FROM OUR ACTING CHAIRMAN, AUDREY LENNOX

Audrey Lennox has a mixed civic, judicial and academic background. Of all these, being secretary of the Southgate Civic Society was the most fulfilling

"THE BRISTOL CIVIC SOCIETY IN THE 21st CENTURY."

The professionalism, wisdom and expertise which informs the activities of the Civic Society in its environmental work are considerable and inspiring and MUST CONTINUE. However is it time to consider a wider remit WITHIN THE TERMS OF OUR CHARITABLE OBLIGATIONS?
Could we share our fund of knowledge Bristol wide? Could we publicise plain English interpretations of today's complex planning procedures and jargon? Would it be practicable to devise a system of town planning spotters to keep an eye on local developments in their areas? Should we consider a wider educational role? Such a change of role would have enormous resource implications, human and financial. Do we take note of new concepts e-government, technology, new localism, interfaces? Your ideas on involvement and sharing are needed. You can either feed them in to The Editor now or wait until you see the 2004-2005 Forward Plan in the next Newsletter.

HARBOURSIDE SITE 3, WAPPING WHARF

Let us come up to date:
10 acres of development land. Developer: Umberslade. Sequence of events: Council issues Guidance for site Master Planning July 2003. Consultation process starts with interested parties being identified as stakeholders. I represented the Civic Society. Core Group of Stakeholders established "to oversee consultation process and give guidance as project unfolds". Only local residents and myself consistently attended meetings. At the second stakeholder meeting it emerged that the project team's preferred option featured four dominant finger blocks. Result, exasperation from the audience that their concerns had been ignored. It was obvious that local residents needed the opportunity to become a strong independent focus group and I offered help. The local Royal Institute of British Architects branch provided an adviser, (Spencer Back) and since last November, Spike Island Futures Group has met monthly. With Spencer's guidance from the start, the group has identified the major issues as density, height, bulk, massing and mix of buildings, high quality and varied design, permeability, public open space, traffic and car parking.

Other issues have included :
Section 106 contributions (communal benefits to be provided by the developer), affordable housing and ultra light rail.
There have been three meetings (one a site meeting at our request) with Umberslade; after the first, the tower blocks went, then the Goal Gate was re-united with access to the waterside. However, the final report (publication imminent) will emphasise the stakeholders' opinion that Umberslade's density figure of 500-700 dwellings (far in excess of existing harbourside developments) is unacceptable, and a threat to design quality. None of us can understand why the City Council's planners seem so ambivalent. There may be theories but an explanation would be better. I am
cautiously optimistic but keeping my fingers crossed about the outcome. Many things happen behind the scenes and currently a "healthy" debate is under way with the planners on differing interpretations on consultation.
More next time.
 

Audrey Lennox
Acting Chairman
4 Somerford Court, Westbury on Trym BS9 3NA


Back to 'Cuttings' page

Back to main Newsletter page