The Former Baltic Wharf Caravan Club Statement of Community Involvement

The former Baltic Wharf Caravan Club Statement of Community Involvement

For Goram Homes and Hill December 2020

Table of Contents 1...... Executive Summary 3 2...... Policy Context 4 3 ...... Consultation Plan 5 4 ...... Stakeholders audit 6 5 ...... Raising awareness 7 6 ...... Community Consultation 8 7 ...... Second round of consultation 9 8 ...... Feedback 9 8...... How feedback has influenced the scheme 15 9...... Conclusion 15

2 1. Executive Summary Covid and social distancing has impacted the scheme but we’ve actually seen greater participation in the consultation process mainly due to it This document has been prepared by Cadence PR on behalf of Goram being easier and more convenient to access online. We recognise not all Homes and Hill in support of a Full Planning Application for the residential are online and the programme has included a community newsletter and development of 166 dwellings (open market and affordable) at Baltic alternative ways to get in touch to ensure all have access. Wharf Caravan Club Site, Cumberland Road, Bristol. Activity has included: stakeholder meetings, community newsletter (going The team recognise how sensitive development can be but also how out to nearly 3,000 residents), project website (visited by 699 people), important it is in the current housing and affordability crisis. Brown field, media coverage (in the Bristol Post), five interest group presentations and city centre locations like this are rare and making best use of the one public webinars, 150 calls and emails. opportunity, in an appropriate way, is crucial. Key areas of interest has been the: design and materials, height (from a Appropriate is very subjective and our approach has been to engage with local and neighbours perspective), parking, sustainability and ecology. the local and wider community to harness local views and test the emerging proposals. We’ve tried to be proactive, informative, responsive Key changes that have come from the feedback include: reducing the and considerate, combining the team’s technical expertise with local height, removing gables to improve light, increasing planting and knowledge to deliver a better, and we hope, more appropriate scheme. screening.

This Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) summarises the activity, Feedback has been largely supportive of the principle, the open space, the community feedback received, how the team have responded to that ecology and climate change aspects. There have been concerns raised by feedback, and the key changes that have come from the consultation. neighbours around potential negative impacts, and questions around how the scheme would fit into the local context from the wider community. This consultation follows advice set out in Bristol City Council’s 2018 We have tried to address all points raised by the consultation. Statement of Community Involvement, as well as NPPF guidance and own professional experience.

3 2. Policy Context

Goram and Hill recognises the importance on more effectively and efficiently with improved • Consider any responses before they finalise community involvement as part of the planning outcomes for the community. proposals and submit their applications. application process. • Account for how they have consulted the 16. Plans should be shaped by early, local community, what comments they The Government’s policy on community proportionate and effective engagement... have received and how they have taken involvement is set out in a number of statutory 39. Good quality preapplication discussion those comments into account. and non-statutory documents, including the enables better coordination between National Planning Policy Framework (2012, public and private resources and improved 2.3 Bristol City Council’s Statement of updated 2018), Planning Practice Guidance and outcomes for the community. Community Involvement (SCI) 2018. Localism Act (2011). In addition to national policy, 41. The more issues that can be resolved at Bristol City Council provides guidance on pre- pre-application stage, including the need to The SCI encourages applicants to undertake application consultation in its Statement of deliver improvements in infrastructure and consultation. The headline statement in the Community Involvement (2018). affordable housing, the greater the report is that: ‘The council’s aim is for the benefits... community to be able to shape and comment on 2.1 National Planning Policy Framework (2018) new development proposals and its planning 2.2 Localism Act (2011) policy documents. This reflects the council’s Sets out that the purpose of the planning system commitment to encourage every individual, is to help deliver sustainable development and in Provides the context within which the planning organisation, business and community to play an doing so it should be a collective enterprise. system currently operates. The Localism Act active role in the life of the city.’ (November 2011) sets out the Government’s The Framework specifically promotes pre- continuing intention of shifting power from BREEAM Communities technical manual, 2017 application engagement and the frontloading of central Government back into the hands of consultation. The purpose is to identify issues individuals, communities and councils. The aim is ensure the needs, ideas and knowledge that can be resolved at the preapplication stage, of the community are used to improve the quality thereby enabling the planning system to function Responsibility is placed on developers to: of stakeholder engagement, throughout the design, planning and construction process.

4 3 Consultation Plan

The consultation plan aimed to:

• To raise awareness, inform and involve the local community, encouraging feedback and improving understanding, both ways. • Be inclusive and provide various ways for people to get in touch. • Proactively involve interested parties including 1) councillors 2) direct neighbours, 3) the wider community 4) local groups and 5) local schools and GPs. • Discuss both the positives benefits and more contentious areas such as height or design.

Independent facilitator

Hill and Goram appointed Cadence PR to facilitate the consultation, a step away from themselves.

