Notes of 10 July 2019 Community Meeting

Posted on August 2, 2019 by admin

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?
- Answer: Yes, of course
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

Comment on proposed changes to Carriageworks scheme

Posted on January 25, 2019 by admin

As reported on 5 December, PG Group are proposing a series of amendments to the 2016 Carriageworks planning permission.

The proposals are still being finalised but we wanted to release what we know as of now.

The most significant changes, which will require a new planning permission, relate to Block A on Ashley Road. If you have any comments please write them at the bottom of this page or email to ideas@carriageworks.org.uk. We will then collate all the responses and send them to PG Group. There will be a short deadline for comments, as yet to be confirmed, so please send as soon as possible.

1 Minor changes to the facade on Stokes Croft

Changes to the window details of Block B (the site of Westmorland House) and to bring forward recessed balconies on the left hand side. This is a minor amendment so can be dealt with by the planning officer and will not need a planning application. Click for drawing comparing existing permission with the new proposal.

2 Changes to the building on Ashley Road (Block A)

As these are significant changes a new planning application will have to be submitted.

The footprint of the building (known as Block A) stays the same as does the setback from the pavement.

In the existing permission the part of Block A (click to open image showing Block locations) that is away from Ashley Road (previously referred to as A2) is six stories high while the part next to Ashley Rd (previously known as A1) is four stories. This is changing so that Block A1 is the same height as A2 i.e. six stories high, albeit with the top floor set back from the frontage (see our cross-section diagram below). PG have told us that the increase in floor space is essential to ensure that the scheme is viable.

While the height of A1 increases the height of A2 (and Block A as a whole) stays the same. It also stays a lot lower than the old seven storey Westmorland House although this was set back from the Ashley Road frontage.

There is no change to the footway entrance from Ashley Road.

The facade is changed (see CGI drawings below). Note: Following a meeting between CAG and PG Group on 18 January PG agreed to revise the facade treatment. We expect to have the revisions by 28 January.

There are also internal changes e.g. one internal stair and lift core instead of two. To retain fire safety a sprinkler system will be used throughout the common areas of the residential blocks.

1.5 residential units and some servicing space on the ground floor will be changed to commercial use.

Section through Block A showing extension of top floors over Block A1. Diagram by CAG, not PG!

Comparison of existing planning permission (2016) with proposal (2018)

View looking up Ashley Road towards Cheltenham Road traffic lights

View from Cheltenham Road traffic lights looking down Ashley Road

View from Picton Street

3 Changes to Block D

Previously there were proposals to change Block D (the affordable housing block) by converting the two ground floor residential units to retail, adding a new storey and using that to add four residential units (so a net gain of two units). The additional storey would have significantly impacted on residents in Hepburn Road and has now been dropped.

We will provide updates as we receive them from PG Group.

Report from Nov ’18 Community Meeting

Posted on November 29, 2018 by admin

Meeting on 28 November 2018 attended by c.35 people including 7 from PG Group.

Note: We will publish copies of the floorplans, elevations and CGIs as soon as they are received – hopefully by 3rd or 4th December.

Site Update

Asbestos has all been cleared and Wrings now have heavy equipment on site to demolish Westmorland House. This will be the most visible part of site preparation. Anticipate completion by Christmas.
Trenches will be dug for the archaeological investigation after Christmas.
Target is to start building in the Spring 2019. It will be a two year build programme.

Scheme Changes

PG have been working on the designs since the site was purchased. Clear that the scheme that was given planning permission was not worked up with construction in mind; more an exercise in securing planning permission. So changes are needed. There are three broad categories of changes:
1. Changes made arising from feedback received over the last year

Changes to make more efficient and better use of the space
Changes which push the envelope in order to get more floor space and help the scheme’s viability.

Sequence of Changes to Planning Permission

PG want to avoid submitting a new planning application in which everything would have to be reconsidered. Instead they want to seek permission for smaller changes, one at a time. They will tackle the smallest changes first and then those that will require a new planning permission.

