Re: Worrying development...

[Chris Sharp <chris.sharp4@vi...net>]

Hi Ed

This is incredibly useful feedback!

Thank you so much for taking the time to go into so much detail. I have 
forwarded your comments to our acoustic engineers and our planning 
consultant. I'll let you know how things develop.

cheers

Chris

On 29 May 2014, at 10:18, Ed Griffin <ed.griffin@fa...co.uk> wrote:

> Hi Chris,
>  
> I’m an architect who works on schemes like this, so should be able to 
> help in what we can do to protect The Fleeces position.
>  
> Just by luck I was in Bristol last Thursday so swung by in the afternoon 
> to have a closer look.  The venue is close to the disused office 
> building opposite, but it is possible to build flats that have 
> sufficient sound reduction to prevent any future complaints, or if there 
> are complaints, the Council has a record proving there is no nuisance.  
> I think it is down to personal opinion about the benefits of turning a 
> disused office building into residential – it brings an old building 
> into use/means there is a more natural mix of people in the area out of 
> office hours/but should only happen if it respects the existing local 
> community (The Fleece!)
>  
> However there a few risks which I have listed below in no particular 
> order.
>  
> The Planning Approval if given needs to very robust by having a good 
> Noise Survey and a Condition attached ensuring the flats get built to 
> the noise reductions levels required.  I have some comments on the Noise 
> Report below but the requirement is for some very expensive glazing 
> which the Developer may ‘forget’ to install or it is carried out poorly 
> and all the benefits are lost.  Therefore my main objection to this 
> application would be to try and get a Condition attached forcing the 
> Developer to build them correctly – the best way to do this would be for 
> the Council to insist on post-completion noise testing of a random 
> sample of flats.  This test data then to be sent to the Council 
> Environmental Health Officers who would also be the people dealing with 
> any future complaints.  The Council may not be keen on this as it means 
> more work for them, and the Developer won’t like it because of the 
> additional cost and will also mean they can’t cut corners.
>  
> One advantage to the Council however will be that any noise complaints 
> will go to the Council Environmental Health Officer who will be able to 
> deal with them simply if they have this test data.  Otherwise they will 
> have an ongoing problem.  The Fleece probably already has some contact 
> at the Env Health as they are part of the Licensing I believe.  If you 
> have any contacts there it is probably worth talking to them to make 
> sure they are aware of what is happening, and that they will be the ones 
> fielding the complaints if it is not done right.  They will also be 
> asked to comment on any issues from the Planning Application and so it 
> is an ideal time now to catch them and make our point strongly.
>  
> Looking at the Noise Report:
>  
> Is the original survey correct?
> It was carried out Friday 6th December 2013 to Monday morning.  Was this 
> an ‘average’ weekend for noise from the venue?  Were bands/events on 
> Friday and Saturday?  If not then the survey really needs to be carried 
> out again.  The microphone position looks like it is right opposite and 
> I assume is at first floor level as there are no flats proposed at 
> ground level on this side.  The results they get are interesting – they 
> basically show that the traffic along Victoria Street is noisier than 
> the Fleece!  This could be true as the fleece has the best sound 
> proofing I have ever seen – massive thick stone walls!  (However are the 
> openings facing St.Thomas street blocked up as well otherwise any noise 
> would just breakout through these).  The peak noise event on the 
> St.Thomas side is at about 2.00AM – is this kicking out time and 
> therefore could be noise from numerous satisfied Fleeceheads on their 
> way whole talking in rather high voices?  This peak is well above 
> anything else suggesting the music itself is less of a problem.  Noise 
> from people leaving the venue would be raised as an issue at the next 
> Licensing application and so is just as much a problem.  I will see if I 
> get one of our Acoustic Consultants to run over the report to see if it 
> was all carried out to the right British Standard etc.  The report does 
> state that there may be peak levels due to the Fleece venue but says the 
> survey was carried out over a weekend and so represents the worst case 
> for music from the venue, and higher noise levels than those measured 
> would most likely be from shouting in the street.  I would therefore ask 
> for more detail on this statement.  Shouting, even if not as loud as the 
> traffic is likely to be more irritating to residents and so more likely 
> to raise complaints.
>  
> Conclusions of the Report:
> The report gives a sound reduction requirement for the new windows and 
> walls for the building.  These are based on the worst case which would 
> be bedrooms on the Victoria Street side at night requiring a big 
> reduction.  This is shown to be achievable by using a special heavy 
> double glazing system (10mm-24 cavity-15mm special).  This will be a 
> very expensive window.  Crucially the report also makes clear the flats 
> have to be mechanically ventilated so as residents have to open the 
> windows!  The balconies do not matter as the resident has chosen to go 
> onto the balcony.  These windows reduce the noise by 45dB on average 
> which works for the average noise levels, but a peak could still be 65dB 
> which is way over the 45 required.  I think you are allowed to argue 
> that it works for the average and so can be approved.  I’m not expert 
> enough to know what this means in reality but seems to mean shouting in 
> the street might still be an issue.  There is also some info on wall 
> construction but this is simpler and cheaper to get right so will be 
> less of a problem.  Noise reduction though relies on good workmanship 
> and airtight junctions – which unfortunately are rarely achieved on new 
> buildings unless the builder is forced to get it right.  Therefore the 
> requirement for post- completion testing is crucial.
>  
> Other issue:
> On line poll.
> The Planners will take the communities views into consideration and a 
> good Developer would have had some form of public consultation – either 
> an exhibition or leaflet drop, and request feedback which should then be 
> incorporated into the application.  If this was not well publicised they 
> can be asked to do it again.  Therefore the online poll you have started 
> is important as it will prove what the views of the community are.  All 
> the stuff about the importance of the venue to the city/internationally 
> really helps even if it not a strict ‘Planning’ issue.
>  
> Formal objections on the Council website.
> As per the link you gave, these are also just as important and need to 
> emphasise that any development needs to take in the fact that the Fleece 
> exists nearby.  The non-Planning issues are less important here.  All of 
> these objections will be counted and summarized into a report written by 
> the Planning Officer which will then recommend for 
> approval/refusal/deferring and go to the Planning Committee for the vote.
>  
> Planning Committee meeting.
> These are held about every month and you may be allowed to speak as an 
> objector for a few minutes.  We can find out more about this later.
>  
> Hope this helps for now.  Can you check that the times of the survey 
> were OK as noted above.  Any questions on this lot let me know!  I will 
> follow this up with a written objection to the Planners.
>  
> Ed
> 
> _______________________________________________
> The Blue Aeroplanes mailing list
> BluePlanes@bl...org
> http://www.blueaeroplanes.org/

_______________________________________________
The Blue Aeroplanes mailing list
BluePlanes@bl...org
http://www.blueaeroplanes.org/