Notes of Carriageworks Community Meeting

Wednesday 2^nd February 2022 at Unitarian Meeting Hall, Brunswick Sq

Present: Jo Plimmer (BCC Arts Team), Cllr Jude English, Jon Newey (Docklands), Lori Streich (CAG Chair), Cath (resident), Janine (Liaison Group), Jawahar (Liaison Group), Simon (Liaison Group), Prue (Liaison Group), Jo (resident), Karen (resident), Harvey (resident), David (resident), Julian (CAG Facilitator).

Jenny Gee from PG sent apologies.

Cultural Plan

Having a Cultural Plan for the site is a condition of the planning permission.  It helps address concerns that a) the ground floor units could become dead space and ultimately revert to residential use and b) that the Carriageworks would turn its back (inadvertently) on St Pauls and become an island of gentrification. It is a unique document – few if any other examples of its kind.

Some years ago there was a lot of work on an outline Cultural Plan which has had some influence on the current document.

The Cultural Plan will be ‘owned’ by PG Group, the developer and owner of the site, and their successors.

The plan has four parts. The overarching document sets out the vision and objectives and also summarises the culture of the area. The Management Ethos Plan sets out the broad principles that will apply to management of the site.  The Arts Plan sets out the strategy for public art on the site.  The Community Benefits Plan sets out the opportunities for the local community to benefit from the Carriageworks in coming years.

The Cultural Plan Framework, submitted and approved in 2018, had a budget of £226,000 (cash and in-kind). In the current Cultural Plan document PG have allocated a budget of £80,000 to public art.  Other items, including improvements to the market square to improve services for traders and potential use of a business unit, have not had a value attributed.

Community Benefits

The purpose of the evening’s discussion was to gather ideas and thoughts on the potential community benefits from the Carriageworks development.

There are a number of opportunities including the market square, the market itself, a commercial unit potentially available for 3 years, apprenticeships with businesses, engagement with the local area etc.

Points made

• The market will have the potential to provide incubation space for new businesses
• There is a vibrant market for retail units on Stokes Croft. There is quite a high level of turnover and new businesses arriving
• The public have become accustomed to and want small startup independent traders (e.g. as seen at sites by the Harbour)
• There is and will be support for businesses from WECA and the Council in coming years.
• PG have made a commitment, through the Cultural Plan, to target “local independent businesses that will bring a vibrant use to the site”. However, there is a limit to how much the business occupiers can be controlled. Planning powers are restricted. Even the site owner would be unable to control business tenants’ companies being sold with resulting changes to ownership, independence and brands
• Carriageworks residents will be really important for defining what should and shouldn’t be done
• Securing community benefit will be hard work. Risk that PG, as a property developer, will take the path of least risk and least resistance.

Q&A

The answers below were contributed by everyone as part of the general discussion

Q: Could rents for businesses should be subsidised?  A: This is not proposed by PG. Also, subsidising rents can be problematic as it is hard to know if the benefit is reaching those who most need it, or if it is simply increasing healthy profit margins for the business tenant. Also makes it harder for businesses to move on to units at market value. Can be better to focus on more tangible support and benefits.

Q: How will the market square be managed? A: The market square will be managed by BUOY Events, a Bristol based company that already manages the Harbourside market and other bespoke events. If we can identify organisations that would be interested in using the space that would be helpful. Agreed that direct conversation with BUOY would be really helpful. Events and non-market activities could make money and end up being cost neutral for the operator.

Q: Is there potential for market traders to get first refusal on available business units?  A: There is nothing formal proposed but it is likely that the site owners / managers would naturally look to businesses they already know (e.g. who are trading on market stalls) when looking for tenants of any vacant business units.

Q: Can some of rent from the units go towards funding the cultural plan?  A: Very unlikely that PG would agree to this. It would make management of the tenancies and the plan much more complicated and reduce the value of the investment. Could also turn into a levy on top of the business rents which could reduce demand for the units. It’s hard to make these businesses work anyway without adding to the pressure. A lot of the new developments in the area have ground floor commercial units – don’t want to make it harder for PG to attract tenants to the Carriageworks when there will be competing sites available.