1. Westmorland House

Changes to window details and to bring forward recessed balconies on the left hand (north) side.

2. Carriageworks

Changes to the roof to allow stair and lift core to reach the top floor. Previously the top floor comprised duplex units with internal stairs. These have now been replaced with regular flats. This will need new listed building consent (s19 Notice) which will be dealt with at officer level so a shorter process than applying for listed building consent from scratch.

3. Block D

This is the affordable housing block. All the affordable units have to be under one roof; RPs (aka Housing Associations) will not accept otherwise.

The two ground floor residential units will be changed to commercial use.
There will be an additional storey with four residential units, so a net gain of two units (i.e. a total of 12 affordable units).
A lift will be added so that all flats are accessible.
Overall height of the building will be no different to the height of the stair housing previously leading to the roof garden. Shadowing of neighbouring properties will need to be carefully examined via a BRE209 report. (The Council’s new Urban Living planning policy seeks to protect the daylighting and sunlighting of existing buildings). It was pointed out that existing shadow diagrams do not show garden walls on Hepburn Road which gives the impression that there is more existing direct sunlight than there actually is.

These changes will need a full planning application. Don’t yet know if this will be dealt with at officer level or if will have to go to committee (a committee decision will usually be required if: councillors so require, or officers think the matter is significant, or there are more than 20 public objections). A committee decision will add about one month to the decision process. Adding the additional storey is essential for overall viability of the development.

4. Block A

Proposed changes:

The building will have one stair and lift core instead of the previous two. Previous design anticipated a taller building so two cores were required. This is not necessary for a six storey building. A sprinkler system and mechanical ventilation will ensure fire safety.
Rationalisation of service rooms including bin and bike stores to improve layout and make better use of space, but with no overall loss of facilities.
Plans show two empty residential units coloured blue – should be shown as yellow (commercial).
The Ashley Road frontage will be increased by a single storey and a fifth floor will be setback. From eye level it will look like a taller building. CGI (which will be prepared) will help show the change. Comments were made that this will introduce much more commercial type building to Ashley Road which has previously been residential in scale. Previous scheme had Block A stepping down from Tuckets building but elevations now show it stepping up.
Windows facing south towards Hepburn Road previously protected privacy of neighbours by their triangular form. This has now been replaced by bolt-on louvre screens. There was concern that this is an inferior solution and it was suggested that there should be a specific meeting with Hepburn Road residents to address this issue in more detail. PG agreed to the meeting.

Block A will need a full planning permission for a) change of use of all of ground floor b) additional storey.

Timescale

PG hope to have planning issues for Westmorland House (Block B) and Carriageworks (Block C) sorted out by mid February 2019.

Block D will be dealt with after mid February. Will need 13 weeks minimum but with S.106 could need 4 months to complete.

Overall process could be concertinaed by submitting all at the same time, but that potentially creates problems with overlapping applications.

Other Changes and Issues

Market Square

Whole of ground floor surrounding the square will be made commercial. Small planted area and wall in southern corner also removed. Helps give the square a better feel and will allow for more market stalls. Converting four residential units to commercial has no overall impact on viability.

Rooftop Gardens / Amenity Spaces

Feedback from Registered Providers (aka Housing Associations) is that roof gardens and amenity spaces are too expensive to maintain. They are therefore being taken out.

Commercial / Retail Units

Q re frontage of the commercial units in Block A which do not have large retail type windows. PG said their intention is to keep unit design as flexible as possible. They can then be adapted to occupiers / purchasers needs so if different frontages are required PG can do that. At this stage however PG do not intend to change the proposals any more than is absolutely necessary (to avoid having to make a new full planning application).

Total Number of Residential Units

2 additional affordable units. 12 additional private sale.

Some of three bed flats are being changed into one bed flats as no market for the larger ones. There is more market for one bed flats.

Four bed houses are unchanged.

