PG have started their preliminary works on the Carriageworks site with a view to the main construction starting in the near future.
PG tell us that contractors can arrive on site after 7am and start work from 8am.
PG have started their preliminary works on the Carriageworks site with a view to the main construction starting in the near future.
PG tell us that contractors can arrive on site after 7am and start work from 8am.
The owners of the site on Hepburn Road that includes 86-102 Stokes Croft have made proposals for the redevelopment of the backland and renovation of the street front properties. CAG have looked at these and has the following comments to make:
Development and improvement of the site is supported in principle
Concern about how this will be achieved.
The scheme design was completed in January, before COVID. We question the demand for student housing post-COVID. If there is a fall in student numbers and demand for student accommodation, what adaptation will there be to other residential uses? Is the scheme sufficiently resilient and flexible to enable it to change to alternative types of residential use? Conversion to HMOs would be detrimental to the area.
Numbers 92, 96 and 98 do not appear to have been granted change of use for residential use. Ground floor units fronting Stokes Croft should all be retail or business use – not residential. This should be a benefit of the scheme for the wider community, will avoid breaking the street frontage, and will better complement the Carriageworks scheme.
The pre-app states that their Block A “is single aspect with the rear back to back to the blank boundary wall of the carriage works proposals” i.e. Block D of Carriageworks. This needs correction. The rear wall of Block D is not blank – instead it contains six small windows, two of which provide light to kitchens and the remainder of which provide light to hallways. On the ground floor there is a doorway providing access to the narrow service area. The building previously on the site of Block D had windows looking over Croft Dale, so rights to light are established. Clearly Block A of the pre-app scheme could not be built without blocking the windows in Carriagework’s Block D.
The microclimate in the narrow service area between Carriageworks Block D and pre-app Block A, with three storey buildings surrounding it, will be awful. Furthermore, building to the boundary will mean there is no ability to service the rear wall of Block A. A larger space between the buildings would be beneficial.
Block D is a three storey building. Block A is four storeys. There is a difference in ground levels (Block D ground floor is 25.5m above datum), but is it enough for an entire extra storey to be built in Block A so that the roofs of the two buildings are flush, as indicated in the drawings? Assael drawings for Carriageworks suggest there is not enough difference. Proposals to increase Carriageworks Block D above three storey height were previously resisted due to the impact on the immediate neighbourhood. The ground level may have to be lowered to accommodate four storeys.
The residential units in Block D will be sold as 10 affordable housing units. The pre-app proposal is for a 27 unit student housing block immediately adjacent. Is this appropriate, especially if Block A has any rear windows?
Currently the parapet wall of 102 Stokes Croft adjoins the Carriageworks below second floor level, thereby creating a significant step-down from the listed building to 102 and the adjoining terrace (note that step-down from adjoining buildings was also a significant issue on the Ashley Road frontage between the unlisted Tucketts Building and neighbouring new-build). The proposal is to increase the height of 102 with a mansard roof, although the drawings are not sufficiently detailed to know how high this will be. Nevertheless. the impact of the step down will be reduced, to the possible detriment of the prominence of the Grade II* listed Carriageworks building.
Furthermore, the band of bluestone on the Carriageworks close to the top of 102’s front wall must not be obscured by any works to No. 102.
Being adjacent to an important listed building the materials used should be of a high quality and meet conservation standards. Windows should be timber, not PVCU.
The pre-app scheme is for a gated development. CAG has been adamant that this is not suitable for the Carriageworks scheme or indeed for anywhere on Stokes Croft. We are concerned that if Hepburn Road scheme is gated it will set a precedent that might in time be used to gate other sites in the area.
CAG has long argued for major development in the area to contribute to the wider social, environmental and economic character and vitality of the area. The mix of space and uses at the Carriageworks helps achieve this and the emerging Cultural Plan will define in more detail how this it will happen. The Hepburn Road scheme, as one of the larger development sites on Stokes Croft, should be encouraged to do likewise and complement other existing uses and investment in the area.
Bristol City Council has granted planning permission to PG Group for two applications:
This should clear the way for PG to sign funding and construction contracts for the scheme as a whole (COVID19 permitting).
Plans have been unveiled to redevelop part of Stokes Croft next to the Carriageworks and replace the existing buildings with 66 student flats and nine private lets.
The site is owned by Crescent Property Developments which is registered in Bath, controlled by 24 year old Gerlando Caci, and the owner of 86 to 102 (but possibly not 94 – Rita’s) Stokes Croft as well as the land to the rear (source: mortgage charge on the properties).The proposals, which have not yet been submitted as a planning application, retain the building frontages and retail uses on Stokes Croft. To the rear Croftdale (currently in use as a seven-bed student property), will be demolished along with a neighbouring warehouse.