Q. Will (some of) the market stalls have any prioritisation for local producers? A. Good point – should be achievable. A risk that without any prioritisation it will become a posh market for people who trade all over the place. Docklands prioritise suppliers within St Pauls and Dove St flats. Could be based on postcodes in the local area that have higher levels of disadvantage. Would need to be agreed with BUOY Events, the market operator.

Q. Could some market stalls be reserved for tiny operators at reduced cost for e.g. six months? A. Subsidy is not necessarily the solution. More about reaching potential traders in the right parts of the local area.

Q. Will there be apprenticeships e.g. at Bristol Loaf? A. Apprenticeships need to be with employers that young people are attracted to. Will a bakery appeal? Apprenticeships in creative industries is a possibility. PG needs to promote the apprenticeship idea and opportunity to incoming tenants. This would increase the social value of the development and could even form part of the public art package.

Q. If apprenticeships don’t work, could a lower level of opportunities be provided e.g. work experience, work with schools etc.?  A. In practice anything with school age children can be very difficult to deliver so not easy to write into any agreements with tenants. But we can encourage it and point to the organisations that can help.

Business Unit

Q. What proposals exist for the potential business unit? Don’t want to lose the opportunity but do want to get a good use/occupier.  A. It will need to be properly run, it will need staffing, are there organisations ready to step in and make something happen? Reference to the monthly Caribbean market at Kuumba with amazing creative people, half of whom are young. Could the business unit be a shopfront for local creative people as, for example, existed at Hamilton House?  However, this was managed by someone (gets back to the need for a responsible organisation and staffing). Could it be a move on unit for successful market stalls to grow their business?  Best solution would be for PG to issue a brief for the unit (setting out the physical spec, T&C of occupation and community benefit objectives) and ask for expressions of interest from local organisations. That will be the clearest way of finding genuine and viable interest. If no one comes forward then unit can be marketed to business occupiers – but rental income could be directed to community benefit in other forms.

Rising Arts Agency is a young people arts org, very talented, all under 25, very professional. They have a way of engaging with young people who need the opportunities to take them into the professional field. Have been based at Spike Island. Looking for commissions and for a new base. Having them at the Carriageworks in the business unit would create a huge social investment and impact.

Public Art Plan

PG are proposing four parts of the buildings for murals. They need planning permission and want our support.

Points made

• Any public artist should work with young people
• Carriageworks has a shop unit and a £80k arts budget.  Could just ask for something radical, different, that talks about the issues in Bristol. Maybe it’s murals but they have to mean something. Murals come and go. As a package the Rising Arts idea could be amazing – it’s the sort of thing that would win prizes
• Inky has been in touch. Carriageworks would be a wonderful site for this kind of thing; it would be transformative. He would provide a big name. Would not exclude work and opportunities for young people
• Bristol City Council arts team can make suggestions and encourage the developer to think widely. Murals and art commission are not the only possibility and often don’t make the most of the opportunity. Conversations with developers invariably start with a conversation about a statue – it’s the arts team’s role to get them to think more widely. This includes taking the local temperature
• The Cultural Plan is broader than public art and murals.  We need to drive for something more
• Art is only good until it is tagged, and then you have to do something about it.  There are better ways of spending £80k than on murals.  Giving it to Rising Arts to develop art over x years would be better than spending it on murals
• Could public art makes the open spaces on the site more attractive – use it to improve the environment
• What is the public art brief?  It must be written by someone who knows what they’re doing and not just focus on murals
• The process needs to be engaging
• We should not just support the easiest and quickest option. There needs to be a proper brief
• Don’t be prescriptive as to what the artist should do – they will bring different eyes and can astound
• There should be something to reflect Godwin – include this in the artist’s brief.

At the end of the discussion, and in the interests of clarity given that PG have asked for support, we voted on two approaches:

1: Support for PG to write a brief and commission murals on the walls: 1 vote

2. Support for PG to work with BCC and CAG on a brief for public art commissions that have real community benefit and may or may not include murals: 10 votes

CAG’s role is coming to an end. Question is; when CAG disappears is there an appetite for another group to continue overseeing the site.

CAG will be ending – what next?

