Kingsdown Conservation Group

Despite a long public consultation, and seemingly endless debate, the University is again seeking planning permission for an oversized block that will shut out our view of the Royal Fort and degrade the environment of St Michael’s Hill. They’ve never explained why they’re ignoring their own Masterplan, which is an official planning document.

Sadly, the KCG committee feels that they must oppose this latest version, but we live in hope that the university will eventually listen. If you agree with us, please email north.planning@bristol.gov.uk and tell them a.s.a.p. as this is to be decided on April 8th and comments need to be sent in well before then.

Here is our full response:

University of Bristol – Proposed Biological Sciences Building – 08/05160/F

Mass of the proposed Biological Sciences building

We have now seen the University’s proposed revisions to the design of the St. Michael’s Hill elevation of the Bio-Sciences building.  We support the University’s original development Masterplan SPD11.  However, because the University has failed to adhere to its Masterplan we remain opposed to this particular application.  The recent design revisions cannot disguise the mass of the Maths and Bio-Sciences Buildings, which are too large for the site.

We are saddened to oppose an application by the University but, the effect of the construction of the proposed buildings will put an end to the character of the upper part of the St. Michael’s Hill conservation area.  In July 2006, the City adopted SPD11.  Appendix 3 sets out particulars of the University’s extensive public consultation.  SPD11 paragraph 4.8 describes strategic move 7.

“The University needs 38,000 square metres of new, core academic space, 18,000 square metres are required for Life Sciences.” And “…………Appendix 6 lists the floorspace that the Masterplan will seek to achieve subject to the need for new buildings to respond well, in particular, to the historic context.”

The relevant legal principles that apply to the interpretation of documents are

(i)“The whole document rule” that is, the document must be read as a whole.  Parts of a document are not to be read disjunctively; and

(ii)Words are to be given their everyday, dictionary meanings.

On page 2 of our original response we quoted the figures that the University included in Appendix 6 compared to the floor areas of the current proposals.  As far as we are aware, the University has not attempted to reconcile the area that, in July 2006, it said that it required with the area that it now says that it must have.  The restriction of the site is of the University’s own making.  They could have made fuller use of the land that is available at the former Children’s hospital site.  We will not weary you by repeating the arithmetic.  The current proposals are incontestably larger than those that the Masterplan contained.  The Masterplan unambiguously stated that the Bio-Sciences building would be four floors tall.  Appendix 6 was clear and contained carefully drafted proposals.  The University intended the community to believe its representations.  The community acted on the University’s statement.  It supported the Masterplan.  The City must not now act contrary to its own planning guidance in SPD11.  The increase in the buildings’ mass is disproportionate.  It nullifies any public involvement in the Masterplanning process.  The significant public involvement pre-Masterplan is a material consideration in this application.  The policy of pre-application public involvement, adopted in the City’s Statement of Community Involvement, is designed to avoid planning conflicts such as this.  The University has not offered any reasoned justification to multiply by 1.5 – 2 times the size of its proposed buildings in 18 months.  If the University degrades public involvement in the manner that it proposes the public will ask “Why should we bother?”

The mass of this building fails the University’s design criteria that the Masterplan specified in Sections 5.2 and 5.3.  The design criteria correctly identify the impact of the new buildings on St. Michael’s Hill and the disastrous outcome for the conservation area.  We do not intend to review in detail the changes of the design. The St. Michael’s Hill elevation is not significantly altered by the revisions because they cannot disguise that fact that the University is trying to cram too much building onto too small a site.  The mass of the Bio-Sciences building would fail to “mend the street”; it would dominate the conservation area and import the architectural confusion of Tyndall Avenue into St. Michael’s Hill.

In March 2008 the City adopted the Kingsdown Conservation Area Character Appraisal.  Paragraph 6.2.3 says “The preservation of Kingsdown’s views is vital in protecting the area’s character and special interest.  New developments within ……….. and the University sites all pose a significant threat to Kingsdown’s views (see Negative Features)”.  The proposals will virtually block the view from Kingsdown of the Royal Fort Physics Tower, which a four floor building would not.

Design of the proposed Biological Sciences building

The outcome of the lengthy public consultation exercise carried out by the University resulted in a proposal for a four storey building fronting St Michaels Hill which was accepted by all parties involved.  Although the scale of the surrounding buildings is limited to three storeys it was felt that with appropriate detailing a four storey building would be acceptable.

