Application Details
| Council | BCC |
|---|---|
| Reference | 21/00275/F |
| Address | Former Public Conveniences Lawrence Hill Bristol BS5 0BT
Street View |
| Ward |
|
| Proposal | Development of a 4-storey building comprising a ground floor commercial unit and 2no. HMOs on the upper floors with associated refuse and cycle storage. |
| Validated | 2021-01-26 |
| Type | Full Planning |
| Status | Decided |
| Neighbour Consultation Expiry | 2021-03-05 |
| Standard Consultation Expiry | 2021-02-18 |
| Determination Deadline | 2021-03-23 |
| Decision | GRANTED subject to condition(s) |
| Decision Issued | 2021-04-21 |
| BCC Planning Portal | on Planning Portal |
| Public Comments | Supporters: 1 Objectors: 3 Total: 4 |
| No. of Page Views | 0 |
| Comment analysis | Date of Submission |
| Nearby Trees | Within 200m |
BTF response:
SUPPORT
We are pleased to see the plans for the protection of this high-quality tree a mature false Acacia (Robinia pseudoacacia) growing to the west of the former public convenience building.
The tree is approximately 12m tall with an average crown spread of 5m, though we have measured the widest spread – to the south-east (and towards the development site) - at over 10 metres. The stem diameter was measured at 560mm creating a Root Protection Area of 6.7m (141m2).
We note that. at the time of the inspection there were no significant defects visible within the tree and that it was categorised A1,2 in accordance with BS5837:2012.
We also note that there are no potential shading issues associated with the proposed development so that future pressure to prune the tree in future should not be an issue.
Despite the plans to protect the tree, we remain concerned that a significant part of the canopy encroaches within the footprint of the development area and is liable to be damaged during both construction and by the fabric of the building once it is constructed.
The planning officer is asked to satisfy themselves that the fabric of the building as currently planned will not come into conflict with the tree's canopy in future. If it does then the design will need to be adjusted to accommodate the tree.
We suggest any permission granted be conditioned on the basis that an arboricultural officer be required to satisfy themselves that proper precautions have been taken to safeguard the tree before development can commence and that they or the developer's arboricultural be required undertake regular inspections during construction to ensure that proper safeguarding of the tree is maintained.
The Arboricultural Method Statement should be amended to reflect this with a condition added that, where any delivery or movement of materials to, from or on the site which risk damaging the tree will be undertaken under arboricultural supervision.
In our view this tree is worthy of a Tree Preservation Order, especially given the risk that it may be damaged by the close proximity of building works. Granting the tree TPO status will bring home to the developer and all those working on the site how important this tree is.
Public Comments
on 2021-03-02 OBJECT
Planning Solutions consider this proposal to be an inappropriate use of the site. Theprevious outline permission for a commercial unit at ground floor level and flats above, appears tohave been superseded by a desire to squeeze as many people as possible onto a very small site,resulting in some of the single bedrooms being very small varying from 6.5 to 7.6 square metreson the 3rd floor.
The other 2 bedrooms on the second floor, which make up the 6 bedded HMO appear to beshown with double beds, which means that this 6 bedded HMO could accommodate 8 people. Asthere are only two shower/WC rooms for these two floors, we feel that the quality of life within thisHMO would be detrimental to any future occupiers. We feel that the WC,s should at least beseparated from the showers.
We also feel that the Lawrence Hill area suffers badly from the fact that virtually all of theaccommodation in the Local Centre consists of small flats, which leads to a predominantlytransient population and poor community cohesion, with major litter and parking issues. Thisdevelopment can only exacerbate this situation, and although there are only a small number ofregistered HMOs in the area, we think that many of the existing properties there may be operatingas HMOs.
on 2021-03-01 OBJECT
I wish to object to the application as proposed.
The site - the plot on which a former public toilets block stood - is barely large enough toaccommodate a garden shed, let alone a four storey building comprising retail premises and 2 no.HMOs.
In particular, the living accommodation would be akin to rabbit hutches.
The applicant is trying to squeeze as much use out of the site as possible with very little regard tothe space requirements and amenity of prospective residents.
There is insufficient room within the site to accommodate the residents' cycle and recyclingstorage outside as per usual, so I believe the residents' space will be further constrained by havingto have these facilities within the building's footprint.
Lawrence Hill ward is already densely populated and allowing yet another HMO within the wardwould put additional strain on local facilities such as general practitioners, dentists, etc.
The site is right alongside the A420 a major traffic and commuter route into the city, so besidessuffering from a lack of space, any residents would also suffer poor air quality, a known healthhazard for those with respiratory conditions.
Adjacent to the site is a large, mature false acacia tree. Development of the site would probablyinterfere with the roots of this tree, the only one for quite some distance facing directly onto the
main road and providing valuable shade in the summer with its large canopy. Furthermore, thetree's canopy would probably have to be cut back to accommodate the building.
I cannot in any way support the proposals as submitted by the applicant, if only for the welfare offuture tenants, if nothing else.
on 2021-03-01 OBJECT