If something is to take CAG’s place then people’s time has to be rewarded. We’ve given a huge amount over 11-20 years.

Commendations for the work of CAG – a huge achievement.  PG have done well, CAG has done well. CAG should finish, have a party and let other people in the community pick it up.

People moving in should have a say in the future. We have a role in handover. Most important thing is to have a party!

Is part of the brief for whoever takes on the business unit to become the beginning of what is next and to engage with the community?

There are community groups popping up all over the city. CAG could relay 10 lessons it has learned.

The community input and involvement over the last 20 years could be recorded in the public art.

AOB

Q: Will it be gated community? A: Proposal for 11pm to 6am locked gates.  That is different to a gated community.  Young mothers with kids in the social housing – they are justified in wanting some security.  The site would otherwise be at risk of ASB nightmares.

Community Meeting about the Cultural Plan – 2 Feb

Since November we’ve been able to make progress on the Cultural Plan with PG Group, the developer of the Carriageworks. We hope to release a draft in the next week or so (we’ll post again when we do).

The Cultural Plan takes the 2011 Community Vision as its starting point and then provides more detail for the site management ethos plan, the arts plan and the community benefits plan.  The overarching objectives are mostly drawn from the community vision. Some parts of the plan give clarity as to what and how the site will be managed.  In other parts it sets out aspirations and opportunities.

Something that we are keen to promote is ensuring that the Carriageworks brings benefits for all parts of the local community. With its business units and market square the site offers great potential for residents, local businesses and the local economy. But it will be important to ensure that this potential is available to everyone in the area and does not inadvertently exclude those who already experience exclusion from the socio-economic mainstream. It can do this by consciously creating and promoting opportunities to those people in the local community who can most benefit from them. In this way the Carriageworks site can play a full part in the local community and avoid becoming an isolated inward looking island with little relationship to its setting. 

Some aspects of the plan have still to be finalised, including the commissioning of public art and a potential business unit to underpin the cultural plan. To that end we want to talk to local organisations that can help inform the plan as we seek to make the best use of the opportunities available and get the best benefit for local communities. Email us at ideas@carriageworks.org.uk or come to the community meeting (see below).

The aim is to finalise and complete the cultural plan by the end of March. 

Community Meeting

To discuss the opportunities in the cultural plan and any other matters of interest or concern, we will be having a community meeting on Wednesday 2 February from 6:30pm to 8:30pm at the Unitarian Meeting Hall on Brunswick Square.  If COVID takes off again then we will switch to Zoom (we’ll review things on Monday 31^st and post here if anything changes).

We really hope that some of the new residents at the Carriageworks will come and join us.  If you’re able, please print a poster promoting the meeting (click for the PDF) and put it in your window.

Notes of the February ’21 Community Meeting

24 people took part in the meeting including local residents, members of the CAG Liaison Group, representatives of PG Group, Bristol City Council and others.

It was noted that this year marks the 10^th birthday of CAG and probably 30 years of campaigning by the local community to get the Carriageworks site redeveloped.

The Proposals

(Details are available on our website pages: proposals and axonometric illustration)

Andrew McCarthy from Stride Treglown (the project architects) summarised the new planning application and the reasoning behind them:

• Site levels are 3m lower than those cited in the original planning application. So an extra storey of height
• Review of best type of housing on site – preference for more social / affordable flats rather than private 4 bed houses
• New block will have a footprint largely the same as the previous scheme although courtyard is slightly smaller due to extended frontage
• Access is unchanged and parking is reconfigured
• New lower level courtyard
• Tried to keep same amount of green space and trees
• Doors of flats open onto the courtyard to keep an active frontage
• Orientation of rooms and windows to reduce overlooking of neighbours
• Contrasting tone in the brickwork to keep sense of two parts to the block and to better address the change in window and door orientation between the different storeys.
• Overall height of south wing is slightly lower than currently proposed houses
• Units will be managed by Sovereign Housing Association.