Social Housing

PG have been in touch with Registered Providers (Housing Associations) who are interested in buying units. Also held discussions with Bristol City Council. However, PG have to make sure that the scheme is viable before they can discuss terms for residential units.

Block D will be affordable housing. Ten will be on shared ownership basis, the additional two may also be shared ownership. RPs might buy additional units but they will want complete flexibility on how they use those i.e. private rented, affordable or social.

Cultural Plan

Continuing in the background.

Timescale for Feedback

Comments from CAG to PG by Christmas. PG will then make applications after Christmas. If you have any comments please send them to ideas@carriageworks.org.uk and we will forward them to PG.

Notes of the Community Meeting on 24 April 2017

Posted on April 27, 2017 by admin

[To comment on this post please click the title above and then go to the ‘reply’ box at the bottom of the page]

Attended by: Lori, Prue, Pete, Jeff, Chris, Julian, Sarah, Kimberley, Rich, Mel, Clayton, Dominic, Danuta, Heather, John, Pauline, Inge, Joel, Harvey, Rachel, Janine, Lawrence, Rob, Mike, Simon, one other.

Update re Developer

Lori spoke to Marc Pennick of Fifth Capital in the morning. There is a Bristol based developer who is taking over the development of the site. This information has been confirmed by a number of separate sources.

The details of the take-over are not yet known but we think they are well advanced in buying the site from Comer / Opec Prime. We don’t know what the future involvement of Fifth Capital will be.

We will let the group know who the developer is as soon as we can. The Liaison Group is pushing for an early meeting with the new developer and will ask them to come to a community meeting as soon as possible.

We do not yet know if the new developer will build the scheme with planning permission but we anticipate that some amendments are likely. Dominic pointed out that any alterations will require a new consent. We must ensure that it is the Community Vision that guides decisions regarding any changes and that CAG is involved in the dialogue. Reminder of the number of comments we received when writing the Vision (1,600) and the number of objections to the first Fifth Capital planning application (1,400).

There was concern that a new developer will argue that some elements of the scheme are not viable and therefore need to be amended. We need to resist this. We can point to the amount of interest in the scheme (two RSLs, various users of the commercial space) plus rising values as evidence of viability.

Noted that the new developers need to realise that it is not just about them and that there are other stakeholders. They have to take us seriously. We have achieved a great deal so far and we will seek a positive relationship with the new developer, but we need to get around the table and talk so that we work with and not against eachother. We can help make the development exciting for the developer as well as us.

Community Ownership

Discussion about the potential for the community to have a real stake in the finished development and ensure it doesn’t become an exclusive development with little relevance to the surrounding area.

Previous meeting had discussed a direct approach to Comer (Lori reported that a letter had been sent and while we know it was received we have had no reply) with a view to buying an interest. Cost would be probably be £2-5m and then £20m to develop. Potential to place a Community Right to Bid order on the site – gives 6 months to submit an offer.

Alternative approach would be take on the market / commercial areas. Would need a cohesive legal entity / structure to do this. Possible interest from Stokes Croft Land Trust, Bristol Pound, Bristol Community Housing Trust and Hamilton House.

Agreed that CAG should take the lead on any discussions with the developer and with planners.

Site Occupiers

The site occupiers (travellers) were served a Notice of Trespass in March. Hearing was adjourned until 8 May at 3pm at County Court.

A representative of the occupants stated that they had anticipated 6 months notice to leave the site. Trespass papers were put on the gate in March. The occupiers have their homes there and for a generation have been keeping people out of the dangerous site. The Council were apparently involved in early discussions about them being on the site as well as someone from Comer. Having the site occupied would help keep the Council off Comer’s back, following a number of deaths on the site.

Lori explained that CAG had pressed really hard for dialogue between travellers and Marc Pennick (although it was Comer who issued the Notice of Trespass). Marc eventually agreed but Comer instructed him not to take part. We now need a dialogue with the new owners of the site.

