Carriageworks – a community’s vision lost?

The redevelopment of the Carriageworks site is nearing completion. This marks a significant milestone for the surrounding communities which have been blighted by the derelict Westmorland House since the 1980s.

There were many times when our hopes were raised that redevelopment was imminent, but ultimately it was only in 2011, when local residents and the City Council worked together to create the Carriageworks Community Vision backed up by compulsory purchase powers, that real progress was made. A few years later in 2014 planning permission was granted, PG Group bought the site in 2017, demolition began in late 2018 and construction began in 2019. We expect full completion by early 2022.

This drawn out process has not been without its challenges but CAG has always tried to be pragmatic, acknowledging the realities and risks of property development while championing the Vision and the benefits sought by the local community. This has not been an easy line to maintain. We have at times been criticised for not pushing a harder line with the developer, and equally the developer has been frustrated by our questioning and campaigning for better quality. Ultimately this led PG Group to break off all communications with us after we formally objected to their proposals for changes to Block E, early in 2021.

We are now approaching the end game. Minor amendments to the planning permission are still being sought, but the built form is set and we know what the finished scheme will look like. But how will it actually be used? Will it deliver, as promised, real benefits and facilities for the local community or will it just deliver completed sales and investment opportunities.

The planning permission included a requirement for a cultural plan, a management plan and public art. The developer was obliged to liaise with the local community on these matters and some progress was made in 2017/18. But ultimately the developer ‘discharged’ their planning obligations by merely submitting a ‘plan to have a plan’ i.e. a document setting out how they would go about writing the cultural plan etc, but without going on to actually write it. Sadly the City Council planners let this through and, having given away their teeth, are now refusing to seek any further work from the developer, let alone evidence of how the outline budget of £156,000 is and will be used.

The lack of these documents is problematic. The Community Vision was clear that the site should include a through-route, and the principle of ‘no-gates’ was established. The planning application adhered to the vision and included a market place surrounded by commercial units. Quite how all of this would work day-to-day was to be explored and established by the cultural plan and the management plan. These plans were to be written in consultation with CAG and people living and working in the communities around the site. However, when it has come to producing the plans PG have for years repeatedly kicked the can down the road, always arguing that there are bigger and more immediate issues that demand their time. Now in late 2021, with PG refusing to even answer emails on the issue let alone respond to phone calls, we hear rumours that they do not intend to write the plans at all, instead passing the responsibility on to whoever buys the finished site as an investment. Given that the new owner could well be an investment company registered in a tax haven, our chances of a meaningful dialogue are remote to the say the least.

Our fear is that we will now see a trickle of changes that withdraw the once promised community benefits. Gates may be installed – justified by anti-social behaviour, the new residents’ fear of crime and high management costs. The market may be ‘piloted’ but ‘economic charges’ (i.e. high rents for market traders), the lack of passing trade (because it’s gated), courtyard noise complaints from new residents, and design flaws (which we have flagged up from the outset) may mean it is deemed unviable. And finally a convenient lack of demand for the commercial units around the market place could result in them being changed to residential flats. All because there was no strategy to make sure that these community benefits would have any chance of succeeding.

The Carriageworks development still has the opportunity to be an asset for the local community, providing much needed affordable start-up and small business space, an open space for markets and events, and a pedestrian route that avoids the congested Ashley Road corner. With the planners appearing to have given up on this vision it is down to our local politicians to flex their muscles and make sure we get what we were promised. Otherwise we will simply have some new facades, a few hundred extra residents, and maybe a chain coffee shop on Stokes Croft. That was not the Community Vision.

Please write to your local councillors to ask them to push for completion of the cultural plan, the management plan and the public art plan in full consultation with CAG and local residents.  Follow this link for template wording and the email addresses of the councillors for Central, Ashley and Cotham wards (the site is at the corner of all three).

References

2014 The original planning application and permission: 14/05930/F

2018 Application to approve details of cultural and public art plans: 18/00955/COND

2021 Application to change Block E from housing to flats: 21/00577/F

Long term management = success or failure of Carriageworks

The Carriageworks development will include a market square, accessed through the listed Carriageworks building and also from a lane opposite the top of Picton Street.  It’s there because of the 2012 Community Vision which stated “Creating new open and inclusive spaces on the site is important for many of us. This could be achieved by designing a new pedestrian route through the site connecting together public spaces that can contribute to a vibrant local culture; these public spaces might host activities such as a market and performances. Good design and management will need to be exercised”.  So that’s great.  But there’s a “but”.  And this is it: “But what will it be like in practice?”  The answer will be defined by one key word – ‘management’. 