Comments

• Would like to see long sections to better understand how it relates to neighbouring properties outside the site
• Concern about quality of living accommodation on ground and lower ground floors given the proximity of retaining walls and the lack of natural daylight. Do they meet minimum light standards? Hard to visualise what the lower ground floor flats will be like. They do not feel like attractive places to live. Just because they are affordable does not justify them being dark. Would not want to live there.
• The overall density of development on the site will be too high with these additional units
• What is the tenure mix?
• Will there be a management fee on top of the rent?
• Concern re security in the sunken courtyard due to lack natural surveillance. Need input from secure by design people
• No playspace if there are children living on the site
• If you start having children will you have to move out?
• There is logic for contrasting brick colours, but a grey box is a cold brutalist style that does not fit well with Godwin. It will make neighbouring properties even darker than they currently are.  Is there potential for a green wall?  Different coloured brick? Tiles instead of brick?
• Concerns about overlooking e.g. from corridor windows. Need obscured glazing
• Bathrooms with external walls should have windows
• Could lower and upper ground floors be combined to make duplex apartments – upper level would benefit from more light (although pointed out that even upper ground floor flats look directly at retaining walls at the rear)
• There is demand for family housing in the area. Why can’t they be social/affordable family houses?
• Does the parking layout work? There needs to be a swept path analysis
• How bill bicycles be brought in?
• Is the motivation the ground levels or making more profit?
• What is the timeline

Response to comments from PG team

• Some tones of grey can be quite warm, but nothing yet decided. Key thing is to have a contrasting colour.
• Have to avoid cladding with fire risks
• The flats will have a mix of affordable tenures but no decision as yet on the exact mix
• Density is changing from 8 x 4 bed houses (up to 32 people) to 8 x 2 bed and 20 x 1 bed. This is not a significant increase
• All meetings with CAG since 2017 have requested more social housing – PG will now deliver on that
• Don’t know answer re management fees – that will be up to Sovereign
• Bicycles will come in from the central courtyard down shallow steps with a bike ramp
• Target will be to complete Block E at the same time as the rest of the scheme, so Q3 or Q4 in 2022

Other discussion regarding the proposals

• Family housing was promoted by SPD10 (2006). Since then demand has changed, in part because of the bedroom tax (i.e. higher demand for smaller flats). BCC can help get more data on current housing need based on bidding patterns in the area
• Concerns about the lack of parking. This is Bristol City Council policy for last eight years. Has always been contentious but is not something we (CAG) can resolve. Best for residents to lobby local councillors on this issue
• How to apply for affordable housing? Have to apply via Bristol City Council
• Is the Carriageworks frontage safe given the high winds of late? A: It is very secure – a lot of concrete holding it down and the steel frame now bolts onto the facade from the rear. Completion of the steel frame in 3-4 weeks time will enable the structural scaffolding to be removed and be replaced with access scaffolding to allow the large amount of cleaning and restoration to start.
• If you want to be involved in the discussions about materials and finishes please email ideas@carriageworks.org.uk

Cultural Plan

PG told us that this is still to be picked up as the focus has been on getting the build programme back on track.  But nothing will happen without discussion with CAG.

 

The planning application is live on the Council’s planning portal.  CAG will compile a summary of this meeting and submit.  Everyone can make their own comments.

New planning application for extra affordable housing

PG Group have submitted a new planning application for Blocks E and F – the two blocks of houses at the rear of the site.  Full details of the planning application can be found on the Council’s website. There will be a community meeting to discuss the proposals – see end of this post for details.

The proposal is to replace the 3 x 4 bed and 5 x 3 bed family sized houses (given planning permission in 2015), for which there is probably limited demand in this location, with a single block of 28 affordable flats.

The proposed flats will comprise 20 x 1 bed two person flats and 8 x 2 bed three person flats.  

More affordable units will help meet local housing needs and is something that CAG and the community have been pushing for for a long time.  

The final development will now comprise: 

• 95 x 1 bed flats
• 35 x 2 bed flats
• 8 x 3 bed flats
• Total 138 flats
• Of which 38 (28%) will be affordable.  There will be 25 x 1 bed affordable flats and 13 x 2 bed affordable flats.

The affordable flats will be managed by Sovereign Housing Association, along with the shared ownership units in Block D.  