We need to take into account the needs of residents as does the local authority. Discussion about how to support the travellers e.g. through donations. Agreed that this should be as individuals, not as CAG.

Keeping the site occupied until the day the builders take possession will be much cheaper than getting early vacant possession and then paying for 24 hr security.

Noted that there is a pre-commencement condition requiring a “Procedure for the sensitive relocation of the existing occupants of the site” (page 53 of Committee Report). However, planners have now told other officers that the notice to seek possession was nothing to do with planning.

Agreed by all that if we can have amicable conversation then it will go the right way.

Other sites in the area:

Discussion about other empty buildings and development sites.

Putterills building – empty and unused
Magpie building. John Dalton paid £300k for the site. Planning application for Change of Use A3 café restaurant. Already started major refurb of existing building – spending £400k. Building is in two parts: two storey fronting Picton St and single storery fronting Ashley Road. Current use is retail.

Inter-relationship of sites and transport policy. Metro mayor will be responsible for major routes inc. A38. Need to keep an eye on wider policies, agendas and proposals.

Compulsory Purchase

Is there a possibility of losing the money for CPO? Julian stated that funds were granted to BCC by HCA specifically for compulsory purchase of Westmorland House so cannot be put to other uses. Lori stated that if the development does not go ahead as anticipated we need to keep CPO as an option.

Proposal that until there is signficiant progress with the development the CPO process must continue. As this was felt to be a crtically important issue there was a vote on whether to agree the statement. Unanimously agreed.

Discussion about whether BCC could pursue CPO without a preferred developer. Thought that they could not but it may be possible for HCA. [Subsequent research found that “It may sometimes be appropriate for the Homes and Communities Agency to compulsorily acquire land which is in need of development or regeneration even though there are no specific detailed development proposals in place” Source: Guidance on Compulsory Purchase Process (pdf) page 47, para 93]

Could one of the PRS RSLs that were interested still be involved? CBRE have been working for Fifth Capital to find development partners. Presumably they will have been linking developers together as this would share the risk – it’s why people like joint venture.

Actions:

Seek a meeting with the developer
Work hard to get info from them into public domain
Work with site residents to find ways to support them and for a dialogue for a planned way of moving
See if HAs that have expressed an interest are still interested
Seek expressions of interest in commercial space
Investigate potential for communal ownership of parts
Enter into constructive dialogue with planners to ensure that they and the developer work with CAG and hold to the conditions in the planning permission to work with the community
Investigate HCA CPO rules re schemes and preferred developer
Court case on 8^th May at 3pm

Have the wheels fallen off the Carriageworks proposals?

Posted on February 3, 2017 by admin

[Click to comment]

For over a year people living and working around Stokes Croft have expected an iminent start on the redevelopment of the Carriagaworks and Westmoreland House. While the Carriageworks Action Group hope that something will still happen, we are finding it increasingly hard to avoid the conclusion that the current development scheme is unlikely
to be built. carriageworks-clown

In October 2015 the City Council agreed to give Fifth Capital London planning permission to build 112 residential units and 1000sqm of non-residential units on the long derelict site. The permission was finalised in July 2016 and lasts for two years from that date. Fifth Capital are required to undertake a wide range of surveys before starting any work. They are also required to “consult and work with local stakeholders, including the Carriageworks Action Group“ on a number of issues including local employment and how the site will be managed.

Proposed ground floor

CAG has been frustrated by the lack of progress with the scheme. To the best of its knowledge no surveys or site investigations have yet been undertaken. Neither have there been any recent updates from Fifth Capital; the last face-to-face meeting was in May 2016, the last phone conversation was in October and since then phone calls and messages have gone unanswered.

There are some understandable challenges facing Fifth Capital, not least the need to agree contract terms with a builder and many unquantified risks attached to the buildings which will only be resolved when surveys are undertaken. Furthermore, the site itself is still owned by Comer Homes. Fifth Capital have an option to buy the site subject to securing planning permission. It is not known when this option expires, but given that planning permission was obtained last July Fifth Capital seem to be struggling to complete the purchase.

