Feedback on Frenchay Hospital Draft Concept Statement. Public
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
2 Feedback on Frenchay Hospital Draft Concept Statement. Public Respondent Comments Made (emails generally reproduced in full – letters summarised rather than re-typed in full) 1. M & C Averis, Following the public meeting at Frenchay village hall on September 3 and a tour of the site, I would like to make a few BS16 1LR observations about the proposal to redevelop the site of Frenchay Hospital in the light of the concept statement drawn up for the hospital trust by GVA. 1. The first observation concerns the sheer size of the proposed development and the threat it holds for the entire Frenchay area which , I would contend, has not be treated well by planners and developers in the past and which could be teetering on the brink of considerable damage. As someone who knew Frenchay almost 60 years ago I would suggest that there has been very little development of quality in the area and that estates like Penn Drive and Malmains are, in fact, poor architecture redeemed only by the amount of green space around them. Were another 550 dwellings to be jammed into the hospital site and the area developed without sensitively, then my view is that the ambiance of the area will be tilted beyond redemption. 2. How do you keep the "green" feel of the village? Not by eating into what grass there is and that means keeping what woodland and grassland there is and thinking again about the positioning of any school. GVA obviously has to squeeze every penny possible out of the site, but surely its suggestions for the positioning of the new school are somewhat myopic. The obvious answer is to leave the grass and woodlands bordering the site intact and place the school in the middle of the development, helping create that mix of buildings which so characterises the rest of the area. Not for one moment am I hoping to see much "Frenchay" - pennant - stone used in the overall development, but it would be nice to see the new school echo it's predecessor on the Common. 3. With that in mind, it is also important to consider the mix of architecture on the site. The whisper is that Stoke Park is regarded as a useful guide; I could not disagree more. A recent drive around the area suggests it is the worst kind of faux architecture; without a style of its own and aping something from another age. The number of estate agents' boards, for sale and for let signs, suggests considerable numbers are less than happy living there and I can understand why. The building are cheek by jowl with precious little room to swing a cat and the lines of wheelie bins suggests there is not even room to store the waste of modern living. Frenchay deserves better, possibly an architecture competition to get the best for such an important project. 4. It's also important that, after suffering for a long time, Frenchay should get something out of its previously one-sided relationship with the NHS. For a decade or more, Frenchay Hospital has been a bad neighbour, making money or saving it 1 2 at the village's expense. Almost every road bounding the hospital suffers from the blight caused by the hospital staff and patients being charged to park within the grounds. With the hospital's move should come and end of ranks of roadside parking and the restoration of the vistas that were once Frenchay. And that means more than adequate parking for however many dwellings are eventually agreed and a lot more than necessary to cope with those hospital units that remain. The limits should not be drawn to fine lines to save the odd bob or two. 5. Traffic problems. Find a sensible solution to the previous point and you help with this one, but the flow of traffic through Frenchay will remain a problem and deserves considerable thought. I worked in London for 30-plus years and the oddity was that the worst part of getting to the City was getting out of Frenchay. Upon the traffic leading out to the ring road, then the M4 depended my getting to the office in EC1 on time and anyone who believes the problem is going to be reduced by development is living in cloud cuckoo land. It doesn't work that way; traffic always increases rather than decrease unless money (tolls/congestion charges) are involved is and someone is going to have to think the problem through. 6. Likewise drainage. I'm hearing that drainage from the site is considered adequate and that good old gravity will continue to do the job. Well, as someone who lives in the bottom of the village and at the foot of three hills, I know otherwise. It takes precious little rain before Frenchay Hill puddles up and the situation, like the traffic problem, will only get worse if the idea is to muddle through. There was once a fashion for reservoirs to retain surface water until it could be release gradually; is that such a difficult remedy? One or two could even help create that better ambiance and might come in handy in times of draught. Finally, I would like to stress that while I have voiced many objections - and have many more that are unsaid - to what GVA intends in its mission statement,. I am not stupid enough to think they will go away and that the hospital will not want all it can in cash-strapped times. The government is unlikely to be sympathetic to anything other than a sensible scheme, but I would suggest that wringing a milk cow’s neck is rarely the way to get the greatest reward. Mix a few very expensive properties with decent gardens in among the social housing, think good rather than utility, and you might be surprised at the value put on a spot which is charming, good to live in, handy for Bristol and London and doesn't deserve to be spoiled. And you would be following precedent; Frenchay half a dozen manor houses scattered among lesser properties and looks better for it. Finally, and I'd like an answer to this point (my email is [email protected]) I would like to consult a friend, Professor Alan Jago, professor of town planning and recently retired as Pro Vice Chancellor at the University of Westminster. His view, I know, would be worthwhile, but he has been away and it might be a few weeks yet before I can contact him. When I do, would you be open to hearing his views, even if they arrive after the September 14 deadline? 2. M & V Baker We reject the Concept Statement especially in regard to the following: BS16 1NQ 1. DENSITY 2 2 550 units are far too many if the character of Frenchay is not to be destroyed. In particular: a. the existing Conservation Area and the trees with a Preservation Order must be respected.. These restrictions are there for a reason i.e. to preserve the character of this special area. It follows that the school should be located elsewhere on the site. This would reduce the area available for housing. b. 550 units with an extra 1300+ residents would more than double the population of Frenchay. This cannot happen without due regard for the needs of this much enlarged community. These needs have not been fully assessed. Proper provision would also reduce the area available for housing. It is not good enough to pack the site with houses and think about these things later. c. It is clear that the density would be even greater with the development of Frenchay Park House into apartments. This development cannot be treated separately and ignored when planning, road usage or community needs are assessed. These dwellings should not be additional to the number of units included in the Concept statement. 2. TRAFFIC FLOW a. Frenchay is already subject to serious traffic congestion especially in the rush hours with people travelling from the whole area to work and accessing the M32, M4, Ring Road and other major sites like UWE. With say 1000+ additional residents taking to the roads at rush hours, this congestion will increase. Whilst there will be compensating reductions due to fewer hospital workers and visitors, their trips are phased throughout the day. The peak will only get worse. b. A major problem in Frenchay is the practice of hospital workers parking on Frenchay common and adjacent roads. This is especially hazardous during busy times with volumes of traffic moving in each direction. Can we be assured that the new Community Hospital will have sufficient parking for staff and visitors - and that they will not be discouraged from using it by charges? 3. COMMUNITY Our village hall is already in use most of the time and our school is full. We have no shops, surgery, playground, sports facilities. Apart from the school, the Concept Statement does not show what facilities will be provided or where they will be. 3. G Brookman I am aware that the tree boundary screen behind numbers 18 to 22 Homestead Gardens is negligible and agree with my Homestead Gardens neighbours that the screen from future development be extended to the same depth behind these properties as the Northern tree boundary screen. Having attended the meeting at Frenchay Village Hall recently and also having being supplied with a copy of a FAQs regarding the above statement I would like to make the following observations:- Re Question 4 I think it would be a great loss to remove the whole of the North East woodlands.