The CAG Liaison Group was shown early plans just before Christmas for a scheme comprising 19 social rent and 14 shared ownership flats. We submitted comments on these proposals at the time since when the scheme has been amended.

Details of the proposals are as follows:

Housing tenure:  The existing 2015 planning permission was for 8 houses for market sale or rent. The proposed changes shown to us before Christmas comprised a mix of social rent and shared ownership flats.  It is now for affordable shared ownership flats only.  “Affordable” = 80% of market value.

Footprint:  The two blocks are now merged into one ‘L’ shaped block.  The footprint is slightly larger, mostly with the south west facade extending further towards the south west.

Height:  At its highest point the building is now one storey higher than the 2015 permissioned scheme.  There is also a new lower ground floor, although this does make use of the existing ground levels, which are 2.5m lower at this end of the site, whereas the permissioned scheme would require the ground level to be increased by the equivalent of one storey.  Most of the building is therefore five stories in height, with the lower part four stories. 

Massing:  The merging of the two blocks with the loss of the gap in between, the greater height and the additional lower ground floor creates a larger mass than the permissioned scheme.

Daylight:  No shadowing details have been provided, but the higher building will inevitably lead to increased shadowing, especially of the Brigstocke Road gardens.  The lower ground floor flats will have limited natural daylight.  The ground floor flats have rear windows looking directly at retaining walls.

Parking:  As in the 2015 scheme, there are six spaces reserved for disabled drivers. The configuration has been changed which could result in them being blocked by other vehicles e.g. delivery vans. However, this situation was only marginally better in the 2015 scheme.

Security:  While the pathway behind the building has restricted access there appears to be open access to the area around the lower ground floor which is largely hidden from observation. Also risk of tagging on the brick walls. Need comments from the Secure by Design team.

Materials and finishes:  Buff and grey brick.  This seems a rather austere choice.

Planting:  The permissioned scheme included a pocket park in front of the houses and gardens to the rear.  The pocket garden has been replaced by a sunken courtyard with planting and planting beds close to the parking. To the rear of some of the lower ground floor flats there are planted courtyards with crab apple and rowan trees.  The lack of direct sunlight to the courtyard areas will limit the choice of plants.  The sustainability statement states that the building will have a green roof, although this is not referred to elsewhere and is not shown in the roof plan.

Drainage:  The application states that all surface water will be discharged through the main sewers. There is no provision for soak-aways.  It is not immediately clear how surface run-off adjacent to Kuumba, which is the lowest point on the site, will be handled.

Community Meeting

We will be holding a community Zoom meeting on Thursday 25 February 7-8pm.  We’ve invited PG to present their proposals after which there will be a chance for questions. If you would like to take part in the meeting please contact us at ideas@carriageworks.org.uk to request the Zoom link.  If you have questions it will help us manage the meeting if you can submit them in advance using the same email address.

Community meeting – 7 Jan

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.

 

Notes of 10 July 2019 Community Meeting

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

Amendments to design of Block A – July 2019

We have just this evening received from PG these proposed changes to the designs of Block A.  We have the community meeting tomorrow (Wed 10th July 6:30pm at St Pauls Learning Centre) so wanted to get these drawings to you as soon as possible.  We haven’t yet had a chance to look at them.

Click the images below to open a PDF in a new tab.

Community Meeting – 10 July

There will be a Carriageworks Community Meeting on Wednesday 10 July, 6:30 to 8:30pm at St Pauls Learning Centre.

PG Group will be there to introduce and answer questions about their application to amend parts of the current planning permission on the site. More details of this at https://carriageworks.org.uk/2019/06/14/consultation-on-new-pg-planning-application-submit-your-comments/

Notes of 16 May 2019 Community Meeting

Twenty people came to the Carriageworks community meeting at Hamilton House on 16 May.

It was the first meeting since November but Lori Streich, chair of CAG, said that things had been continuing behind the scenes. Key points are:

• The site has been cleared. Took longer and more complicated than PG were expecting.
• There has been a delay identifying the contractor but we understand that one is now being appointed. Once we find out who it is we will put on our website.
• Construction is due to start in the autumn.
• Archaeologists are currently on site digging trenches.