Whether the lack of progress with buying the site and finding either a builder or a development partner means it is the end of the road for Fifth Capital is far from clear. But CAG is concerned that Fifth Capital might ultimately seek to exit the project.

Luminous moss (or Goblin’s Gold) growing on a tunnel wall (not in the Carriageworks)

Having said that, there might be a glimmer of light. Fifth Capital have instructed the Bristol
office of property consultants CBRE to help find a development partner. CBRE say that the process is going well and that there should be news in the second quarter of this year. We hope that this is true, but then we’ve also been here many times before. Is it really light at the end of the tunnel, or is it just the moss glowing on the wall?

From an early stage in CAG’s work to get the site redeveloped it has been agreed that there should be a dual-track approach. On the one hand working with any willing developer and on the other pursuing compulsory purchase (CPO) by the City Council. The CPO process was started in 2012 and Knightstone identified as the preferred developer in November 2013. But almost immediately Fifth Capital emerged with its option to buy the site and this made the Council understandably reluctant to further the CPO process. While CAG worked closely with Fifth Capital on its proposals, we all hoped the CPO wouldn’t be necessary. But now CAG believes that it is time to restart the CPO process so that swift action can be taken if, as and when the Fifth Capital scheme fails.

Bristol is in desperate need of more housing. This site will provide 112 units which, if properly managed by a housing association or ethical corporate landlord, will help meet some of the City’s needs. Ideally CAG would like to see a good mix of social, affordable and market units but this was not the case with the Fifth Capital scheme which only provided 10 affordable units.

Lori Streich, Chair of CAG, said: “We worked really hard with Marc Pennick of Fifth Capital to get a scheme which was acceptable to the community and viabile for the developer. If he can still pull something out of the bag that will be great. Equally CAG remains committed to working with any developer that will develop the site in line with the Community Vision. But if the private sector cannot step up to the mark then it must be for the City Council to take a leadership role and bring forward a compulsory purchase to enable the desperately needed end to this site’s long term dereliction”.

Alternative developer? Key points from the Community Meeting

Posted on November 18, 2016 by admin

There is growing concern about the lack of visible action towards development on the Carriageworks site. This has rekindled some of the dialogue within the community about the current plans for development. If these seem too difficult to deliver, what about thinking about alternative approaches and about the actions we can take to move the development forward.

The community want to see the site developed in line with the CAG Community Vision, through whatever means/whichever developer. There is concern that even though the Section 106 agreement was signed in June, the site is still owned by the Comers through their company Opecprime.

ACTION: CAG, through the Liaison Group, was delegated to seek a meeting with the Comers to discuss unsticking the process.

There was a discussion about the price of the site. If the site has to be Compulsorily Purchased (CPO), then the price would be market value. If, however, a different arrangement not involving the Council was reached with the current owners, then there could be more latitude in the agreement of the price.

Given the seeming stalemate, the meeting would like to see the CPO process started up again. This has to be led by Bristol City Council. It is complicated by the fact that Fifth Capital have Planning Permission but ownership is still with Opecprime.

The meeting talked about setting up a development consortium to deliver community led plans for the site. If this is the case and a consortium developed viable plans for the site, then it could become the “preferred developer”. We have been advised that this would avoid the need for a full procurement process. It would be up to the consortium to approach the Council to seek assistance to progress this idea.

ACTION: BCC was asked to look into restarting the CPO process.

For a CPO to be successful, there needs to be a viable scheme. Community members expressed considerable enthusiasm for the idea of a consortium to work up a scheme that would meet the Community Vision for the site, and be viable in terms of a CPO. It was suggested a masterplan could form the basis for development being brought forward in phases and developed or sold to different developers. Some people at the meeting wanted to be involved. There was a discussion about what this means. If we want this to move forward, consortium members have to be able to contribute real resources towards the design, finance and delivery of each part of the site. Prue collected the names of people who are interested in setting up a development consortium.

