24/03876/PREAPP Crown Sawmills, Eugene Street, St. Judes: 359 private sector build-to-rent flats
The proposed development is wholly inappropriate for the site and one which we cannot support.
359 dwellings spread between three towers 19, 16 and 11 high, all on a 0.71ha site would result in a development that is two-and-a-half times the optimum density of 200 units/ha stated in the Urban Living SPD for sites in an inner city-centre setting. There is no justification for the proposed building heights.
Sketch drawings show buildings that are oversized, out of scale with the surroundings and overbearing on existing buildings. The site is not a suitable location for buildings that grossly exceed height parameters set by the Old Market Quarter Neighbourhood Development Plan and The Frome Gateway Regeneration Framework.
Constraints set by existing sewers crossing the site and proposed alignments of extensions to James Street and Eugene Street have not been fully addressed in the draft plans.
We support proposal improvements to the river setting, landscaping of the riverbank, creation of a public walkway along the river and enhancement of this undesignated wildlife corridor, but this would appear to be contrary to EA requirements for access to the river and flood protection.
The scheme bears little relation to what is shown for the site in the Frome Gateway Framework document (also produced by the same architect) so we wonder about the validity of the framework if one of the first schemes for a site within the framework area ignores what is included in the document endorsed by the City Cabinet as recently as February 2024.
Serious consideration must be given to the Green Space ‘Big Move’ potential land swap shown in the Frome Gateway Regeneration Framework thus freeing up this site to become a public park.
Willie Harbinson
Existing buildings in this area are single storey industrial units, most of which will be demolished so this argument is nul and void. There is a perfectly good existing park very close to this development, so this argument that the plot should become a park is also completely nul and void. The SPD states that tall buildings should be located within reasonable walking distance of a range of local amenities, which this location definitely is – in fact it would be harder to find a better suited series of plots for the 15-minute city model. The SPD also states that a tall building should be located close to other tall buildings, which there are numerous proposed for this area, and the 10 storey Dove Lane building on the other side of the M32, so this and the other outlined points your argument on the basis of the SPD is also partially nul and void.
I don’t really know what the metric is for whether a park is “perfectly good”. My experience of Riverside Park is that it’s used mostly as a path in and out of town, and there’s little in the way of recreation or lingering. Of course, it doesn’t help that it’s adjacent to perhaps the busiest road in the city, but that hasn’t hindered Greville Smyth Park much. Taking advantage of this rare opportunity to expand a public amenity seems pretty objectively good.
Do we really want a city full of tower blocks? There is enough population density in the city centre. We know there is a need for homes, but just wildly building endless tower blocks is not the way forward. The experience of the 1960s tower blocks shows us how isolating they are for residents, leading to serious mental health issues and other social problems. This expansion of tower block building was begun by the last mayor. But his vision was not liked by the citizens of Bristol – hence him and the office of mayor being strongly voted out. There are numerous older city centre buildings not currently fit for human habitation, either because they are redundant commercial or industrial properties (especially in the sawmills area) or simply older residences which need refurbishment and modernisation. Bringing older unused or currently inappropriate buidlings into modern residential use through renovation or refurbishment is the way forward – not building completely new structures involving massive waste and carbon footprints in their making. Such developments are only concerned with making large sums of money for the developers, and are not concerned with the wellbeing of the city which all modern building in the city should be.
Bristol has one of the worst housing crises in Europe, you have two choices, mass expansion of building on the green belt, or inner city densification, through tower blocks. Bristol’s unoccupied property levels are some of the lowest in Europe, this argument that 20 unused building that need to be modernised at great cost, will suddenly fix the houses crisis is frankly bonkers and not based in reality. Manchester is full of modern (not 60s) tower blocks, these are nearly all filled with young professionals, and guess what, there is a vibrant city centre, more affordable rent, and people are in general happy. Paying £900 a month for a family Victorian terrace that has been turned into a house share that you live in with 4 other random people is *far* worse for your mental health.
The focus needs to completely shift to architectural merit, if these buildings embrace style, detail and a more gentle density they will feel far less overbearing.
Rather be able to buy the apartment though – why are they ‘all’ only for rent?