On a recent trip to Sheffield to run a workshop on the design of the public realm we visited a newish development on Kelham Island. There are many similarities to the Carriageworks – a historic setting, an enclosed square surrounded by commercial units and four stories of residential above. But our guide, James Simpson from Sheffield University’s Dept of Landscape Architecture, told us that whenever he visits the square with his students it is empty. It is lifeless, soulless, unused and, if judged as a space meant for activity, failing. So why is this? We found many reasons:

1.The commercial units are not occupied by shops, cafes, crafts or community uses. Instead those that are occupied are used as offices.  So they are not accessible to the public and provide no interest to the passerby.  Neither do they provide a gradation between public space and private space.  A cafe with tables outside, or a shop with displays outside, invites browsing or interaction and provides activity around the edge of a square that in turn encourages other people to enter the square and linger.  Equally colonnades or simply awnings over shops can provide shelter and another form of gradation or transition from public to private space. Office windows do none of that – they just provide a hard barrier that effectively says “keep away”.  A square with no one in it can be an uncomfortable space, so is somewhere you avoid or pass quickly through. 

2.Other ground floor units are unoccupied.  Clearly retail uses struggle these days, but it is also highly likely that the rent levels make it unaffordable for small, local and startup businesses. In schemes like this letting agents will advise the developer on the market (maximum) rent. Upon completion the developer will probably want to sell the completed development to an investor and so to maximise the value they will want the best quality tenant in order to get the best yield on the rent.  In some cases, for example parts of Harbourside, this explains why you end up with units full of national brands instead of interesting local traders. But logic would suggest that if those brands don’t want to occupy the units you might lower the rent just to get alternative occupiers.  Not so fast.  If you have a unit empty you can offset your losses against tax.  But if you charge a reduced rent, you can not offset any losses.  So it can be financially better for you to set a high rent and then leave a unit empty, than have a less valuable local trader in occupation.  The loss of social value is therefore carried by the community, while the developer drives off with the financial profit.

3. The square provides nowhere to stop and linger.  There is no seating (the one bench in the top photo is probably for the exclusive use of the office behind it), there are no landscape features on which to perch, no steps to sit on and eat your lunch.  As a result it is merely a place to pass through on the way to some other destination.

4. The square is not managed for people. It, and probably the surrounding buildings, will be owned by an investment or management company.  The company will want to be as profitable as it can.  But people stopping in the square will add to costs: The square will need more cleaning, there might be issues with noise and managing people’s behaviour, and wear and tear will be greater.  Ultimately it might mean the need for full-time staff on site. So from the management company’s point of view, the less people stop in the square the better.  Seats, attractions, interesting things to look at are all a potential problem and cost.  So instead of people and activity we find signs prohibiting ball games, threatening CCTV and huge fines for incursions.

5. Does anyone live here? Some of the flats above have balconies, but there is little evidence of personalisation.  Imagine this building in Germany – the balconies would be overflowing with plants.  Clearly that isn’t quite in the British tradition, but the lack of it here might also reflect the proportion of buy-to-rent flats with occupants on 6 month tenancies and little incentive to create a longer term home. That cascades down to ground level, creating the sense of a rather soulless and barren development. Again, a focus on short term profitability results in long term success being overlooked.

So what does this mean for the Carriageworks? 

The Carriageworks planning permission commits the developer to work with the community and CAG on a cultural delivery plan.  Quite what this is is undefined, but we have always taken it to include the long term use and management of the site, especially the market square and the surrounding units.  To date, however, the developer has been extremely elusive to discuss this, always kicking it down the road to some future date when other more pressing issues have been dealt with.  Of late, requests to discuss it haven’t even received an acknowledgement. But this cultural plan is essential if the Sheffield experience is to be avoided.  Who is going to occupy the ground floor units, what rents do they hope to achieve, will they lower the rents if they prove too high or will they leave the units empty, how will space be managed so that there is activity around the edge and a gradual transition from public to private space, what will encourage people to linger in the market square, how will those activities be managed and supported to be successful?  All these questions and more need to be posed and answered, for without that discussion there is a huge risk that the Carriageworks will end up like the square in Sheffield: Lifeless, soulless, unused and, if judged as a space meant for activity, failing.  That is the opposite of the Community’s Vision.

