|
|
Civic Society Comments |
The Society's comments on the current development proposals for the Great Western Dockyard.
Department of Planning, Transport & Sustainable Development Bristol City
Council
Brunel House, St George's Road, Bristol BS1.
23 November 2005
For the attention of Mr Simon Trafford
Case Officer, Central Area development Control Team.
Dear Mr Trafford,
Great Western Dockyard Redevelopment Phase 11, Gas Ferry Road, Bristol BS1.
6TY.
Applications Nos : 05.04067/F/C 05.04071/LA/C
I write to you on behalf of Bristol Civic Society to submit comments in
response to these applications for planning consent.
Bristol Civic Society considers that these applications are extraordinarily
significant therefore special attention has been given to them by our
Planning Applications Group. This Society has given its support for the main
occupier of the Great Western Dockyard, the ss `Great Britain' Trust since
the magnificent salvage operation during 1970 to bring home the famous iron
ship designed by I. K. Brunel and built in the Great Western Dockyard during
the mid 19th century.
The applicants and their team of consultants have done justice to the
importance of their project with the preparation of comprehensive
applications that are of the highest quality in research design and
presentation. It is the intention therefore of the Society to give special
attention to the issues raised by a bold proposal for redevelopment of a key
location with which our Society has been engaged since the year 2000.
Bristol Civic Society has been a leading advocate for the ss Great Britain
Trust during the past five years of involvement with the future planning of
Spike Island within the City Docks Conservation Area. The Society has long
been considered to be a leading stake holder and has closely followed the
pre application discussions and presentations of these proposals.
Since the registration of the applications on 11 October we have received
from the applicants' architects on 22 October, detailed information for the
proposal and a working group has been appointed to give detailed
consideration to these documents with the help of our members who include
the professions of planning, engineering and architecture.
Since we are awaiting some further information and clarification on some
points of detail, the Society gives you due notice that in the time
available to us in your designated consultation period our comments are not
exhaustive and we have listed further information that we offer to provide
to your planning authority and that we seek to discuss further, with both
applicant and yourself during the immediate future.
1.0 Data to be made available to the Case Officer by
Bristol Civic Society.
1.1 Draft Development Guide Lines for the Great Western Dockyard 30 January
2003, Bristol City Council.
1.2 Comments upon these guidelines by Bristol Civic Society 27 March 2003.
1.3 Letter in reply from Richard Holden, Bristol City Council to Bristol
Civic Society, 7 April 2003.
1.4 Analysis of 14 photomontage views provided by the applicant to show
impact of proposals on key views.
1.5 Enhancement statement for City Docks Conservation Area, Bristol City
Council, November 1993.
1.6 Findings from the Bristol Citizen's Panel Survey, September 2004, titled
`Full Steam Ahead'.
1.7 A 3D model to show in block form the massing of Phase 2 on the Great
Western Dockyard to scale of 1:500. Model commissioned by Bristol Civic
Society.
1.8 Information concerning supply of natural building stone.
2.0 Questions that have arisen from our preliminary
study of the application to which we need answers before we can complete our
assessment.
2.1 Confirmation of the original AOD heights of the parapet level and the
top ridge level of the Steam Engine Works (Building 1).
2.2 Evidence of historical justification for the form and location of the
proposed Building 2.
2.3 Evidence of historical justification for the form and location of the
proposed Building 3.
2.4 Provision of 2 extra photomontage views that have been agreed with the
applicants architects.
2.5 Evidence of research into availability of natural permanent pennant
building stone.
2.6 Information about calculation of provision for affordable housing
proposed.
2.7 Reference to guidance as to permitted housing density that may apply to
this application.
BCS comments on the development proposal.
Bristol Civic Society recognises the ssGB trust's requirement to generate
income from the development of the site towards meeting the costs of the
on-going maintenance of the ship and the importance of this not only to
Bristol to wider national and international interest groups. The following
representations, therefore, are not against the principle of developing the
site but are aimed at achieving a development which not only enhances the
Conservation Area but also maintains and improves the setting of the ssGB.
The Society's views relate particularly to the height and design of the
proposed buildings, the effect of this on the character of the Conservation
Area, their impact on the appreciation of the silhouette of the ship (its
iconic signature on the City's townscape) and other views of the vessel. We
also have some concerns about the impact of traffic and parking and the
proposed proportion of affordable housing.
Proposed Building on SEW footprint
The height of this proposed building is a matter of critical importance to
the setting of the ssGB particularly when viewed from the direction of its
prow. The higher the building, the less the superstructure and masts will
stand out against the sky. It would appear that the proposals would remove
much of the ship's funnel from this silhouette. Informal Guidance to the
ssGB Trust suggested the former SEW building was about 20m high, since
revised to vary between 14 & 15 metres. Every effort should be made to
determine the height of the former building as accurately as possible. Any
replacement building should not exceed this height.
Bristol Civic Society also has considerable concerns about the proposed
design of this building. Whilst it has something of the character of a
nineteenth century dockyard building, there is a confusion of this character
with features such as balconies and roof lights. The Society would like to
see alternatives more thoroughly explored and available for consultation. in
the Society's view, it would be better to replicate the appearance of the
former building or have in its place a contemporary design, sensitive to the
setting, with references to the former building and no higher than it.
The two other 5 storey Buildings.
The Society feels strongly that the proposed two 5 storey buildings to the
west of the SEW building are not in keeping with the character of this area.
Nor are they consistent with guidance for redevelopment there as set out in
the City Docks Conservation Enhancement Statement (1993) and the informal
Guidance to the ssGB Trustees. The former refers to single and 2 storey
development being typical. The latter suggests strongly that, if the
rebuilding of the SEW building were acceptable, then a smaller, more
articulated and varied scale of development should take place towards the
west of the site.
We feel, therefore, that two 5 storey buildings would be inappropriate.
These buildings should be smaller than the SEW building and step down in
height towards the west to reflect, in particular, the smaller scale of
maritime buildings on the site to the west. The Inspector of the Inquiry on
the earlier proposals for the McArthur's Warehouse redevelopment rejected
that proposal partly on the grounds that it was out of keeping with the
scale of buildings in the area.
The lateral silhouette of the ssGB, as already note, is of iconic
importance. Buildings of the height of these proposals could threaten and
confuse that silhouette. We feel that a solution less intrusive on the
ship's silhouette and more in keeping with the traditions of this area must
be sought.
Traffic and Parking
The proposals include 103 single bed dwellings and 41 x 2 bed dwellings.
This level of residential development could generate considerable traffic
and parking requirements. The intensity of development should reflect the
sensitivity of this site and its surroundings to the impact of traffic and
parking. It is suggested that the proximity of this site to the city centre
and existing public transport would enable parking standards to be kept
below the minimum BCC requirements. However, for Spike Island, the current
provision of public transport is inadequate between 6pm and early morning
and also is non existent at weekends. A commitment by the applicant to
support these services and also the current proposal for a light rail
service along Cumberland Road should be considered. Any parking provision
that is made should be within the footprints of proposed buildings. The use
of car parking facilities provided for visitors coming to the ssGB must not
be spoilt by excessive parking visible on the site.
I look forward to your response to the offer made by this Society to those
questions that are within your remit.
Yours Sincerely,
G. J. Tucker Hon. Secretary