However, the current proposal now in front of the committee is over six storeys in height which makes constructive criticism difficult to achieve.  Recent alterations to the scheme seem to have been based solely on a futile and impossible attempt to have the proposal regarded within the initial design parameters set for the site.

The introduction of projecting vertical piers, the alternate use of render and stone coupled with an awkward parapet detail are unconvincing and represent an attempt to dress a disproportionately large building in the historic style of its three storey neighbours.  This proposal should reflect the scale of the adjacent environment and could be a vibrant addition to the street if it were to more honestly reflect its use as an educational building.

There are some general observations which could be applied to any proposal in this situation…

The public access to the scheme should not be sited immediately adjacent to the service access. The two are wholly incompatible.

Both the south and north elevations should include positive glazing to take full advantage of the views offered to the occupants and more importantly provide visual interest to the street scene as it is from these oblique angles that the building will be  perceived. Detailed observations….

The stone plinth represents the type of architectural setting to be found within the immediate locality. However the curious manner in which the base of the building form then steps up and down on top of the plinth is visually unsettling and results in large, unbroken panels of render sitting just above street level. We hope that natural stone can be used throughout.

The introduction of the ‘brise soleil’ is again rather curious as the St Michaels Hill elevation faces east, where the sun is at its lowest, possibly rendering these additions unproductive.

These comments could be interpreted as a criticism of the architects involved. This is not the case, we welcome the University’s choice of a contemporary practice. The problem lies with the brief and the demand for excessive scale not being suitable to the site offered. Could we request that the architects brief be amended so as to be more achievable in nature and that they be given the opportunity to design a building that represents its function whilst respecting the historical scale and nature of the adjoining neighbourhood?

The meeting was held at 7.30 p.m. on Thursday the 5th March 2009 at the Ark, Cotham Road South, charied by Nigel Tasker and attended by 51 residents. Charles Grant sent his apologies for absence.

Minutes of the 2008 general meeting had been approved at the April 2008 committee meeting.

The report of the past year – Nigel Tasker summarised the annual report of the last year’s business, which was available at the meeting and posted on www.kingsdown.org.uk.  The report was adopted.  Tony did not make himself available for re-election has stood down from the committee after many years.  The committee are very sorry to lose him because of the invaluable service that he has given to the Group.  The meeting thanked Tony for his work.

The annual accounts – Pauline Allen presented the Group’s accounts for the year (for a downloadable version in Word format, see kcgacc08) , which were adopted.  Capital payments this year were made for a tree in the St. Matthews Road garden, two new notice boxes and a lantern box for the lamp post at the bottom of Spring Hill.

Membership There are 136 members in about 100 households.

The 2009/10 committee The meeting elected the officers and the committee who will be Pauline Allen (treasurer), John Frenkel (secretary), Nick Kidwell, Andy King, Jeremy Newick (Conservation Advisory Panel representative), Helen Phillips, Nigel Tasker, Wendy Tomlinson and Mary Wright.  Helen Phillips retired from the secretaryship but offered to continue as a committee member.  Helen has been secretary for many years.  The meeting thanked her for her service.  Tony Kerr promised to continue to maintain the website with Pete Ferne.  Bridget and Malcolm Parker have agreed to continue as membership secretaries.  Committee Members’ details appear on the KCG website

The committee emphasise that any member who wishes to come to a committee meeting is welcome.  The Group needs more committee members to share the work.

David Mellor told the meeting that with Ian Abrahams and others he proposes a small working party to negotiate the design of the proposed pilot residents’ parking scheme with the City’s Highways  Department.  Residents will be kept informed via the website and the noticeboards.

The formal meeting then closed to be followed by a talk by Madge Dresser who has recently published a book on the Ethnic Communities of Bristol.  Madge’s topic ranged from the year 1,000 to the present.  A feature of Bristol that could scarcely be over-emphasised was Bristol’s ferociously exclusive parochialism and religious non-conformity.  Helen Phillips thanked our speaker.

Andy and Lucy King very kindly provided wine and soft drinks for members.

