It is the intention to submit a planning application to a further planning application to Bristol City Council by mid May 2010. This is the first round of consultation, to gauge early thoughts from those that live or have an interest in the locality as the proposal emerges.
It will be helpful if initial comments by any third parties or local stakeholders are submitted using the link below by 16 March 2010. Alternatively paper correspondence can be sent to using the links on the contact details page.
All comments submitted will be held on our database and submitted to the City Council in full as part of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI).
Any e-mail addresses that are stored will not be forwarded onto any third party, but we may use the e-mail addresses to let you know of any updates to the project that emerge both before and during the planning application process.
I am writing to express my opposition to this development. I can see no benefit it brings to the local community. I have severe reservations about the provision of car parking spaces encouraging more car use in an already over congested and busy area. The visual impact on the locality is still unacceptable, even given the modifications. And the amount of low cost housing provided is frankly inadequate. It will add nothing to the existing community landscape or amenities other than more congestion, more unsold apartments, and more development based on individuals playing the property market for their own gain as opposed to considered and well planned social housing that answers existing needs and builds stronger communities. Put something useful there- a play area, a skate park, somewhere to walk, a cafe, a community centre, or some local shops, a garden. Of course- if you can’t make money or are unwilling to subsidise this, you could of course leave it to nature as it is. Thanks
Dear Sir / Madam
Any development of the former Bath Road filling station needs to be undertaken in a manner that is sympathetic and sensitive to the houses and vernacular of the local area – which is dominated by victorian terraced houses!
One of my main concerns with your proposed development is its impact on the pedestrian and cycle access routes into and out of the town centre – the current pavement into Bristol (between the 3 lamps and Bristol Temple Meads) is woefully inadequate and already has to cope with a shared cycle / pedestrian use which at rush – hour is very congested. I would like to see how the risks associated with the increased use from this development can be mitigated.
Regarding the 2010 planing details – I think that your proposals make a lot of sense. I support the shorter tower and the greater distance between the blocks. If sensibly delivered a redevelopment of this site will improve the local area.
Tom L
Upper Street – Totterdown
Thanks for this new approach.
Considering how long you have been working on this scheme, can you explain why you show the location of only ONE Waste Transfer Station, and consistently refer in the text to ‘the waste transfer station’ in the singular? The ones you do not acknowledge are very close and very significant.
With all due respect, is this a gross error, or an intentional deceit? May I suggest you update your website, to show all of the waste transfer stations – amending the site plans, the site analysis, the reporting of the previous schemes, and the proposals.
[Moderator Note:- Website text has been updated to plural. Industrial units and transfer stations are evident on the images.
My thoughts are that the buildings could improve the appearance of the area if they are built to a suitable standard so that they would last. The white render might become dirty in this environment with heavy traffic and the industrial estates, so this might be rethought while there is chance.
We also wondered if more family houses could be included but this might be difficult given the steep drop off in ground levels. It looks like a lot of apartments but then again but what is the alternative building on the countryside. Enough car parking spaces should be provided and the safety of pedestrians should be looked into because this is a busy commuter area.
I also wondered if anything could be done about keeping the noise down from Abacus. Thanks
I had the postcard through my door and was surprised because I live on the hillside quite far from Bath Road. I’ve no problem with the idea but car parking and best environmental solutions should be taken into account. City Car Club would help. Also can we do something about all of the Advert Hoardings on Bath Road, they are quite ugly.
I have no objection to the proposal at all, and live very near to the site which looks terrible at the moment. One comment though, it would be great to have some retail units included in the plans? Otherwise residents will need to walk some distance, and possibly up a steep hill, in order to obtain even basic provisions. Good for me too as I don’t drive!
I’m surprised by people’s negative comments left on your feedback page, some of which seem to be based more on jealousy than anything constructive. Not everyone of course, the comments about colour and access concerns etc are wholly relevant.
I would hope anyone living in or passing through this area on a regular basis, as I do, would more than appreciate it (and a number of similar locations) being respectfully developed into “something,” rather than the eyesore that currently resides.
Without local authorities having the desire or funding to develop these dead spots it will always require commercially minded individuals/companies to do so. Profit is not unreasonable in an open market especially when the consumer helps set that same market.
It would seem the developer has already had to make alterations based on planning constraints and I applaud their willingness to see the job through.
As for fitting in with the local environment, I find the design both sympathetic and contempory. In the name of all things progress we surely cannot be hoping for a mock-Victorian terrace…… gas lamps, outside privies and all?!
I am not surprised that people are expressing negative opinions about this development. I would be delighted if this development offered me the opportunity to step onto the property ladder, but from previous experience, I doubt this will be the case.
I have no objection to the design or the use of land which is otherwise going to waste being used for new build flats as long as people actually live in them and it’s better than looking at green belt.
