There will be a Carriageworks community meeting on Tuesday 7th January, 6:30-8:30pm at St Pauls Learning Centre, Grosvenor Road, St Pauls.
The meeting will be to discuss the proposed amendments to the S.73 application submitted by PG and covered in our post of 15 November.
We are sad to report that Pete Bullard passed away on 31 October. Pete was an active member of CAG since our start in 2011, and an active campaigner for the redevelopment of the Carriageworks site for much longer.
Pete chaired the St Pauls Planning Group. Not a single major development or planning application in St Pauls has escaped his scrutiny. He also worked with others to ensure the restoration of St Pauls Park, and he was the person behind the planting of trees along Grosvenor Road. Over the years of his community activism, Pete was involved with more projects and environmental improvements in St Pauls than we can list.
Pete also produced beautiful pieces of stained glass and has taught many people to create their own works in this medium. Every Tuesday evening (in term time) saw him at St Pauls Learning Centre running his glass class. (So if you ever wondered why CAG Community meetings never happened on a Tuesday… that’s the answer.) He was also an enthusiastic photographer, and fisherman.
Pete will be deeply missed in CAG and in St Pauls. His funeral will be on 2 December, with a service at Canford Crematorium at 11.15, followed by a
Celebration of Pete’s life at St Paul’s Learning Centre 12.30 for 1 til 5 pm on 2 December
Please drop in to the Learning Centre, Grosvenor Road, BS2
to share memories and stories and to see some of Pete’s glass work.
There will be a collection (no flowers please) to contribute towards the planting and maintenance of 3 fruit and nut trees in St Pauls Park as a lasting memorial.
PG have submitted amendments to their proposals for Block A (fronting Ashley Road). The full details can be found on the planning website.
Note that these only affect Block A and not any of the other buildings on the site. The listed Carriageworks building is not part of the proposed changes.
The proposals vary the 2015 planning permission. They affect only Block A (referred to as A1 and A2 in the planning permission). A Section 73 (minor material amendment) application to change the permission was submitted in May 2019. These latest proposals vary that S.73 application.
CAG has created the images below, showing on the lefthand side of the image the original (May 2019) application to amend with the latest proposals on the right. (Note that the lefthand side image says October 2018 – this is the month that they were first released).
The key difference to the original amendment is the greater setback of the fourth and fifth floors.
Changes to the entrance area and the configuration of ground floor servicing and retail units.
Small change to roof over entrance.
Windows facing Hepburn Road revert to original planning application. See drawing below for details.
Closeup of windows facing Hepburn Road. Glazing will point south west. Solid infill pointing south east towards Hepburn Road back gardens.
We understand that PG have submitted new proposals to the planners, thereby amending their May 2019 S.73 application. PG tell us that these are the same as the proposals shown at the July community meeting, but we haven’t yet seen them. As soon as they are available we’ll let you know.
In the meantime PG have published a table analysing and responding to the public objections made to their May proposals.
On 16 May 2019 the PG Group submitted to Bristol City Council a Section 73 application to make material changes to the Carriageworks planning permission. These changes have attracted significant opposition.
At the CAG Community Meeting on 10 July PG introduced revisions to their proposed changes. These revisions have not yet been submitted to or registered by the planners. Comments made at the meeting included:
- Ongoing concern about the height of the Ashley Road frontage, increaesd shadowing from the increased height
- Lack of syntax to the retail frontage
- The replacement of triangular windows with bolt-on window louvres facing Hepburn Road (which, since the meeting, we now understand is being addressed). The St Pauls frontage is as important as any other and should not be subjected to cost-cutting of this nature. The Carriageworks must not turn its back on St Pauls.
- Whether a Section 73 application is appropriate given the scale of changes proposed
- The need to increase the amount of affordable housing
- Use of local labour and suppliers
- What are the archaeological findings?
As and when PG do revise their application any comments already submitted will potentially have reduced relevance. Equally the planners will need to be clear if comments submitted after the submission of any revisions by PG refer to the orginal or revised proposals. CAG would like to see any confusion avoided so that quick and effective decisions can be made by the planning authority.
The S.73 application, any revisions and all comments can be found at https://planningonline.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=PRLISBDNHHU00
As and when the revisions are submitted by PG we will post an update on this website.
Nearly 30 people attended the Carriageworks Community Meeting at St Pauls Learning Centre on 10 July. PG Group, the developer, was there to explain their latest proposed changes to the existing planning permission.
