A planning application has been submitted to vary 43 conditions for the towerblock development at Totterdown Bridge.
Following a discussion at the recent TRESA public meeting, an objection has been submitted. The full text is reproduced below.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
TRESA objects to this planning application, for the variation of 43 conditions. This application adds weight to our concerns that the original planning application should never have received planning approval. We specifically want to raise the following issues.
TRAVEL PLAN. The applicant asserts that Car Club providers are unwilling to provide car club spaces in the basement car park as there is no access for non-residents. The proposed ‘solution’ is that other car club spaces/vehicles are available at Paintworks and at Wells Road, car club vouchers will be available, and a travel plan will be prepared and implemented. It is important to note that the distance to Wells Road, and the typography (up a very steep hill), do not make this a viable option. Under the circumstances, more information about the ‘travel plan’ should be provided before this variation is considered acceptable. Is it possible to allocate a car club space within the development somewhere other than the basement car park, or on Bath Road?
OMISSION OF GREEN ROOF ON BLOCK A. The proposed mitigation is to add planting on the embankment at Block A; climbing plants on side wall that accesses Block A; 3 additional planters on podium; trees on Bath Road frontage. We question the extent to which these measures will provide viable green infrastructure for this hyper-dense, predominantly high-rise development. A maintenance plan is needed.
WILDFLOWER MEADOW. It is indicated that the ‘wild flower meadow’ is not possible because the proposed area is under Local Highway Authority control. Why was this not known when the original planning application was made? If the wildlife meadow formed part of the biodiversity net gain calculation, what mitigation is proposed for the loss of this wildflower meadow?
LOSS OF WINDOWS. We note that for Block A south elevation, the riser/stair windows will be omitted, and bedroom windows narrowed. Block D east windows will be removed and alternative ventilation provided. We are concerned about the loss of natural light and the subsequent impact on the quality of life of residents from the loss of these windows.
LOSS OF BALCONIES. It is proposed that Blocks B and C corner balconies are replaced with Juliette balconies. There was already insufficient outdoor space for this hyper-dense development, and this will be further reduced by replacing corner balconies with Juliette balconies (which do not provide any outdoor space). Once again we are concerned about the quality of life of future residents.
BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) certification for sustainable building cannot be met because of missing information from the previous developer. This is unfortunate but must not be a justification for poor monitoring of sustainable development.
PPC ALUMINIUM CILLS. It is proposed to introduce polyester powder coated (PCC) aluminium cills to address weathering, durability and appearance concerns relating to deteriorating brick slip cills. We note that Bristol Civic Society has the following concerns: “the Trueline coping / cill covers are poor and do not create the correct drip position to throw the water away from the building face. They also do not show the horizontal jointing and thus will create their own problems in the long run.” We share these concerns.
PPC ALUMINIUM COPES. It is proposed to introduce PPC aluminium copes to all roof edge wall heads, to addresswaterproofing and durability. We question if these will also be of poor quality and create future problems.
STEEL SUPPORTED CANTILEVERED WALKWAY. We note that this replaces the mass wall shown on the original planning application and was driven by site conditions, bank slope, and practicalities of safe construction that were not considered by the original applicants. This again suggests that the original application was not well considered and should not have gained planning permission.
FIRE SAFETY. We remain extremely concerned that the development does not meet fire safety standards required following the Grenfell disaster. It may be that this will be permitted, since the development was under construction when the higher standards were introduced, but we are very concerned about the quality of life for residents who will be aware that their building is potentially unsafe in the event of a fire. We note that Bristol Civic Society has also objected on this basis, and we concur with the points they raise.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. The applicant states: “The local community will be advised of the upcoming site activities via a mail drop and a community liaison meeting before work starts. Mail drops will be carried out, at regular intervals, to keep neighbours aware of upcoming site activities and progress.” Please note that community engagement has been poor. We were invited to a community liaison meeting. However, there has been no further engagement. We are not aware of any mail drops at regular intervals, or information supplied to local community groups. We understand that the local councillors were not informed of the current application before it appeared online.