The only issue I have is who will end up buying them. Look at some of the other recent developments around Bristol, where landlords have bought multiple properties and then refuse to rent them to lower income people, preferring to leave them empty. It hardly makes for a community spirit.
As for the jealousy accusation. I would be renting a property overlooking these new flats, so I think I would be entitled.
I appreciate the the text of this website states that no decision has been made regarding the cladding material on the buildings. I would however strongly object to the possible white render/cladding. There are very many new developments in the city and elsewhere clad in white render which very quickly deteriorates in appearance (bird droppings, residue from dripping pipes etc.). There seems to be a trend in the newer mixed-use developments moving away from white render to brick/stone, which I believe would be infinitely more preferable. This is further compounded by the previous planning enquiry’s decision which made a point of how much the previously rejected development would stick out when viewed from all over the city IF the buildings were white-render-clad. I am most certainly not against the development of this site per se, but proper integration with the rest of Totterdown, an area very well known for its individuality and “look” is essential.
Park Street, Totterdown
A development on this site is necessary. This site is an eyesore and when I had friends down from scotland they were surprised and disapointed and the amount of abandoned sites that let our city down. This is on a major road, gateway to Bristol. This building, modern but interesting, is the sort of thing we should be encouraging. I like the white however, surely the colour is a minor problem, this can be changed if the planning people consider it necessary. Would I like to live here? Yes, definately. Location is great, I think this building is interesting and would grab peoples attention and this makes it desirable,
Someone has suggested there should be provision for a shop, Looking at the detail there does seem to be some retail, lets hope the locals support it, the shop opposite closed down due to lack of support. There does seem to be an element of social housing and the coucil should ensure there is ample parking, but these sites should be encouraged however, I suspect we will be still looking a this barren eyesore for a few more years to come.
Bath Rd
I am surprised at the lack of new information in regard to developing this site. As a speaker at the planning inquiry it was clearly established that development on the site was supported by all. There was no wish for a derelict site as it is at present. What was being planned was in question.
In proposing a revised development why has so little effort been put into communicating a new design. All that would appear to have been done is chop off the tower from a few of the old CGI pictures of the tower-block and squished up the buildings (a little) to reportedly decrease the footprint. You can HARDLY SEE the Totterdown escarpment from the riverside CGI. Nor any image from Summerhill or Thunderbolt steps. You can’t see the Holy Nativity church either which the planning inspector made reference to in the decision 22.04.2009. There is no wider image putting the site in context against the escarpment from the city, or from the top of the escarpment itself. I appreciate a final design is someway off but an image or two must be deserving?
Much was discussed at the inquiry in not just accessing the riverside, but how safely we could do this (across the only access road I recall) and onward travel, i.e. permeability and not just a destination. This website does nothing to explain what new thought & revision has gone on since. What does this new March 2010 ask people to comment on which the developer already knew?
By reducing the highest point of the former proposal, and reducing that highest point only you enforce the feeling of a slab in this new design; a 1970’s long office block like shape. Much like the derelict sorting office near Temple Meads.
The number of dwellings was going to be 106 apartments, 3 live-work units and 5 terraced houses with 111 parking spaces per BCC letter 03.02.2009. The new development will reduce by 10-15 residential dwellings; how has this been calculated and why can’t we see how so much loss in height and footprint has kept the development at 90% of original capacity – have the rooms shrunk?
I don’t think this website shows anywhere near enough detail for a meaningful SCI and I look forward to (when the stage comes) the options or choices, along with the three dimensional terms including a model, as well as focus group and wider community involvement.
I live toward the top of Park Street and had no flyer about this website was received. I think wider and varied communication is needed.
Whilst you might not want Victorian like faux architecture we don’t want city-centre wharf like development near our [protected] industrial area and characterful housing.
Thanks for the flyer. Having viewed the plans (which are a little hard to decipher), I offer the following comments:
I do think that it is important to tidy up the derelict space but I will be sorry to see some of the greenery go. I would hope that you will plant more native trees and bee-friendly wildflowers and add green roofs to your development. This will encourage wildlife and should also help with run off/drainage since you will be concreting over some of the existing natural soil and scrub. I would support the use of reclaimed materials from Bristol’s industrial past along the walkway to add some visual and historical interest.
I agree with views on white render becoming quickly soiled. I suggest you take inspiration from the many pretty pastel coloured houses of Totterdown and introduce this variety to your exteriors. That way, the site would be more attractive and blend in with existing surroundings. In terms of sustainability, what about using hydrolaulic lime plaster which is much less polluting than modern, unbreathable renders?
