The Department of Planning has urged a developer that sought permission to build apartments near Collectors Hill to scale back his proposal.

A planning application submitted late last year by Gilbert Lopes said that the proposed development at 12 South Road would feature medical or retail space at street level, office space on the second floor and 18 one-bedroom residential units above.

However, the proposal provoked a series of 17 objections, with area residents complaining about the size of the five-storey building and its potential impact on traffic.

Several of the objection letters branded the proposal an “eyesore” that would tower over nearby structures and worsen traffic “bottlenecks” at the intersection of Collectors Hill and South Road.

The letters noted that planning regulations allow for the building to be only four storeys in height, and while the Development Applications Board has discretion to allow a fifth storey, it can do so only if the upper floor is “contained within the attic or roof area”.

“While we recognise the need for additional housing in Bermuda, we believe this development is not the right fit for the Collectors Hill area,” the objectors added.

“The proposed scale and the significant impact on traffic congestion and road safety, combined with the request to bypass planning regulations, will negatively affect the neighbourhood’s character and functionality.”

In a letter dated January 30 included with planning documents, the Department of Planning urged the plans to be “significantly scaled down and redesigned”, stating that they would otherwise not be supported.

“It is deemed an overintensification of the site, which will result in negative impacts, acutely felt by neighbouring properties and shared-use facilities,” the letter said.

“The proposed density of residential units greatly exceeds that which is typically permitted by Residential 1 at 20 units, increased to 30 units in certain circumstances, which results in a development that burdens shared parking facilities and cannot meet minimum requirements for communal open space.

“No details and sewage disposal have been provided and there are legitimate traffic impact concerns.

“The department recommends that the proposed development be significantly scaled down and redesigned to fit into the existing neighbourhood context.

“The application site must also be able to accommodate minimum parking standards, with the shared parking facility reserved for overflow parking.”

The letter said that if the project is not scaled down, a traffic impact assessment would be required, along with financial viability assessment documents, since financial viability has been cited as the reason for the size of the project.

“Once these additional documents are received, the application will be recommended for refusal as soon as practical,” the letter added.

Parking was one of several matters raised in the letter, with the department noting that the project would include 23 vehicle spaces and 18 cycle spaces.

The department said the proposed spaces were “severely deficient”, and while the developer said that the adjacent parking lot would be used, the suggested solution still raised concerns.

“The main issue is that the proposal is relying on an adjacent parking lot to accommodate 61.5 per cent of the vehicle parking and an additional 12 cycles, but is still deficient by 17 cycles in total,” the letter said.

“The shared parking lot serves busy restaurants, retail ventures and offices, and realistically cannot accommodate this development’s additional minimum parking requirements.”