In response to the a recent Affordable Housing Mix report for the proposed development on the former Bart Spices site at Mead Street, TRESA has submitted further objections which are set out below. Full details of the application are available here: 23/04650/X | Application for variation of Condition Nos. 39 (Landscaping (Tree Planting) works), 45 (Use Class Restriction) and 50 (List of approved plans) following grant of planning permission 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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TRESA has serious concerns about the Affordable Housing Mix report which states: “The preferred strategy of the Applicant is that Block C would be transferred to a Registered Provider. This is dependent on the overall funding strategy of the development and the potential occupier. Block C contains 69 dwellings. 44 of these dwellings (20% of the total 221 dwellings) would be secured as affordable housing within the Section 106 (following the agreement of the proposed changes sought via the Deed of Variation). It is anticipated that the remaining 25 dwellings would be let by the Registered Provider as ‘additional’ affordable homes, which are not secured by the Section 106 (as amended by the Deed of Variation) or by planning condition.”
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION. The percentage of secured affordable housing (20%) has reduced significantly from what was agreed in the previously consented scheme (30%). The provision of affordable housing was a key factor influencing councillors to approve the previous scheme despite the officer’s recommendation for refusing on numerous grounds. This reduction in affordable housing is unacceptable.
The applicant proposes that Block C would be transferred to a registered provider and that all the affordable housing would be within Block C.
Block C was problematic when the previous scheme was approved, including serious concerns about fire safety. Fire safety has improved, but it is noticeable that the design of Block C continues to be inferior to Blocks A and B. In separating it from Blocks A and B, there will be ghettoisation of the affordable housing residents who will be living in the ‘inferior’ block.
AMENITY SPACE. The applicant states: “All units will have access to a private balcony, internal communal private amenity space and communal outdoor amenity space.” As far as we can tell, this is not true.
We can find no “internal communal private amenity space” for Block C, although there are two “private internal community spaces” either side of the entrance foyer for Blocks A and B.
Residents in Blocks A and B will have access to a roof garden. There is no roof garden for residents in Block C.
Residents in Blocks A and B will have access to a ground floor, enclosed private courtyard. Block C residents will not have access to any private ground floor open space, but will have access to the public open space, which has been reduced in size (with the potential for increased wind channelling, will be a thoroughfare for the general public, and into which the majority of the commercial and residential bin stores open (all of the bins for Block B and Block C).
It is also worth noting that 44 (64%) of the flats in Block C are proposed to be 2-bedroomed flats for 3 people, which may well be flats in which children live. These children will not have access to good quality, safe amenity space within the development.