The meeting agreed that we don’t need a “development brief” because this is captured by the Community Vision and the subsequent consultations about scheme design – carried out by Knightstone and Fifth Capital. There has been a lot of discussion about what people want on the site. What people want now is action!

ACTION: CAG will convene a meeting in January for people who can contribute to a development consortium.

ACTION: Can/will BCC Planning waive the fees for a planning application from a community led consortium? This will be explored.

Carriageworks building: There is a lot of concern about the continuing deterioration of the Carriageworks building. Can notices be served on the owners for urgent works? The problem with this is that if the owner does not carry ouit the repair notice works Bristol City Council would have to do the works and pay the upfront costs, and then try to reclaim them. While there is a pot of money for the Carriageworks, this is being held in case of the need for a site acquisition.

ACTION: CAG Liaison Group to explore with BCC how this money might be used (in the most creative ways!) so that we get the outcome we want – development of the site in line with the Community Vision – and protect the fabric of the Carriageworks building through this process.

ACTION: If a development consortium is set up, this should explore grant funding for the historic building

ACTION: BCC to establish the “curtilage” of the Listed Building. This is the area around the listed building (Carriageworks) that is covered by the Listing. It’s a technical issue but an important one that could help to bring in more resource for the development of the site.

Risks of the site: Developing the site is complicated and there are many risks, including unknown ones. For example… Is the land contaminated? Are there issues about the water table? How unstable, or downright dangerous, are the buildings? And what does all this mean for the costs of redevelopment? There’s not an action arising from this point, but it’s worth bearing in mind. Not knowing the risks makes it very difficult to establish the costs of redevelopment. This is something that has to be addressed in drawing up alternative plans.

Ideas and moving forward: At the end of the meeting, Lori (Chair) asked everyone to send their thoughts, ideas, intentions etc. to CAG via the comments section below (or click the speech bubble top right) or email ideas@carriageworks.org.uk or Facebook

We look forward to hearing from you.

Lori Streich, Chair, Carriageworks Action Group

Revised Viability Appraisal released

Posted on September 18, 2015 by admin

Fifth Capital have released their revised viability appraisal. You can download the full appraisal from this site or find it on the Council’s planning website.

A comparison with the April version is below. The revisions reflect a reduction in the number of residential units, an increase in the number of smaller residential units, an increase in the amount of commercial / community spaces. The other design changes have not resulted in any significant change in the construction costs.

The essence of the appraisal is:

calculate the value of the completed development
subtract all the costs of development (including the cost of the land)
= the developer’s profit.

The alternative ‘residual land value’ approach is to calculate the value of the completed development, take away the costs (including the developer’s profit at a % of the development value) with the result being the value of the land.

	April 2015	September 2015
Residential – units for sale	110	102
Average unit sale value	£248,136	£247,438
1.Total residential sales	£27,295,000	£25,238,659

Residential shared ownership	8	10
Average unit value	£128,227	£105,213
2.Total value of shared ownership	£1,025,820	£1,052,130

Annual income from residential ground rents	£30,300	£28,200
Yield	6%	6%
3. Capital value of resi’ ground rents (a)	£497,697	£463,203

Commercial rentable area (sq ft)	7,470	10,872
Rent psf	£10.00	£10.00
Annual rent from commercial units	£74,700	£108,720
Yield	8%	8%
4. Capital value of commercial rents (b)	£898,501	£1,307,698

5. Gross Development Value (1+2+3+4)	£29,717,018	£28,061,690

LESS
Site value	£1,426,820	£1,353,953
Stamp duty & fees	£82,756	£78,529
Construction area (sq ft)	112,235	105,797
Construction cost (c)	£17,738,360	£17,306,114
CIL & S106 payments (d)	£638,480	£587,000
Professional fees 10%	£1,773,836	£1,730,611
Marketing & letting	£438,660	£419,128
Sales fees	£445,755	£420,925
Finance @ 7%	£1,422,108	£1,394,942
6. Total Costs	£23,966,775	£23,291,203

