Housing 145 objections to plan to replace car wash with tower block
MORE than 100 people have aired their views on plans for a nine-storey block of flats in Totterdown.
Developer PYL Bath Road Ltd wants to knock down a Bath Road car wash and build 54 flats on the site. The block would be next door to the Grade II-listed Thunderbolt pub, which was built in 1840.
The proposals have attracted 148 comments from the public since being submitted in late July. Some 145 are objections, two are neutral and one is supportive. Many voice fears over the impact on hilly Totterdown’s picturesque views.
The Totterdown Residents Environmental & Social Action (TRESA) group believes the “gross over-development” would “overshadow and threaten the privacy of local residents”.
TRESA criticised the lack of play facilities in the “poor design”, arguing the scheme would undermine the area’s character. The group insists it would support a “good quality design, no higher than four storeys, that contributes to people-friendly streets and spaces”.
Local resident Eleanor Taylor wrote she is in favour of a redevelopment but feels 54 homes would be “far too large for the site and infrastructure”. She thinks a building half the size proposed would
be “far more sustainable” and have less impact on Totterdown’s skyline and Bath Road traffic.
It comes after Bristol City Council granted planning permission for a 17-storey tower block, which is being built on a former Esso Garage just yards from the car wash site.
Of the 54 homes planned next to the Thunderbolt, 16 would be one-bed and 36 would be twobed. The plans do not say how many bedrooms the remaining two flats would have.
The developer proposes 16 flats (29.6 per cent of the total) would be classed as ‘affordable.’ The minimum affordable housing policy from the council is 30 per cent. Six of the affordable flats would be one-bed and 10 would be two-bed.
And 12 of the affordable flats would be for ‘social rent’ – the most affordable category – while four would be offered in a shared ownership deal with a housing association.
Arthur Hurnell, of Bedminster, is the only local to have submitted a comment in support. He argued the scheme would help alleviate the housing crisis in Bristol.
Mr Hurnell wrote: “In general, processes like this are biased towards negative responses because they ask the opinion of local residents, who are of course negatively impacted by any construction work. The benefits of new housing are much more diffuse, until the new residents move in, so these people rarely comment. If we ask local residents, no new housing would ever be constructed.
“There is no other solution to our housing needs than new construction, so we face a clear choice, do we prioritise local concerns about noise, views (of St
Phillips Marsh industrial estate) or do we provide homes for the millions of people that desperately need them?
“The best way to provide homes in an environmentally friendly way is with projects like this. Urban infill projects and increasing density are proven to be the lowest-carbon way to provide new housing. There aren’t many more chances for good urban infill projects in this area, so it’s important to get as many homes as possible in the few sites available.”
Bristol Civic Society “strongly” objected to the plans, branding a nine-storey block “wholly inappropriate” and out of character with surroundings.
The society wrote: “The coloured terraces tumbling down the escarpment and the wooded areas to the east are important views from further north in the city. They must be preserved.
“Far from uplifting the area, the sombre grey tones of this [nine-storey] slab abutting the pavement would be a negative intrusion in the area.”
The site, formerly a petrol station, has never been developed into housing, despite planning permissions having been granted in the past. In 2007, the council greenlit three blocks of flats up to four storeys high which would have housed 21 flats, but they were never built. Then, in 2011, permission was granted for proposals which would have seen 11 flats built on the land, but this development also fell through.