats leaving 29 spaces for the remaining 230 flats and commercial spaces. This would hardly be considered adequate for visitors, never mind the residents and staff. Expectations that they would not have motor vehicles are unrealistic and there is no nearby on-street parking at all. The only proposed solution is for overflow parking on the Totterdown escarpment, which local residents will be able to identify as ridiculous due to the non-existence of available spaces.
Sadly, the Statement of Community Involvement is just that – little more than a statement. It quotes percentages of answers to leading questions designed to elicit apparently positive responses, while making little of any negative concerns expressed. This is not community consultation.
The Operational Waste Strategy is unsatisfactory, requiring tenants to take their segregated waste up to 10 floors away and relying on building management to place all of the bins in collection areas. The Strategy is also in direct conflict with the Landscape design as it shows the main bin area collection site exactly on the site of a large raised planter.
Conclusions of many of the documents submitted with the proposal amount to little more than the applicant marking their own homework and have produced hopelessly optimistic outcomes based on little evidence. The apparent mark of 10/10 is in reality closer to ‘2/10 – poor – needs to try much harder’. One of the most disappointing aspects of the submission is that the freeholders of the site are Bristol City Council. Every person in the City has a right to expect better.
The scheme as presented is so deeply flawed in all respects that planning permission should not be granted under any circumstances. It would lead to poor health, social, visual , urban and civic problems and would also be a fire hazard. It is clearly in breach of the Bristol Urban Living SPD as well as BCS1, BCS2, BCS15, BCS20 and BCS21 and should be refused.