CAG will be at the Planning Committee tomorrow, Wednesday 14 October from 6pm.
We’ll keep a blog going through the discussions so you can stay updated even if you can’t get there in person.
Whether you’re for or against the revised proposals from Fifth Capital, it’s important the Planners hear your voice. Here’s what to do.
1. Have a look at the revised proposals.
b) Read Fifth Capital’s summary of the proposals (the Design and Access Statement) (10Mb PDF)
d) Have a look at what CAG thinks
d) You can also see the full proposals on the planning website (persevere – it takes ages to load!)
2. Write your comments in the Council’s planning website comments box. (Write them in direct but note that the page will time-out. So if you’re writing lots or will get interrupted it’s best to write them in a text editor and then paste when you’re ready)
Technically (i.e. the planners tell us) the only issues for consideration are the ten points raised at the April committee meeting. Everything else is taken as agreed. However, don’t let that get in the way of a good argument!
Deadline: For Planners to take your comments into account in their final report they need to hear from you by Tuesday 29 September.
3. Submit a statement direct to the Planning Committee (A) – the agenda is likely to be published two weeks before the meeting i.e. 1 October. Petitions and statements must be received by noon on the working day prior to the meeting. So your submission must be received at the latest by 12.00 noon on Tuesday 13th October. Send to firstname.lastname@example.org
4. Come to the Planning Committee (A) – 6pm on Wed 14th October at the Watershed. The best way to make sure the Planning Committee know what you think is to read your statement out to them.
5. Then sit and listen (quietly – eh hm) to the Committee’s deliberations.
6. Retire gracefully to celebrate / commiserate / disect depending upon what you said in 2, 3 and 4 above.
If you have questions or need help, just let us know. Write in the comments box below or email us at email@example.com
This morning CAG Chair Lori Streich went on BBC Radio Bristol to talk about the Fifth Capital planning application.
In their introduction the BBC focused on the proposals to gate the development at night and the failure of the scheme to genuinely respond to the Community Vision. They describe Stokes Croft as “Bristol’s alternative area”, home to people with strong views about how their neighbourhood should be. Reference to the Tesco riots four years ago and opposition to posh flats that have nothing in common with the rest of the area. But council officers see nothing wrong with the scheme. So what’s the problem with knocking down an eye-sore and replacing it with flats?
Lori says the main objections are lack of social housing and that units for sale are priced beyond local affordability.
Pennick says that sale values will be lower than those in the viability appraisal – nothing higher than £300k. He says that values are reasonable for the local market, as demonstrated by what he has been told by local property agents.
Pennick says this is a brownfield site with a listed building so he can’t afford to provide more affordable housing.
Pennick says CAG have given wrong advice about the planning application and makes a proposal about what he describes as erroneous descriptions of a gated community. He says that at this evening’s planning committee he will propose a S.106 agreement be signed and “this will basically put into place that these gates will never be able to put on this site and close on an evening (sic). That is a legally binding document”. We assume that what he meant is ‘It is not and will not be a gated community even at night’ but his wording wasn’t exactly clear.
Pennick is challenged over his response to the open letter from local creatives etc that resulted in him criticising Wallace and Gromit. He says he doesn’t like open letters and that none of the signatories have ever contacted him to ask for a meeting about their concerns.
When asked if CAG will work with Fifth Capital, Lori says yes and suggests that Fifth Capital withdraw their application and then work with CAG and a social housing provider to come up with the right scheme and provide a solution for the site in line with the Community Vision. She says there is a passion to see the site redeveloped in the right way and stop it staying dereliect for another 40 years.
Hear the interview: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02mr41m#auto 1hr40mins in.
Fresh in today – the report to the Planning Committee on 8 April. And yes, it does recommend approval. 😦
A 3D model produced by Fifth Capital shows the proposed buildings towering over the neighbours. The submission by Professor Costas Georghiou describes the way in which the scheme comes right up to the boundary thereby reducing their potential for redevelopment. Neighbours have also voiced alarm about shadowing and overlooking. This model clearly shows how intimidating the new buildings will be.
A senior Planner has slammed the Fifth Capital proposals for the Carriageworks. He says it should be refused planning permission as it is contrary to Government and City Council policies and against the principles of sustainable development.
Costas Georghiou is Visiting Professor of Architecture & Urban Design at the University of Wolverhampton and was previously the Chief Planning & Highways Officer for the City of Wolverhampton and Head of Urban Design at Bristol City Council.
In an objection lodged with the City Council Professor Georghiou maintains that the proposals for 118 flats and houses on the site represent over-development and will be detrimental to the living conditions, amenity, health and well-being of future residents. Fifth Capital have claimed that the economics of developing the site mean that the proposed density of development is essential. But Professor Georghiou says this should not be an excuse for poor and sub-standard development especially where it creates poor living conditions and is both damaging to the wider community and contrary to policy.
In particular Professor Georghiou highlights the lack of natural light and ventilation that will afflict over half the flats as a result of only having one external wall. In many cases this wall faces North East and thus away from the path of the sun. The resulting lack of sunlight will have not only health implications for residents but will also mean higher heating bills due to the lack of solar gain.
The lack of sunlight also impacts upon the open spaces in the scheme. While artist’s impressions show courtyards bathed in direct sunlight, the reality is that the tall buildings will cast long shadows thus meaning that the spaces will be far from attractive areas for residents to sit in and relax. It also means that the proposed vegetable garden will be in shade throughout the afternoon.
Professor Georghiou has also criticised the way in which some of the blocks are too close to the southern boundary thus impacting upon any future potential to redevelop neighbouring sites. Residents in Hepburn Rd have voiced similar concerns and are alarmed at the proximity of the buildings to their gardens and back rooms. The cramped development also means that the gardens for so-called family houses are much too small and will not provide the space for children to play.
Finally Professor Georghiou points out that the huge 86 space refuse store is much too close to residential units which will suffer from smells and contamination.
Professor Georghiou sets out the steps that would have to be taken to make the proporsals acceptable including reducing the height of residential blocks from six to four stories, giving apartments double aspects in order to increase natural daylight, moving residential units away from refuse stores, moving one of the blocks away from the boundary with neighbouring properties and increasing the size of gardens. In the absence of these steps he firmly believes that the City Council must refuse planning permission.
To write your own submission, read our handy guide and then follow the instructions here…