The City Council’s traffic engineers have sent us a summary of the points made in the consultation on their plans for Marlborough Hill, and have given a detailed response to each of the points. You can download their document here: marlborough-hill-consultation-results. The main points are listed below, with the Council’s response summarised in italics:

The pavement-widening is on the wrong side, both for pedestrians and for deterring illegal downhill vehicle traffic. This was to bring the west-side pavement up to a better width. Sharing the widening between the two sides would have been much more expensive and would have made the turn from Marlborough Hill Place difficult.  In practice it won’t make any difference to traffic which side is widened – people who want to break the law and drive down will do so.

Other suggestions for slowing traffic – alligator teeth, a downhill cycle lane, weight limit, speed limit, ’shared space’ paving, change of priorities against uphill traffic, wider western footway extended all down the hill, speed bumps – were all either not allowed by regulations, too expensive, or ineffective.

Some signs will be illuminated because regulations require that. The suggestion of a “two-way traffic” sign in Eugene Street was accepted.

What happens next? David Sarson, the responsible Traffic Engineer, says: “I intend to leave a couple of weeks now, in case anyone wishes to respond to my response, following which I will progress the detail design and assemble the contract prior to commencing site works. The works will probable necessitate a road closure which will take approximately six to eight weeks to procure so I will get that started asap (it can always be postponed); we are therefore realistically looking at an earliest works start date of early to mid May.”

So, if you have views, please just add a comment below and copy it to David Sarson: david.sarson@bristol.gov.uk

If you click on this link you’ll see a map of Kingsdown, and if you drag the little yellow figure over to the map and drop it on one of the streets that turn blue, then you’ll find panoramic views at street level.

NB – Kingsdown is not alone in being thus honoured….

[Click for a larger version, or to see our other photos]

Montague Green had its spring clean from the professionals today, nicely complementing the amateur hedge-planting work a forthnight ago.

[Click for a larger version, or to see our other photos]

The hedge is fine and is starting (gently) to burst out in leaf. Sorry to anyone who wanted to come and help but was misled by the wrong date on our notice.

A reminder that our AGM is tonight at The Ark, St Matthews’ Road.
Doors open at 7.30. We hope to have a brief outline of the Conservation Group’s activities this past year before handing onto Madge Dresser for what we are sure will be an illuminating talk on the Ethnic Communities of Bristol. Following that we will a chance to talk to our neighbours and committee members with a glass of wine or watch a fascinating film, complementing our talk, ‘Cabot Circus Cantata’.

This is a short account of what the Committee and other members have been doing in the past year on behalf of the Group. If you would like a formatted version you can find one here:

2009-annual-report

1. MEMBERS AND COMMITTEE
Around 100 households are members. The Committee consists of:

Pauline Allen (Treasurer), John Frenkel (Minutes Secretary), Charles Grant, Tony Kerr (Website), Nick Kidwell, Andy King, Jeremy Newick (represents us on Bristol Conservation Panel), Helen Phillips (Secretary), Ottilie Shorcott, Nigel Tasker, Mary Wright.

Bridget & Malcolm Parker are our Membership Secretaries. Peter Ferne kindly provides free hosting and technical support for the website.

We meet each month to respond to planning applications and to consider possible future developments and the effects on Kingsdown of national and Council priorities. We are all indebted to our Secretary, who organises the correspondence and administration of the Group, and to John Frenkel, who takes minutes and prepares the monthly summaries. These are posted on our noticeboards and on the website, which was visited by over 1700 people (‘Absolute unique visitors’) in the last 6 months, of whom several hundred were ‘regulars’. There have been over 20,000 ‘views’ of our online photo collection. 65 people get informed via our email list when there is new material on the site.  You can join this via the website, or give us your email address. We now have two brand-new noticeboards, making a total of four places where our information is displayed (including Alfred Harris).

As usual, our business in 2008 has ranged from small but important local matters to city-wide policies and programmes which affect Kingsdown.

2. KINGSDOWN
We study each application, either at the planning department or online via the Council’s website. We don’t usually comment on the minority which are well-designed and comply fully with the Council’s policies and the Conservation Group’s aims, but many schemes are for intensive or unsuitable development, such as converting shops and houses into multiple occupation or putting blocks of flats in gardens. We talk to neighbours and other interested parties, and then decide whether to comment. Among other activities this year:

We successfully opposed the three unsuitable applications from the United Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust (as they are now called) for intensive housing development on sites in the Conservation Area, but under planning law the Hospital Trust can appeal when such decisions go against them, or just come back with minor revisions. They intend to appeal against the refusal to let them build flats in the garden of the listed building (no 42) at the bottom of Alfred Hill.