The proposed Block A of the new development will consist of 27 student beds. Block B will provide eight student beds and nine residential flats. Block C will be a three storey building with two workshop units and ten student beds.
Pegasus Planning Group are acting for Crescent and do not believe that an environmental impact assessment of the development is necessary. In a planning statement they write “Given the low impact of the proposal, it is considered that whilst there will be some effects upon the historic environment as a consequence of the scheme, none of these are considered to constitute ‘significant effects’ upon the environment, as set out in the relevant guidance. Accordingly, it is considered that the screening proposal constitutes Non-EIA development.”
As part of PG Group’s efforts to get the Carriageworks development started they have submitted a new planning application.
Last year PG were focused on a S.73 minor alterations application to add seven additional units to the fourth and fifth floors of Block A and make other changes to the facade, stair wells etc. However, a recent case in the Court of Appeal (Finney v. Welsh Ministers, 2019) effectively closed the S.73 route for the additional units. Consequently PG will remove the extra flats from the S.73 application so that the rest of it can go through. And they have now put in a full planning application for the flats.
The application can be seen on the Council’s planning website. Neighbours will have received written notification and the public consultation period officially ends on 6 April.
The application seeks permission for 3 x 1 bed flats and 4 x 2 bed flats for market sale or rent. The design, footprint and floor area are the same as previously proposed in the S.73 application except that one two bed unit has been split into two one bed units. The fourth floor is set back 2.2m from the Ashley Rd frontage and the fifth floor is set back by 7.75m and clad in grey metal in order, say PG, to reduce their visibility and prominence from street level when compared to the lower floors which will be clad in brick.
Update: Planning permission was granted on 20 April 2020
Last year PG submitted a Section 73 amendment application to the planning authority to make changes to the planning permission namely internal changes, facade changes and extra floorspace for more residential units. (These were discussed at length at January’s community meeting).
However, because of a recent change in case-law, S.73 cannot now be used to change the description of a development (e.g. a change to the number of units).
As a result PG are proceeding with an amended S.73 application which doesn’t involve any change to the number of units and instead focuses on the internal and facade changes. Later on they will submit a full planning application for the two extended floors/extensions to create the extra floorspace and flats.
We understand that the planners will try to process the revised S.73 so that deadlines set by funders can be met and the site development can progress.
Update: Planning permission was granted on 17 April 2020
20 people came to the meeting including three representatives of PG Group.
The meeting opened remembering Pete Bullard who died at the end of October. A Just Giving page has been set up to collect for two nut trees and a greengage tree in Brunswick Sq. in Pete’s memory. Pete would have wanted trees that give fruit / nuts freely to the local community. We miss him.
The aim of the Community Meeting was to seek community views about the revised amendments submitted to the Planning Authority as a S.73 application. The comments in this paper will combine the views expressed at the meeting with those expressed to members of the CAG Liaison Group by people who were not able to attend the Community Meeting. CAG’s role is to convey all the different views to make the community’s input as transparent as possible. It was noted that in the initial consultation about the development of the site, in 2011, 96% of 1600 people said that their priority was to “see something done” to address the dereliction of the site through building out a scheme.
PG submitted their S.73 scheme last summer after having priced up the permissioned scheme. Costs were proving higher than previously forecast. This was tackled by simplifying some elements of design to speed up the build process, and reducing the complexity of the design which takes out some costs. The key change was to the Ashley Road façade by taking out ‘stepped in’ juliet balconies (expensive to build) and adding floors to the frontage to take it to the same height as the rest of Block A. There was some resistance to that. The amended proposals pulled back the fifth floor from Ashley Road. The designs also addressed the ‘flat face’ to the façade architecture to make it less bland and add some additional horizontality to the design. There was further community feedback in October so PG then added more features to the elevation to add horizontality and pulled back the fifth floor even further with loss of one unit. Note that pulling the fifth floor back still further would reduce number of units which would be defeat the objective of the additional floor. We lose eight units without the changes.
Other changes have been to the windows on the Hepburn Rd frontage and to solar panels on roof.
We have grouped the views expressed into themes/key issues.
1. To what extent will the concerns be lessened if it goes to committee as opposed to being decided by the planning officer?
In favour of delegated decision making, some people were concerned about the depth of knowledge of the scheme amongst Councillors who may not be as aware of the detail as we (and the planning officer) are. However, it was noted that any committee decision would be based on an officer’s report highlighting the main issues.
In favour of a Committee decision, the balance of opinion in the room was that this would enable more transparency and would make the final decision “more like a normal planning application.”