Planning Applications

PG have submitted three relatively non-controversial minor amendments to the planning permission and affecting blocks B, C and D (full details on our website).

Dominic Taylor (owner of neighbouring Tucketts Building and architect) said he felt that PG were pushing the non-material amendments to breaking point. Removing a roof terrace (from Block D) is not non-material and should be dealt with through the normal planning process. PG’s piecemeal approach meant that the overall picture is obscured and everything we have secured could be slowly chipped away. CAG should keep a watchful eye on all changes. Cllr Mike Davies said if the planning officer decides that a proposal is not a non-material amendment they will advise the applicant to put in a different type of amendment.

Block A (the largest block) has been the subject of discussions and will likely see changes to the current planning permission. The proposals were first revealed in November 2018 but but not met with great love. PG had provided 3D renderings of the proposals for the meeting and these were circulated. Lori clarified that, while the email from Jenny Gee said that ‘the preferred option was Option B’, this was only on the basis of a choice between the two disappointing options. CAG is eager to hear what everyone else thinks. Discussion followed about the designs. Points included:

• The existing planning permission has two buildings named A1 and A2. Block A1 (which fronts Ashley Rd) is four stories high while Block A2 (which is in the middle of the site) is six stories high. Each block has its own stair and lift shaft although the main spinal corridor links the two together. The proposed changes create a single block (Block A) with a shared stair and lift shaft and increase the height of Block A1 to six stories.
• No way that adding two storeys on a block is a non-material amendment.
• We have been provided with 3D renderings of the scheme but the absence of proper floor plans and elevations make it impossible to fully understand what is proposed.
• In particular it is very unclear how the corner to the lane accessing the market square will work. The existing planning permission had a lot of attention put into this. Now it is very vague. It does not look like a commercial entrance, instead it looks like a back alley to more flats.
• The shop fronts do not look like shop fronts. A risk that the plan is to convert them to residential after being unlet for a year.
• The façade needs more depth so that the existing shops roll round onto Ashley Road.
• The white lines are meant to be bathstone. This is not a design reference – it’s just chucking in some different materials. This is inappropriate.
• The current facade is quite articulated and honest. The proposed change is not.
• The proposed building is higher than Tucketts. This goes against the Planning Inspector’s report.
• There should be a step down from Tucketts to the new building to the Salvation Army. The amendments lose this.
• The proposed changes increase shadowing in the area and reduce natural light to neighbouring buildings. The existing planning permission had a setback of the top floors to reduce the impact on light – that setback is now being removed.
• What evidence is there that the additional space actually help viability?
• Feels like they’re trying to strip out the character, driven by finances and nothing else.
• The pavement levels appear to be inaccurate.
• Colouring of the sky and materials in the graphics is adjusted to try to make the upper floors less intrusive.
• Very bland for a gateway site.
• Too modern in an old space.
• A pastiche of modern architecture.
• The archway has been removed. (Comment that this was at the request of the emergency services who might need to access the site, but apparently in the permissioned scheme the arch was designed to swing out of the way).

Lori sought an overall opinion of people in the room. The consensus was that that changes should not go ahead as proposed.

It was agreed that there should be another meeting once the application has been submitted to the planners. This will need full drawings on display. It was suggested that we should have neutral architects on hand who can help articulate and explain people’s instinctive objections.  UPDATE: The application has now been registered – see https://planningonline.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/centralDistribution.do?caseType=Application&keyVal=PRLISBDNHHU00

Finding the right time to meet will be difficult but CAG will start arranging as soon as the application has been registered by the planners.

Lori made the point that when considering these changes we need to remember the bigger picture. Our aim, from the vision, is to get the site redeveloped and to work with any developer that shares our vision.

Stokes Croft Community Association

Leighton de Burca from the new Stokes Croft Neighbourhood Association introduced emerging ideas.

Businesses and non-residents with a stake on an area etc are excluded from having a say in how a neighbourhood is planned. Other areas of the city have Neighbourhood Development Plans (NDP). This is a binding document on planners that can include shopfront design as, for example, at Old Market.

At the Stokes Croft Community Assoc meeting it was agreed there should be a Neighbourhood Plan for the area. The Draft Local Plan identifies sites for housing in the area. There will be a lot of change.