At the beginning Lori Streich, the Chair of the Carriageworks Liaison Group, outline the objections to the proposed cahnges as concerns about:
- the Ashley Road frontage
- the height of the Ashley Road part of Block A
- the treatment of the gateway from Ashley Road into the site
PG said that they understood these concerns and had made further changes in response. They noted that the scheme designed by Fifth Capital / Assael and granted planning permission was never intended for build – it was just to get planning permission. PG now have to deal with practicalities, contractors, building regs etc. The proposed changes are grounded in the reality that this difficult and tight site needs to be made viable. The changes are:
- Introduction of horizontality using Bathstone across the whole frontage
- Accenting of the windows
- Introduced railed Juliet balconies to break up the frontage
- Restored commercial units as in the Assael drawings
- Taken the fifth floor and recessed it 4-5m so not visible from top of Picton St.
- The building footprint remains the same
- Clarification that corner commercial unit is recessed so not visible from the viewpoint in the cgi drawing. Entrance is wider and then narrows to width of existing scheme. Commercial unit is still glassy, but have removed the curved glass frontage. Recess was necessary for fire access turning circle.
Drawings of these proposed changes were on display and can be seen on our website. At the time of writing they have not been submitted to the planners.
Subsequent discussion focused on:
- Use of local labour (including young people) and suppliers. PG confirmed that this will happen but that they have not yet reached the stage of dealing with the details of this issue.
- Archaeology. PG confirmed that a report has been prepared, that nothing unexpected has been found and that the report will be shared in due course.
- The Council’s previous rejection of six stories fronting Ashley Road. PG commented that the Council’s agendas have changed since 2015 and that there is now greater focus on the overall scheme and the place that will be created. Rather than looking at the precise number of stories they will be looking at the overall benefits of the development. Density of the scheme is at the lower end of the scale compared to other developments coming forward in Bristol.
- Lighting and shadowing from the scheme.
- Whether a Section 73 application (amendment to an existing permission) is appropriate given the scale of changes proposed.
- Affordable housing. PG said that they are discussing with the City Council the potential to increased the number of affordable units, but they need to have a viable scheme before they agree anything. Affordable housing, in itself, does not improve the viability.
- Viability. PG said that the existing planning permission does not provide a viable scheme. If these changes are not approved they do not have a viable development.
- Hepburn Road frontage and concerns about the bolt-on window screens (as opposed to triangular windows in the planning permission that prevent overlooking into neighbours’ gardens)
Currently the material changes application will have to go to Committee due to the number of objections (20 is the threshold but over 100 have been received).
There was further group discussion about the proposed changes and also about the Cultural Plan.
Cultural Plan comments
- Question 1: What % mixture of uses would you like to see between: retail, bars / cafes, day /night time uses, other commercial, voluntary / community, other – in which case, which ones?
- Answer: A bit of everything. Nothing late night as it’s a residential area. 70% commercial, 30% community / voluntary. But mixed up together.
- Answer: No night time uses. Some twilight uses. Lots of daytime uses.
- Question 2: What % mix of tenants would you like to see between: local sole traders, sole traders from elsewhere, local chains, national multiples
- Answer: Local sole traders – yes. Sole traders from elsewhere – possibly. Local chains: yes. National multiples – definitely not.
- Question 3: What do you think the greatest challenges are going to be for whoever manages the space?
- Answer: Get it on people’s route, to walk through and into the space and the market, the entrance ways, activities, marketing are all going to be really important to get it moving and active
- Question 4: Should PG be immediately working with CAG on the details of how the ground floor is used and managed?
- Question 5: Other issues to consider?
- Answer: Element of public art that does need to be in it all and the way in which management and culture work together and share the same vision. No good to have management that don’t see what we’re trying to do. And no point in having flaky people doing lovely things that are not viable. Must be viable and enough businesses to make it constantly lively.
- Whichever estate / management agent is in there must buy into the cultural plan. Problematic if the agent deviates from the plan.
- CAG’s responsibility is to make sure we are realistic enough around viability but not to lose heart altogether.
Additional design comments:
- Current gateway does not lend itself to a friendly advert for what’s going inside. Access for traders is poor. Proposal has lost the loading layby in front of Block A.
- Don’t like the façade too much and height is too much
- Female safety in stair wells
- Critical of the elevations
- Doesn’t have the syntax of a row of shops