I can’t tell whether you are planning retail units. If you don’t, I can’t really see what benefit this development will have for the local community. An independent grocery store stocking ethically obtained goods would be very welcome, (eg. The Better Food Company and workshops in St Werberghs) as would a gym, a cafe with outdoor seating by the river, a cycle shop, an arts centre/ community centre.
I favour a riverside walkway and think that this should be extended as far as Temple Meads to provide a safe, green route for cyclists, rollerskaters and walkers who do not wish to breathe in the fumes of the Bath Road. It would also help to ease congestion on the already too narrow shared pavement/cyclepath into Bristol. If you linked via a well-lit path to Temple Quay, as well as reducing car traffic from your site with a viable green walkway to a national rail station, you could encourage shoppers and walkers towards Totterdown which could boost the local economy and help the obesity problem by getting more people active. Perhaps the council could throw some funds this way?
I see that historically there used to be a boatyard here. Would it be possible, in conjunction with the council, to add a jetty here and extend the ferry service? Again, this would reduce traffic congestion on the A4 as well as providing another community amenity.
Are you liaising with the relevant authorities and companies regarding proposed changes to the bus stops, traffic lights and enforced no right turn on to Totterdown bridge? No matter what you do to reduce traffic from your site, there will inevitably be an impact. More people being forced to drive all the way to Bath Bridge in order to turn round again and return to Totterdown Bridge will add extra pressure and congestion to the most ridiculous, ill thought out and polluting one way system I’ve ever seen. You should campaign for traffic lights to enable commuters and industrial workers from the Brislington side of Bath Road to be able to turn right on to Totterdown Bridge.
Bristol council will inevitably ask you to provide fewer car parking spaces than there are residencies to discourage car use. It’s great to be forward looking and environmentally aware, but this is just naive. Bristol is wet and cold for at least half the year and car owners will otherwise just park in surrounding streets, antagonising local residents. However, as mentioned, I fully support another city car club here as well as provision for cyclists and hope you will provide secure, covered storage for bicycles.
Thunderbolt Steps will be your residents’ main way into Upper Totterdown with its cafes and shops. I would like to see this site improved with better lighting and lower heges/trees, more as it was in the early 90s. At the moment, these steps are slippery and dangerous, particularly for women walking alone at night. Because they are dark, they encourage young people to loiter, drink and case out local properties, which will affect your development as well. Could you liaise with the council on this?
Thanks for your time. I hope you’ll be able to implement some of the ideas from our creative local community and to offer us something back.
As mentioned above, the current situation is an eyesore and I would welcome the proposed development, it seems fairly sympathetic to me. It is the best solution for the community and should be seen as extremely positive step.
Visual impact. Given the concerns raised at the public enquiry, it is disappointing that there is not enough detail here to understand the changes to the design. I would reiterate that any development needs to be sensitive to the local area including acknowledging the river, the ‘industrial’ history and the local housing. The white render is unsuitable. Plans need to illustrate various alternative materials. Some brick and stone would be in keeping with the site. Images should be included that show the impact on views of the Totterdown escarpment. Landscaping should be in keeping with the riverside site and wildlife friendly.
Bulk. Reducing the previous proposal by 10-15 residential dwellings is insufficient to address the concerns about bulk. Is this achieved solely through reducing the height of the tower? More space is required between the other buildings, and some variation in their shape, is required to avoid the feeling of a ‘heavy block’, and allow some views of Totterdown from the river.
Transport. The Bath Road is extremely congested at peak times, and always a very busy road. Car drivers may experience difficulties accessing and leaving the development. Clear plans of the access route are required. It will be important to consider the enforced no right turn on to Totterdown Bridge.
A suitable route for cyclists and pedestrians is important. The current ‘shared’ pavement/cycle path into Bristol is inadequate and dangerous. Any riverside walkway should be wide enough to safely accommodate pedestrians and cyclists as far as Temple Meads to provide a safe, green route for cyclists and walkers.
I support the idea of the City Car Club involvement.
I also agree that extending the ferry service could be an excellent way of reducing congestion on the road, and supporting a valuable alternative mode of transport in Bristol.
Additional facilities. Some retail and some additional facilities, e.g. café, are important to create a sense of community. The impact of several noisy and dusty waste transfer stations on residents does not appear to have been adequately addressed. I am sympathetic to the idea that some Section 106 monies should be spent on improving the historic Thunderbolt Steps.
My comments are made as a daily user of the Thunderbolt steps and Totterdown bridge.
I think the aerial view is poignant; contrary to some comments here, 80% of the space to be used is not “eyesore”, but green. Many days I see cormorants and buzzards cruising this area. When the 70’s planners authorised the sweeping away of the low rise housing on the south bank of the Avon for the never built bypass, they bequeathed us a swathe of green land. The proposed development would cut a significant part from this and presumably open the prospect for 3 or 4 of the Totterdown bridge approaches to be similarly developed.
