TRESA has submitted a formal objection to the recent planning application (described as ‘non-material amendments) for the Mead Street development on former old Bart Spices factory site. Our objection is here: 23/03279/NMA | Application for a non-material amendment to vary condition 50 (list of approved plans and drawings) of 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
and is set out in full below.
______________________
TRESA objects to this application.
The proposed changes are material amendments that attempt to address fundamental problems with the original application without reducing the number of flats.
The original application was recommended for refusal by officers. Concerns included hyperdensity, safety, quality of life of residents, parking, overlooking, appearance and impact on neighbouring properties. These concerns remain and some have been exacerbated by this current application.
We object on the following grounds
- MATERIAL AMENDMENTS. The amendments proposed are not non-material amendments. They are material amendments and a new planning application should be submitted
- LOSS OF ON-SITE PARKING. The removal of parking spaces within the development, other than 14 places for the disabled, will lead to additional on-street parking in the surrounding area. The initial transport plan argued 43 parking spaces were an appropriate level of parking. A new transport plan is required to assess the impact on residents of the proposed development, occupiers of the commercial space, nearby businesses and the surrounding area. [We would also draw your attention to the new school buildings at Spring Street with a proposed drop-off/pick-up point on St Lukes Road which will impact on traffic movements in the surrounding area.]
- LOSS OF EXTERIOR BALCONIES. The omission of balconies removes important outdoor space in this hyperdense development and will adversely affect the quality of life of the affected residents. The current statement suggesting that this is being done to increase daylight (rather than reduce costs) is disingenuous.
- FIRE SAFETY. An external gantry is proposed to address the lack of a second means of escape for flats in Block C. We question whether this is an adequate, safe means of escape in an emergency and believe this should be considered by the HSE. [We also reconfirm our concerns about the narrow ground level walkway at the side of the building which is part of the escape route for Block C and is also intended for wheeling large refuse bins in and out of the basement.]
- EXTERNAL GANTRIES. It is suggested that the external gantries will be used only in the case of emergency. How will this be enforced? We are concerned that the gantries will become a source of problems and anti-social behaviour. The gantries will also overlook future development on the neighbouring site.
- DESIGN AND APPEARANCE. Significant changes to the appearance of the building are proposed. The ‘stone-effect render’ is essentially painted render, and appears to be a cost saving measure. This is prone to staining and is not an improvement to the design. Because the development is not in keeping with neighbouring buildings, slated roofs had been proposed to improve appearance: this has now been dropped on health and safety grounds, which does raise issues over competence in submitting the original planning application. These two changes, combined with the loss of balconies and the addition of external gantries, constitute material amendments to the original design and appearance of the proposal and should be considered as part of a new planning application.