Re: Worrying development...

[GORDON WILHELMI <gordon.wilhelmi192@bt...com>]

Yep , nice one Ed (and Hi !).
All ; Another thought, regarding the online petition, only I don't know 
whether it's too late for a boost to the numbers to make any difference 
now ?
Anyway..... there is a venue in Brixton with a similar ethos for 
showcasing new/local/overseas musicians. I've picked up a local rumour 
that the area around it, including the venue, might be up for 
redevelopement. It is only a rumour, so I'll not name it, and the issues 
are quite different anyway. At least half a dozen on this List know the 
place.
Point is, there are still a number of Towns and Cities lucky enough to 
still have places such as this, and I'm sure the musicians and regulars 
feel equally passionate about any 'like' venue's Health as they do about 
their own.
If the far flung Members of this List had any contacts with their local 
'like' venue, perhaps they could highlight the online petition regarding 
Fleece to them. I'm sure it would be morally right, I'm sure it would be 
legal, I'm sure it would help, if it would be in time.

If so, I'll make enquiries to the effect to the nice people at the 
mysterious place on the hill in Brixton.

G


________________________________
 From: Chris Sharp <chris.sharp4@vi...net>
To: A Discussion list for The Blue Aeroplanes <blueplanes@bl...org> 
Sent: Thursday, 29 May 2014, 12:32
Subject: Re: [BluePlanes] Worrying development...
 


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/

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