From my Arnos Street vantage, I see two other recent apartment developments on School Road. The earlier development is a simple rectangular block with a roof-line echoing the Edwardian Houses around it. The second is a strange assembly of wooden boxes, pushing the limits of height and integration beyond the acceptable. The proposed development seems rather like the latter, more Temple Quay than Totterdown. The developers of the PaintWorks have done rather well with a low rise development. I would be pleased to the same or less on the old petrol station site.
As a footnote, please don’t go further than the level 3 code compliance; buy energy from large scale renewable sources, and save the inefficiency and waste of resources of embedded generation.
I agree that some improvement to Thunderbolts steps would help, and possibly some improvements to the footpath which is well used. We live further down the Bath road and always cross the bridge and use the excellent cyclepath on the otherside. A ferry stop is a great idea in theory but this is tidal river not the floating harbour, it couldn’t work. Also the riverside walkway couldn’t get around or over the Albert bridge I doubt. We’re not against the idea but would like to know if some profit/money could be spent on community projects, Totterdown is a thriving area and it would be shame if the new houses were just an island and didn’t add to what the area has to offer. A shop, creche or community space as well as the walkway link?
The proposed development would appear to be a sensible solution to an unpleasant eyesore
Here we go again, pictures that do not show how your slab blocks will shadow Totterdown or how they will block the views of Totterdown from the railway line. Flats, flats, flats yawn, you have not learned anything from the planning enquiry!
I agree with what seems to be the majority of comments here, that it would be good to see the area developed, albeit still more sympathetically to the area.
Regards the size of the development, it seems like an awful lot of dwellings to fit in to such a small area. I can understand this would be near the top of the commercial list of requirements, but as well as not wanting to be swamped by that many new residents or scare away too much of the riverside wildlife, I honestly wonder whether the area can take that much extra traffic. Especially if they are to make it a non right turn on to the bridge and with Paintworks to expand further and with it, no doubt, more traffic.
Regards to design, I don’t feel there is enough visual information on this site to gain a full understanding of the visual impact to the wider area. The focus seems to be on the signature white building on the corner and not so much on the smaller buildings going further along Bath Road (which look quite dull and basic from the small image that I could see).
I think it would benefit from using more natural materials, (along with more green area/vegetation) and while I wouldn’t want to repeat the Victorian style, I’m worried that a cheap contemporary building can start to look shabby very quickly.
Where brick is used it would be great to see something other than a standard uniform block of one colour.
As mentioned above, the Paintworks redevelopment and the new properties on Cemetery Road have been done really well and bring their own character to the area which I hope this new development can add to.
(I live in Hawthorne Street and didn’t receive a flyer or any information on this updated proposal either)
Why does totterdown have to be deluged in bland, badly designed lumps of buildings that will quickly become shabby? We already have had to suffer years of delays in School Road only to get a run of the mill, poorly thought out building that dwarfs the area and shadows the park, we can expect the same with the building next to it in the near future. Now we have to potentially loose our views with yet another ’shove up quick and make a profit’ high rise which will add nothing to the local area. Yes the site does need something and im not against modern building but how about something low rise, quirky and considered which will be an asset. Totterdown has always been a gem in the local area but it seems that every inch is being earmarked for building on, we have had 3 put up close to Hillcrest school in the last few years. Also, where are the children from these new buildings (if families can afford them) going to go? The local schools are massively oversubscribed anyway and there is always a bun fight for places. Where are all the cars going to go. Leave totterdown with some of the character that makes it attractive and stop trying to swamp it in cheap apartment buildings.
Moderator Note:- (i) Car parking for each residential unit is provided for in an underground car park; (ii) A view impact assessment will be provided to demonstrate that houses on Totterdown will look over the top of the site and key landmark buildings will not be obscured; (iii) the Council has agreed that £113,000 should be paid towards nursery and secondary school provision, £250,951 towards improving open space and £24,897 to local libraries.
You refer to changing the singular to the plural. You have not done this.
On the page Design Development 2007 – 2009 you say This application was refused in 2008 for reasons relating to:-point 2. “the impact of noise from the nearby waste transfer station;”
The inspectors report refers to 4 waste transfer facilities.
No problem with this but agree that the white render will look out of place.
I thought I should add to my previous comment. Just reducing the height of the tower does not address the concerns about the monolithic bulk of this proposed development. The conclusion of the public enquiry was that the bulk and scale of buildings 1 and 2 was excessive and “it is the bulk and height of the non-tower element of building 1 in concert with building 2 that seems to me to be inappropriate at this location”. It may be more work for the architect and less money for the developer, but a rethink of the design is required rather than repeating the same mistakes.