Another comprehensive objection to the development proposal for the old Bart Spices site is reproduced in full below. You can submit your views by clicking on the ‘Make a comment’ tab here: 21/06878/F | Mixed-use redevelopment including 221 residential (C3) units and 651 sq.m. of commercial floorspace (Class E) on ground floor, together with a new vehicular access off Mead Street, cycle and car parking provision, private amenity space, servicing arrangements, landscaping, public realm, and associated works. | Land At Corner Of York Road And St Lukes Road Bedminster Bristol BS3 4AD
______
On consideration of the revised application I cannot identify any significant changes that alleviate or take into account my former observations and objections. In fact in some cases the alterations proposed make things worse, therefore all that I objected to before stands, and I add the following:
- The density remains very high at 440dph, the developer has reduced the floor space of some units to maintain a high number of units. BCC will be condemning people to live in these rabbit hutches which will create stress, poor neighbouring and ill health if they approve this application. Some of the family units have 10 sq m more space than a one bed flat, is this really a family sized unit?
- The roof terrace is seemingly an attempt to address the lack of useful open space and environmentally beneficial landscaping. A roof terrace is totally incongruous in this location and will provide minimal benefit to residents and very little useful benefit to wildlife, especially hedgehogs that can’t climb or fly, it will not provide a link between the wildlife corridors of the railway embankment and river banks. However it will provide nesting sites for seagulls which will bring associated problems.
- The developer’s attempt to address concerns that their proposal will obscure views of the green Totterdown Escarpment and crowning jewel of Richmond Terrace is very weak. They state “when in fact it is already broken up by built form”, if this is an attempt to say that the view has already been obscured, so they should be allowed to do what they want, [it] is unacceptable and shows disregard for the values of the people of Bristol. Of course the view is occasionally obscured, in an urban environment it is inevitable that any view will be obscured by something as you move through the city. However, they fail to understand that the close proximity of their proposed development to the escarpment is what will exacerbate the loss of views of this escarpment from many more locations around the city. The height of their development is 4-5 times that of the existing low industrial buildings. As I said before if Bristol is to retain any sense of Genius loci it needs to value and safeguard these iconic views. If it were possible to upload photos into these objections we could show the council many view points that will have interrupted views of this escarpment.
The developer states… “The Mead Street Area is identified for Regeneration so the foreground to the Escarpment will change but it is unjustified to say that ‘it should be expected that this city backdrop will be lost’. As acknowledged within the Position Statement and demonstrated by the submitted HTVIA, this is not the case. I note your commentary on the Development Brief and the suggestion that a height strategy should be adopted. It is understood that you and your urban design colleagues have fed into and been integral to the formulation of this document.” The council have clearly been negligent in not setting a height strategy for the site and the developer is maximising on this oversight, or desire on the part of the City Council and Mayor to ‘high-rise Bristol’. It is entirely justifiable to say that the view of the escarpment will be lost from more areas of the city, there is no doubt that this development in it self and as a precedent to more high rise will be the nail in the coffin for this view. - The council have allowed the change of use from industrial to residential on the Mead St site with little consideration for support services and infrastructure for residents. This development offers scope for a “small” corner shop and “small” cafe and one or two other businesses. Light industrial units which offer employment are being forced out of the area as their sites become more valuable as ‘development opportunities ‘, forcing people to travel further away for work. No community space/hub for residents has been included, the only meeting place might be a bench in a dreary open space between blocks or a windswept, shady rooftop terrace. Provision by this developer should include community space to set a precedent for future applications.
- The developer’s attempt to visually associate this development with the Temple Quarter and the blocks of flats across The Cut, does not hold up ….they do not connect visually with this site …the existing terrace along York Road, the low rise industrial and warehouse buildings and the railway retaining wall are the visual links to this site. The developer’s attempt to connect to the York Rd Victorian terrace by removing a floor of the corner block goes no way to minimise the dramatic change in mass and height, nor the impact of overshadowing and domination of the skyline and elevation along York Road of the proposal. The height should be a maximum of 5 storeys including ground storey.
- As the developer rightly points out this is to be “.. the first development in a new residential-led, mixed-use quarter,…..” therefore it will act as a precedent for future applications.. therefore the Council needs to take a strong stance now and keep the scale of building mass size and height down.
- The developer’s paragraph about the ‘Elevations / Design’ suggests that ‘ The architectural style of the building has been informed by the history of the Site’. This is a distraction and meaningless. Why be informed by, or reference, buildings that are no longer on the site??? It shows desperation of the developer to indicate they have undergone some ‘research and understand the area’, when in fact they clearly don’t. The development should be taking heed of the residential buildings adjacent to it, namely York Road and the terrace on the escarpment.. in terms of scale, materials and detailing.
If they want to be informed by history then they should continue the housing as they quote “…..terraced housing along this road, with a tiled pitched roofscape” the same as the York Rd terrace on the other side of St Lukes Rd. They state that their design has a “…varying roofscape animates the skyline and creates distinctive elements creating visual interest, yet remaining complimentary to the historic context. …” The pitched roofs will be invisible to the pedestrian at ground level and will actually lose their pitching by the smoke extractors, which also extend the height of the buildings. The developer states “In addition, the rectangular plan of the buildings support the references to the railway buildings and industrial heritage of the area which is integrated throughout the scheme.” …this is ridiculous, the rectangles are reminiscent of communist blocks in eastern Europe and Russia, no one will reminisce ‘railway buildings’ by these rectangular buildings…they are the cheapest shape and offer an easy way to fit lots of units, that is the developers reference point. - The developer states “The elevational treatment is considered to be simple and an appropriate traditional tripartite response to a façade concept, ‘Base – Middle – Top’. The banding and window surrounds reference the adjoining existing York Road Terrace buildings but also act as visual richness to avoid bland residential brickwork facades. ” . This could all be acceptable if they were referring to buildings that were on a human scale, details such as these are lost and irrelevant on blocks of this scale.
- the developers would do well to reference the materials that are visible nearby, for example the grey sandstone retaining walls of the railway could provide an excellent scale and colour of stonework for the ground storey … and with soft coloured brickwork above would provide a pleasing aesthetic at eyelevel.
- The developer states that no unit will be for sale, but is this for the life of the building or the tenure to the housing management companies? In which case market prices will make these flats unaffordable to many tenants and they will be forced out.
- The upper floor apartments will not view the courtyard…they will look straight across to the opposite block of flats., it is absurd to make the claim they will look onto the courtyard. The lower flats will be able to look at trees but these will block out more light in addition to the proximity of the opposite block and the shadow of the escarpment in the south will also minimise the light into flats and courtyard.
- The developer is delusional if they believe that their landscaping proposals provide a luscious public open space, the ‘richly’ planted beds are not large enough to provide for significant planting and are dwarfed by the buildings. Presumably informal play relates to skateboarding on the paths as little else could be accommodated. A lawn area of this scale provides NO amenity value…areas of grass the size of Castle Park, Queen Square, Victoria Park offer amenity value.. areas of the proposed size are unusable for young children to play on or for adults to use recreationally, tenants dogs may find them useful.
- When was the site ,and by whom, named York Gate??? The developer???? Why not call it Watergate as it is so near the river? Or even Flood gate as the council will be opening the flood gate to more unsuitable, inhuman high-rise blocks if this is approved.
It is my consideration that this application should be rejected until the proposal, put forward by the Mead St Development Brief, to design the open spaces and infrastructure before individual housing developments are developed are more detailed and approved. If this development loses a small section of land for the benefit of the whole site the loss to the developer will be minimal but a more appropriate development can be designed. I consider the adverse effects of this development significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, and the application should be rejected.