There are concerns that the scheme contravenes planning issues especially relating to the privacy of tenants of Tucketts Buildings, and this mitigates in favour of committee decision making. Also, that the changes appear to be too significant not to be subjected to a proper planning process. A view was expressed, however, that some of the areas of contention might be better addressed through negotiation, rather than a binary decision at committee.
A representative of Montpelier Conservation Group (MCG), who have submitted an objection to the proposals, said that while a committee decision would make the process more accountable, there are concerns about the lack of supporting documents to justify the changes. The justification for the changes needs to be discussed at Committee, but this information is not available to form the basis of a discussion.
A particular concern is the lack of a viability statement. A representative from PG Group said that they had not been asked to provide a viability study as part of the S.73 application. Asked if they would provide one they said that that would have to be considered. In wider discussion about viability appraisals PG said that normally planning permission cannot be approved if a scheme is not viable.
The meeting discussed this issue. It was recognised that
CAG has heard conflicting views from people at the meeting, and others who were not able to attend:
Decision making timetable:
There was a concern about the need for swift decision making, before Purdah, so if the scheme goes to Committee, this needs to be very soon – by February at the latest. PG Group commented that they have had thisscheme priced up and they are now in a position to start on site quite quickly if they get planning approval. If there are too many further delays, their build contractor will review their commitment and either push up costs or may pull out.
A view was expressed that people in the community have been working on this for a long time. There is a need for decisions to be made to enable progress. “It would be such a shame to get this far and then put it back by another two years.”
2. Is the amended design acceptable?
A number of issues discussed
a) Additional floors on Block A facing Ashley Road; and design of the Ashley Road frontage:
The proposed addition of two floors at the Ashley Road end of Block A is contentious. Dominic Taylor said that this will result in a loss of light to Tucketts Buildings; and living room / bedroom windows which look into his building. It was noted that the windows overlooking could be easily addressed by design changes. Shadowing/impact on light is still a concern. Dominic said that a change in brick colour would make a fundamental difference.
MCG and the Conservation Advisory Panel are concerned about the size and scale of the building in a conservation area. There are also concerns about the design of the Ashley Road frontage, which has been described as “monolithic”, with no articulation. However, views have also been expressed that the new building will be alongside the Salvation Army Citadel which has a “far from perfect” frontage and which itself is not consistent with the aspirations of the conservation area.
There was a discussion about ways in which the design could help to address the concerns about the conservation area location, and the look of the frontage. For example:
Discussing ways to change the Ashley Road frontage so there is a better fit with the Conservation area, Dominic Taylor floated the idea of pastiche. This was discussed.
c) Reaching solutions
Overall, most of the people in the room thought that “we are not far from a solution” to the design issues, and there is agreement about process. This echoes views which have been expressed recently to members of the CAG Liaison Group by people unable to attend this meeting. There is a strong desire to see the development progress. The design of the permissioned scheme has always been a disappointment, but the blight of the long derelict site was far worse. One local resident summed this view up with the statement: “Is the design that important? We need the housing.”
d) St Pauls frontage (aka Back, or ‘Berlin’ Wall)
Usually described as the ‘back wall’, Lori Streich raised the issue of the St Pauls frontage. This is the wall that will face directly onto Hepburn Road, and will overlook St Pauls. A planning consideration has always been that the scheme must not turn its back on St Pauls. This wall will be significantly higher than the houses around it, and so will be seen across a very large area. Westmorland House could be seen from Brunswick Square. This wall will be widely visible across parts of the city. CAG Liaison Group members accept that it will be monolithic and has been likened to a ‘Berlin Wall’. How to mitigate this impact?
Materials and finishes
If the S.73 application is approved, the discussion about materials and finished will happen soon after. This will be an issue for the Hepburn Road frontage; and materials could break up the Ashley Rd monolith and introduce some of the verticality. CAG can collate views and ideas, and work with PG Group to develop and run an effective process for this dialogue. PG Group is open to ideas.
This has not been forgotten! Liaison Group members are concerned that it will tie in with the commercial development of the Ground Floor; and will contribute to the developed site being a great place to live and a positive contribution to the local community. This is still on the agenda, and we will return to it. The infrastructure and design will need to address the needs that will be articulated in the Cultural Plan.
· Affordable housing: PG Group reported that they are looking in a positive way to increase the amount of affordable housing. Lori said that CAG will continue to press on this issue.
· Naming roads: Liaison Group members suggested that the lane into the site be called Bullard’s Way, in Pete’s memory. PG Group seem to be open to this. More discussion needed.
CAG will send notes of this meeting to the Planning Officer by the end of this week. PG Group will discuss timetable with the Planning Officer in the next few days.
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.