Profit (5-6)	£5,750,243	£4,770,487
Profit on GDV	19.35%	17%

(a) Calculation includes Present Value @ 6% for 3 months

(b) Calculation includes Present Value @ 8% for 6 months

(d) April retail space Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) = £79,080. September appraisal does not show this budget line. Council CIL charging schedule charges retail space at £120psm but B1,B2,B8 (i.e. office and light industrial) space at £0psm.

JRF call for guidelines on viability assessments

Posted on July 23, 2015 by admin

Viability assessments, like statistics, can be used to prove just about anything. Interesting that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have found that recent changes to the planning system have made it even more difficult to secure social housing from private development. Reported in Inside Housing.

“Viability assessment guidelines should be introduced to make it more difficult for developers to reduce affordable housing in planning agreements, a research charity has said.

“The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has today published a report, which finds that changes to the planning system have made it more difficult for planning agreements to ensure homes are built for those on the lowest incomes.

“The charity argues that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), introduced by the coalition government, has led to negative impacts, including a greater emphasis on viability assessments, giving developers more ability to renegotiate agreements if they can show they make the scheme unworkable.

“JRF is calling for the introduction of viability assessment guidelines, which would set parameters for building costs and land values and allow councils to extract an amount from the rise in land value resulting from the granting of planning permission.

“It is also calling for the NPPF definition of affordability to be changed so it is aligned with households’ ability to pay.”

Fifth Capital scheme is over valued

Posted on April 8, 2015 by admin

Analysis of the values put on their flats compared to local comparables show that Fifth Capital may have seriously over valued their scheme, to the point that it is not viable.

In their Viability Report, Fifth Capital follow standard procedure by calculating the value of their flats by comparing them with others on the local market; ‘comparable valuation’. But just how comparable to Stokes Croft are these properties? (Note that Fifth Capital’s one bed flats will be 500-600 sq ft)

Finzels Reach

Dockside development on the old Courage brewery site. “The height of contemporary living” with “views overlooking the Floating Harbour and Castle Park”. 1 bed flats for c.£175,000 – £225,000.

Horizon and Eclipse

In the towerblock at Cabot Circus above Harvey Nicks. “Some of the most desirable flats in Bristol city centre” 1 bed flats for £177,000 to £199,000.

Invicta

“The location of these new apartments in Bristol is as stunning as the building, facing the Millennium Promenade and overlooking the Floating Harbour and Porto Quay.” 1 bed apartments for £160,000 to £190,000.

The Viability Report accepts that all of these are far superior to the Carriageworks site. So they also consider some properties in the local area for better comparables. Of those, five are one bed flats.

Armidale Place

Redevelopment of the old White Tree Garage site. They quote a 1 bed flat (657 sq ft) for £227,000. But look at Rightmove and you’ll see most go for £138,000 to £150,000 (485 sq ft). And that’s with secure basement parking.

Picton Street

Flat 1 at Number 50. Cited as a one bed flat at £217,500 but check Zoopla and it describes it as a 2 bed flat. Oops. Rightmove shows 47a, a genuine one bed flat, for £136,000.

Others

The other three one bed flats listed are up in Kingsdown or Cotham where you obviously get a bit of a premium over grungy living at bottom of hill.

The Council’s assessment of the viability appraisal

As is normal practice the Council asked their own consultants, in this case BNP Parisbas, to assess the validity of the viability appraisal. They thought that the best comparable is other new build (the newness, the hype of a new development and the substantial marketing budget will always give a boost to values). Consequently they could expect Armidale Place to have lower values than a new build. They only found one comparable new build.