Julian Mellor, CAG Facilitator

CAG objection to latest planning application

The Carriageworks Action Group has today submitted an objection to the planning application to build 28 1 and 2 bedroom flats on the site currently proposed for eight 3 and 4 bedroom houses. This hasn’t been an easy objection to make as we support the broad priniciple of more social and affordable housing on the site. However, the quality of the proposals is so far below acceptable standards we feel we have to object. The content of the objection is below.

Objection to 21-00577-F

In December 2011 the Carriageworks Action Group produced its Community Vision for the future of the Carriageworks. This built on extensive public debate and consultation and was later adopted by Bristol City Council.  Excerpts from the Community Vision that are relevant to this application are as follows:

“We want to see a true mix of housing types for sale and for rent including private and social housing, both low and high cost; a range of sizes should be provided to suit a mix of needs, from single people to families“.

“We want the new development to be designed to a high quality with good environmental standards. We want to see full use being made of roofs to provide opportunities for biodiversity and the creation of gardens, perhaps for growing food“.

The statement of community involvement that has been submitted by PG Group as part of the application rightly notes that CAG and others in the community have always wanted more social and affordable housing on the site than provided for in the approved 2015 scheme. When PG Group suggested, confidentially, to members of the Liaison Group* that this could be achieved by changing blocks E and F, in principle support was voiced.

On 14^th December 2020 Liaison Group members were sent some plans for changes to Blocks E and F. We had substantial concerns, not least unit sizes below the national standards, and sent these to PG Group on 22 December. There was no further contact until after the planning application was submitted at the end of January.  Neither did PG Group do anything to consult more widely with the local community about their proposed application.

CAG held a community meeting, via Zoom and attended by 18 people from CAG, on 25 February to discuss the application. PG’s architect presented the proposals and two other members of the PG team were able to provide answers to some of the questions posed.

Our objections to the proposals have, at their root, the divergence from the Community Vision in terms of unit size, occupation types and quality.  While we remain committed to seeing more social and affordable units on the site this planning application fails on so many levels that we cannot support it.  In particular:

• The quality of residential space, in particular natural lighting of the interior and solar gain, is potentially below acceptable standards especially on the ground and lower ground floors. This is due to the lower ground levels, the presence of retaining walls and the height of the surrounding buildings. This will not only have an impact on the health of residents but will also put increased dependence upon artificial lighting and heating. A daylight assessment in accordance with BRE guidelines should be submitted
• The proposals further consolidate a narrow mix of unit size on the site with the addition of more one bedroom units and the removal of larger units
• The choice of external finish and material colours is depressing and more fitting to  brutalist housing development in the Eastern Bloc. A more appropriate solution should be found that fits better with the local context
• The lack of natural surveillance in the sunken courtyard gives us concerns about community safety. The advice of secure by design specialists should be sought
• The increased height, the removal of the gap between Blocks E and F, the changed roof configuration, the placement of windows (in habitable rooms and corridors) and the materials used lead us to believe that there will be an increased impact on the amenity of neighbouring residential properties especially through the loss of natural light and overlooking. A daylight assessment and shadow path should be submitted along with sections showing the proposed building in the context of properties on the neighbouring streets
• The impact of the increased height and depth of the building, compared to the permissioned Blocks E and F, is not justified by any benefit to the quality of design and the mix of unit size as aspired to by the Community Vision
• Conflicting descriptions of the tenure mix have been provided. Most recently, at the February community meeting, we have even been told that the mix is unknown. It is impossible to support this application without knowing whether the scheme is for social rent, affordable rent or shared ownership occupiers
• During site construction there has been almost constant Sunday working and working outside of permitted hours Mon-Sat, to the great detriment of local residents. If, as and when planning permission is granted there should be an absolute condition to prevent out of hours and Sunday working
• The loss of green space, replaced in part by a dark subterranean courtyard
• The amended parking layout needs a swept path analysis to demonstrate it is workable
• The Energy and Sustainability Study states that PV panels cannot be installed because “the roof space for Block E is proposed to accommodate a green roof in the interest of biodiversity” (page 21). However, no green roof appears in the planning application drawings. There should either be PVs or a green roof.