Leighton is employed with funding from Portman Brown and others who have an interest in the area e.g. nightclubs. Concern is residential uses arriving next to nightlife users. His job is to bring people together. Needs 21 people who live, work and socialise in the area and represent a diverse mix to work on a board together – has 10 so far.

Cultural Plan

Lori explained that a Cultural Plan for the Carriageworks site is a planning condition along with public art and management plan. The intention is to address any concerns that commercial units will not be let or that the ground floor will just not work for any number of reasons.

In early 2018 PG appointed Willis Newson, art consultants, who have been working on the cultural plan and public art plan. From what we have seen however, they are producing an arts plan and not a cultural plan.

Cultural plans, in the context of developments like Carriageworks, are not defined. But we know that the site has a natural connection from Picton St, an exit onto Stokes Croft, double frontage shop units, a market, a load of small secondary frontage units at the back that lends themselves to other sorts of stuff. The Willis Newson proposals make no mention of the type of function that will go into the units, or of how people will walk through, of the entrance, of how the market might work etc. We believe that the cultural plan needs to take a wider view than just the arts and that ultimately it will add value to the development. PG however have not been willing to enter into discussions about this wider view.

CAG has drafted an outline of what it believes the cultural plan should be – this was circulated. Discussion points included:

• Units need to contribute to daytime and twilight business community rather than night-time community
• We need services that enable residents of all ages and types to live in the area without having to resort to cars (although without ending up with another Tesco)
• Workshop units that keep the rents down so you get interesting uses
• Need to consider business rates (which are high in Stokes Croft) – make sure units are below the threshold to get rates relief
• There is a conflict between turning the market area into a destination for people from all over the city and making it something of use to local residents. Being a destination has consequences for residents. The cultural plan should recognise two strands that need to be reconciled
• The site should be something that people from St Pauls community will go into. The scheme cannot turn its back on St Pauls. Can’t ignore poverty. If you are building in an area with a rich cultural history you don’t just throw in expensive juice bars – it just services division. You have to make it as inclusive as possible
• If it works properly it becomes a very cool place to live
• There needs to be a sound assessment by the Council – the entrance way could turn the market place into a bass amplifier!
• Will the Council charge for the market – and how much?
• Management and design issues need to be part of the design and the cultural plan
• When people hear cultural plan they think art. They don’t think placemaking
• Need to consider CCTV – there are only two working cameras on Stokes Croft
• Gates are not an option, but security does need to be considered and is a critical management issues that has to be part of the plan. In Old Market there are gates that are not locked but are so heavy the dealers etc don’t bother to open them
• Need to look after the residents
• Need good lighting
• Design in the solutions to anticipated problems and design out the little anti-social behaviour corners.

CAG needs a mandate to go to the planners and say that the emerging cultural plan falls short. To comply with the planning conditions PG should properly engage about longer term issues.

Etceteras

Blue Mountain planning application has been submitted – large 250 bed student scheme. Please promote the consultation link https://planningonline.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=PPUSGUDNH3S00

Request: If you are commenting on planning applications or other issues please copy them to the carriageworks.org.uk website as well so that we can see the whole picture.

What should be in the Cultural Plan?

Planning Condition #15 attached to the Carriageworks development states: “Prior to the commencement of any construction works for the development a Cultural Programme Delivery Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall set out the details of the Cultural Programme Steering Group, co- ordinated by an appointed programme manager. This Delivery Plan shall set out clear principles for the delivery of cultural projects to be delivered within the site.”

In January 2018 local consultants Willis Newson were appointed to prepare both the cultural plan and a public art plan.  They ran various events through the year to find out what local organisations thought and in September presented their ideas at a public meeting. Since then progress has slowed as the developer, PG Group, has focused on other not insignificant matters e.g. demolition.

The CAG Liaison Group has kept asking about progress and recently had a meeting with PG and Willis Newson but there’s still nothing to share that gives a sense of direction or costs.

CAG believes that the Cultural Plan should address the long term use of the site as a whole. To this end we have produced a discussion document which you can download (pdf) which will be discussed at the community meeting on 16 May.