Prospect Court, Kingsdown

“Prospect Court is a stylish purpose built development of just nine, 2 and 3 bedroom, apartments arranged over three floors designed to blend with the existing period properties. Located in a prime elevated position”. There are no one bed flats but two beds (c720 sq ft) have sold for c.£245,000 (Fifth Capital’s are being valued at £250,000). But this is a small quite exclusive development and, as the sales blurb says, it’s up the hill!

Catherine Court, Picton St

We’ll throw this one into the pot as it’s just across the road. Built in the 1990s, it’s a gated community with parking. Units are being sold for £205,000 (2 bed flat with courtyard parking) to £265,000 (house with internal garage).

In conclusion

So, in light of the comparable evidence, it is a bit surprising that Fifth Capital conclude (and BNP Parisbas confirm) that their one bed flats will be worth £215,000 (students of Estate Management and Valuation would probably be marked down for failing to take proper account of the comparables!).

If the value was put at £150,000 (still outrageous, but there you are) it would result in a reduction in the total sale values of the 59 one bed flats of £3.8m. A similar reduction for the two and three bed units (we haven’t the time to do that analysis but we’d guess they may also be over valued) would wipe out all profit on the scheme and, we suspect, make it a non-starter. That doesn’t help a case for more affordable housing, but it does suggest that something else is going on in the figures that is not fully disclosed in the viability report.

Unredacted viability study released

Posted on April 7, 2015 by admin

The unredacted reports have been released – here they are:

Economic Viability Appraisal Report

Viability Review

Also on the Council’s website

Headlines

Commercial units.

Rent = £10psf (£107psm) per annum for a shell unit (so services, rates etc will all be additional). “The values attached to these units reflect the likely tenants of the accomodation, being local occupiers”. Really affordable for locals? By comparison Co-Exist charge £12-14psf for Enterprise Space and £10-12psf for artist studios, but that’s inclusive of all services. Meanwhile the old Princes Trust unit on Stokes Croft (4,815sq ft on 3 floors) is on the market at £5.20psf and another recently refurbished 547sqft unit on Stokes Croft is on the market for £8.20psf. However, 32 Stokes Croft is on the market at £13.50psf.

Freehold of the commercial units will be sold to an investor for £900,000. YP=8%.

Residential Units.

1 x bed flat = £215,000.
2 x bed flat = £250,000.
3 x bed flat = £300,000.
3 x bed house = £375,000.
Affordable units (which comprise all the units in the Carriageworks building) will be shared ownership with 40% sold to the occupier and 60% to a RSL. So the three 2 bed duplex units, which each have a value of £265,000, would be bought on shared ownership for £66,000.

Freehold of the residential units will be sold to an investor for £500,000 (ground rent of £300/unit with 6% YP).

Development costs

Construction cost of all types of unit = £158psf (£1700sqm).

Costs are based on the fourth quarter 2014 but Fifth Capital won’t be on site until third quarter 2015 at the earliest; this could add 4-5% to costs (BCIS estimate). This inflationary increase will have to be covered either from the developer’s profit, the contingency fund or by an increase in sale values.

Costs assume that works will be procured by a national housebuilder – which Fifth Capital is not!

Development cost (construction cost + fees + marketing + agents + legals + finance) = £24m or £213psf (£2,300psm)

The difference between net and gross floor areas is 26%.

There is no allowance for the cost of archaeological works, works in relation to flora and fauna, bats, pvs, artwork, any works to adjoining properties (e.g. underpinning), Japanese knot weed, asbestos etc. The assumption must be that these will be picked up by the 5% contingency fund or from the developer’s profit.

Developer’s Profit

£5,750,000 (19% of gross development value).

Land Value

£1.4m. The benchmark landvalue used to justify this land value is Huller House & Cheese Warehouse. This is a Victorian and early 20th Century warehouse block fronting the harbour in Redcliffe – some of the most expensive real estate in Bristol. Questionable if that’s a good comparable.

Total cost

Total cost of development (£29.5m) equates to £2,800psm (assuming 10,430 sqm gross area developed).