In conclusion, the proposed development is unacceptable and would provide housing units that are unliveable. To refer back to a quote from a member of the planning committee when the first 2015 application was submitted: “Only its mother could love this”. Since 2015 we have come a long way but we are in danger of the scheme sliding backwards little by little, justified by challenging circumstances and the smoke and mirrors of viability. A mixture of unit sizes and occupation along with high quality design and environments is essential for this development to be a success. As they stand the fundamentals of this proposal are sub-standard and no amount of change to the exterior design will compensate. This is an important gateway site with a facade of historical importance both locally and nationally. From a potential silk purse PG have made a sow’s ear. These proposals should be referred back for improvement.

* The CAG Liaison Group comprises six people involved in CAG who engage at a detailed level with the developer and the Council to champion the Community Vision.  They report back to the broader CAG community.

Two planning permissions granted at Carriageworks

Bristol City Council has granted planning permission to PG Group for two applications:

• Application 20/00894/F for seven apartments on 4th and 5th floor levels of Block A. Samples of materials and finishes have to be approved by the planners before work can begin. Permission was granted on 20 April 2020.  Click to view the decision notice.
• Application 19/02364/X changes to internal layout and external appearance of Block A. Permission was granted on 17 April 2020. Click to view the decision notice.

This should clear the way for PG to sign funding and construction contracts for the scheme as a whole (COVID19 permitting).

Consultation on new PG planning application – submit your comments

PG have submitted a planning application to change Block A, the building that fronts Ashley Road. 

The application is a Section 73 application to make material amendments to the existing permission. So it is not a brand new application, but it is much more significant that the non-material applications that PG were submitting earlier this year.

You can see all the online files on the City Council’s website where you can also formally submit your comments. The application number is 19/02364/X.

At our community meeting on 16 May there were great concerns about the emerging proposals. Specifically: the height and mass in proportion to nearby buildings, the design of the shop fronts, the facade design and the materials.

Material amendments to a planning pemission are sometimes referred to the Planning Committee if requested by the committee members or if the planning officers consider it is justified e.g. if there are significant objections and or changes to the design of the building. Submitting your views to the proposals is therefore important.

The public consultation formally ends on 19th June (although this may be extended in practice) so please send your comments to the Council today and also copy them to us so that we can represent your views effectively and so that others can see what you’ve said.

Given the importance of the proposed changes and also the concerns about the Cultural Plan we are having another Community Meeting on Wed 10 July, 6:30pm at a venue to be decided. Put it in your diary and we’ll let you know the venue closer to the time. At the meeting we will have copies of the proposed changes.

CAG has always been committed to working with any developer who will help deliver the community vision and end the very long dereliction of this site. But we will not support a developer who does not deliver the vision.

The revised plan can be seen below along with the plan for which permission was granted. You can see the difference in scale on Ashley Road, and a different design for the entrance into the commercial and market space. (Note that the architects for the permissioned scheme deliberately left the more distant Block A2 uncoloured in order to reduce its visual impact).

2019 Proposed Design

2015 Scheme with Planning Permission

2019 Proposed Design

Diag 4: Site cross section showing east elevation of Blocks A1 and A2 (from 2015 planning permission)

2019 Proposed ground floor plan

2015 Ground floor plan with permission

The Carriageworks is not an easy site to develop. The PG Group has been very open in saying that the cost of clearing it was higher than anticipated and that the build cost is also likely to be higher than expected. Given the current political climate it is also very difficult for them to be clear on potential selling prices for the flats.

But we also need to be aware of the architectural context and the fit of these designs. Above all it is a very important gateway site, with the Carriageworks, one of Bristol’s most architecturally important and impressive historic buildings, at its heart. So these designs must be given careful thought and a considered response. We urgently need your responses if we are to represent your views effectively. Every view received by the council will help and every one is important.

PG submit planning application for Ashley Road Block A

PG have submitted a new planning application to Bristol City Council this time for changes to Block A, the building fronting Ashley Road.

You can see all the details at https://planningonline.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/centralDistribution.do?caseType=Application&keyVal=PRLISBDNHHU00

We’ll be reviewing the proposals and writing more about them in the coming days.

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.

PG submit listed building application for change of Carriageworks roof

On 29 January PG submitted another application to the city planners ref 19/00436/X (links to full details on Council website).