We also successfully opposed various applications, including some to destroy garden walls, demolish part of a pub (the King Charles in King Square), convert buildings to multiple occupation, etc.

But we don’t just oppose things. Working with various Council officers, we have continued to arrange local improvements – a new tree at Prior’s Hill, a wildlife hedge on Montague Green, a box lantern (paid for, but not yet installed) on Spring Hill and another (provided by the hospital trust, we hope) on Alfred Hill. We even got involved in requesting the unblocking of drains (a matter on which the Council have been quick to respond) and asking for the Premier Inn sign lights to be turned down.

As always, we have had to follow up several breaches of planning law, in respect of illegal conversion to multi-occupation, concreting of gardens, installing visible satellite dishes, replacing traditional walls, roofs and windows unnecessarily and (Somerfield) piling rubbish in the street,. Often these seem minor (particularly to the householders concerned, and sometimes to the City Council who are supposed to take action), but their combined effect, if allowed to proceed, would be to degrade the whole area. We are encouraged by the increasing numbers of people who now talk to us first, which can often lead to a sensible solution rather than an expensive and stressful conflict.

3. NEIGHBOURING AREAS
Because of Kingsdown’s geographical position, we need to keep an eye on developments outside the Conservation Area boundary:

a) The Hospital. As well as the housing developments mentioned above, we have had regular discussions about the need to reinstate the rights of way, and improve public access, round the new Heart Institute. We decided not to oppose the helicopter pad, on which we felt there was no prospect of success. We understand that the hospital plan to seek new permission to leave in place the ugly laboratory building which a planning inspector decided should be removed by this summer. In summary, a lot of work with only mixed success and a clear need for continued vigilance. We are cautiously optimistic that the new regular meetings, and the City Council’s increasing support for community involvement, will lead to at least some improvement next year.

b) The University. A lot of time and effort has again been spent on pressing the university to either stick to its own (and Council-approved) masterplan or produce improvements. We have repeatedly expressed our support for the principle of developing the University’s facilities, but, just like the hospital, they don’t yet seem to understand that positive dialogue is perfectly possible if there is goodwill and a bit of listening on both sides. They, too, expect to hold regular meetings with local groups, so, again, something positive may emerge from all the effort.

c) Stokes Croft. We take an interest in this area because there are few residents to speak for it. We would like to think that our extensive and constructive responses helped to influence the improved designs to redevelop Hamilton House and the DHS building in Stokes Croft, and the former A’Court Electrical Contractors building in Jamaica Street.  We were disappointed to hear that the City has abandoned its plans to compulsorily purchase Westmoreland House and Godwin’s Carriage Works because its development partner has withdrawn from the regeneration scheme.

d) King’s Square House. KCG made an extensive response to the planning application to convert the former NHS administration building into student accommodation. We expect work to start soon.  The Council negotiated a payment of £180,000 from the developers to mitigate the impact of the development, and we will press for most of this money to be spent locally to improve Spring Hill.

4. WIDER POLICIES and DEVELOPMENTS
We try to influence the City Council and to contribute to the development of better local policies:

We congratulated the Planning Department on the excellent Kingsdown Conservation Area Character Appraisal, published in March 2008. The final document is beautifully produced and illustrated, and a credit to the Department.  It is available from the Planning section of the Council’s website and from Brunel House. The Committee worked hard to help produce the Appraisal, and are very pleased that the Conservation Officer adopted nearly every suggestion that KCG made. This is a very important policy document for Kingsdown.

Neighbourhood planning network. We continue to contribute to this important local community-based network, which exchanges information and ideas between community and amenity groups so that they can learn from each other and have more influence. The City supports the Network and we hope that it will help us to improve our dialogue with our dominant neighbours, the University and the Hospital authorities. We are represented on the City’s Conservation Advisory Panel and the Civic Society Executive.

Residents’ Parking Scheme. The City has resolved to pilot an RPS in Kingsdown, and the Highways Department will write to all local residents before Easter to tell them what it proposes. KCG will work closely with the RPS group to ensure that there are as many parking spaces as  possible and that the impact of the signage is minimised.
tk/4 Mar 2009