Note that this application matches a non-material amendment (ref 19/00409/NMA) to the main planning permission, submitted on 25 January and already consented on 15 February (click for our summary of this application).

PG want to change the roof design of the listed Carriageworks building (Block C) to allow for an internal lift to reach the top floor. This will change the elevation of the building when seen from the rear by replacing two dormer windows with an enlarged mansard roof and one (non dormer?) window.  As a result of the proposed change the roof design will not be uniform (see drawing comparison below).

Extracts from architect’s drawings showing existing scheme and proposed change to roof of Block C

PG have not submitted any elevations to show what if any change will be visible from Stokes Croft or any cross-section of the revised roof.  However, the covering letter states that the changes will only impact the rear elevation.

In terms of formalities, the application seeks to vary the listed building consent they received in 2017 (ref 17/04561/X) which itself varied the original listed building consent granted in 2016 (ref 14/05982/LA).

Any comments on the application have to be made to the planning department by 28 Feb.

Planned Road and Pavement Closures + Other Site Management Issues

On 1 December the City Council approved PG’s proposals for road and pavement closures around the site during demolition and construction.

The proposals form part of the ‘Construction Environment Management Plan‘ (pdf) and were submitted in September. This can also be found on the Council’s planning website.

The Plan addresses the following:

Communications

PG’s communications consultant, Jenny Gee, will be “working closely…to establish a working relationship that builds trust” with CAG, neighbours and businesses. Communications will include “sharing both the overall build plan and daily on-site activity” with a commitment to responding to questions by the end of the next working day.  Local residents will receive quarterly update letters.  Daily updates will be available from the site communications website  – https://consultingyou.co.uk/carriageworks.

Complaint Management

Any complaints should be submitted via PG’s communications website or in writing to Jenny Gee Communications, 2 Fernbank Road, Redland, Bristol, BS6 6PZ.  Responses will be provided by the end of the next working day.

Hours of Operation

Works will take place Monday to Friday 8am to 6pm and Saturday 8am to 1pm.

If any work is required on Sundays or Bank Holidays advance consent will be sought from Bristol Planners.

Deliveries

There will be no major vehicle movements into or out of the site during the school run. Actual times still to be agreed with the City Council.

There will be a full-time ‘gateman’ at the Ashley Road entrance.  Vehicles will normally turn around on the site but, if the need arises, the gateman will control traffic on Ashley Road to enable vehicles to reverse in.

Control of Dust

(The dirty sort not Rusakov Particles, which are altogether harder to contain).

Dust will be created during demolition. Dust suppression will include damping down with sprayed water during demolition, crushing and storage; sheeting and screening; enclosure of skips; watering of haul routes; sheeting of vehicles removing demolition materials and siting of the crusher as far as possible from neighbouring properties.  Burning of materials on site will be strictly prohibited.

Lighting

To avoid light spillage onto residential properties, temporary lighting will only be used when absolutely necessary; directional lighting will be used instead of floor lighting; low level and sensor controlled lighting will be used only during hours of operation; physical screening will be provided.

Parking

Site workers will not be able to park on site and will therefore park in the surrounding areas.  (No mention is made that these areas are RPZs)

Temporary Traffic Measures

The following drawings set out the proposed measures.  The dates are CAG estimates. PG will confirm final arranagements once they are approved by Bristol City Council Highways.

Phase 1 (¿January 2018?)

Erecting (and later dismantling) the temporary façade support system to the frontage of the  Carriageworks.

Phase 2 (¿January – March 2018?)

Demolition of Westmorland House

Phase 3 (¿April 2018 – sometime in 2019?)

Construction works until the new internal structure of the Carriageworks has been completed. The façade support system is then removed.

Phase 4 (¿2019-2020?)

Construction works following removal of the temporary façade support structure to the Carriageworks.

Phase 5 (¿2019?)

Construction of a new manhole over the existing Wessex Water combined sewer in Ashley Road, very close to the traffic light controlled junction with Stokes Croft. This will, in all likelihood, be a deep excavation which will necessitate a temporary road closure (see SK5). This has been discussed in principle with BCHDH and would be timed to take place during a school holiday period.

Other Road Closures (¿2018-2019?)

It may also be necessary to close Ashley Road for 1 day for the erection (and 1 day later for dismantling) of a tower crane.