Phases

1. Low level issues and opportunities consultation, August 2020 2. Public consultation on the emerging masterplan, September and October 2020 3. Revised scheme neighbour presentation, November 2020 4. Submission, December 2020.

Community newsletter sent to nearly 3000 homes in the local area

5 4 Stakeholders audit

Ahead of the consultation, a thorough stakeholder audit was carried out to help ensure key interest groups were informed. Their views and opinions helped the team gain a fuller understanding of the local area and respond to community-based issues and objectives.

1. Bristol City Council o Mark Wright, Lib Dem, Hotwells and Harbourside o Nicola Beech, Cabinet Member for Planning o Bristol City Council Planning Officers Goram Homes o Bristol City Council Planning Committee and Hill o Bristol City Council Political Party Representatives 2. Neighbours Planning Policy, o Residents (Baltic Wharf residents particularly) Statutory The o Businesses (The Cottage) Consultees & Development the Design Team o Users (All Aboard, sailing club…) Review Panel 3. Local stakeholder groups o Baltic Wharf – direct neighbour group, directors and managing agent o Hotwells and Clifton Wood Community Association o BS3 Planning Group Neighbours, o Destination Bristol stakeholders Technical o Bristol Tree Forum & the wider Study Findings 4. Design Community o Bristol Urban Design Forum o Bristol Civic Society The Housing 5. Local Media Market

The main influencers

6 5 Raising awareness

To publicise the proposals and consultation the following activity was carried out:

• A newsletter was issued to nearly 3,000 homes in the area marked below • The consultation was promoted by the local media twice. Baltic Wharf Caravan site to have 'up to 190 new homes' (Bristol Post, Apr '20), The new homes coming to Baltic Wharf in Bristol (Bristol Post, Oct '20), and New apartments at Baltic Wharf in Bristol branded a 'monstrosity' (Bristol Post, Oct ’20) • Stakeholders were contacted and encouraged to circulate the information to their networks • It was promoted on both Facebook and Twitter

6. Summary of the community consultation

1. Pre-app Sept 2020 Meeting with Ward Councillor Design Review Panel Pre-app 2. First round of Consultation Oct 2020 Baltic Wharf Managing Agent Baltic Wharf Directors Website launched Destination Bristol Baltic Wharf Neighbours Hotwells and Clifton Wood Community Association BS3 Planning Group Public event Bristol Tree Forum 3. Second round of Consultation Nov 2020 Baltic Wharf residents Dec 2020 Harbourside Water users

7 6 Community Consultation

The above newsletter was sent out to nearly 3,000 homes in the local area signposting people to the project website where they could find out more and register for a series of consultation events. Online presentations were given to stakeholders, neighbours and the wider community.

The meetings were well attended and gave people the opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback.

The project website (above left) and some of the slides from the presentation (above)

8 7 Second round of consultation

Following the first round of consultation, the team went away to analyse the feedback and consider changes. Key areas, included below in more detail, included the design, height, and more detail on neighbours’ concerns such as light and overlooking.

The second round of consultation included a presentation to direct neighbours (see right) and further correspondence with stakeholders.

8 Feedback

FEEDBACK RESPONSE

Principle The urgent need for housing is generally recognised but not understood The development approach echoes this. The team recognise by all. The need for this housing to be ‘appropriate’ in its setting, the sensitive nature of development, particularly on the considerate to neighbours and properly planned for is a key ask from local community. We also recognise that design is the community. subjective. To manage both, we have sort to canvass a wide range of feedback from community representatives, interest groups, neighbours, the wider community and the design review panel and find consensus. This process is ongoing.

Some people argued that the Caravan Club should stay as it’s a popular The Caravan Club brings in around £1-£1.5 million to the facility that brings much needed investment to the city. visitor economy each year and is particularly important to the cities tourism and leisure sector under the current Covid circumstances.

The Caravan Club only lease the site but will continue, arguably in a better location on Clanage Road. It’s close to 9 visitor attractions, the river and the surrounding countryside.

Its relocation frees up a brown field, sustainably located site that can be repurposed to address the recognised urgent need for housing, and in particular affordable housing.

The development potential of the site is significantly limited by various Whilst acknowledging there are constraints, the site also factors, such as flood risk, neighbouring buildings, conservation area has many positive factors lending itself very suitable for status, mature trees and proximity to nearby listed heritage assets. The sustainable housing. The application tries to address all of existing use as a caravan and motorhome park is compatible with all of these considerations. This site is an excellent and more these limitations. efficient location for housing, whereas the Caravan Club’s Clanage Road site cannot deliver housing. Height Height was a key theme of the consultation with mixed views on it’s The team have looked hard to balance the various pressures appropriateness. on the scheme including viability, neighbour amenity, planning policy, making best use of the site for housing Neighbour expressed concerns around overlooking, loss of light and numbers, and delivering an exemplar scheme that views, and it being overbearing. champions affordable housing, public space, ecology and climate change. Some in the wider community thought the six storeys would stick out in the context of the local area and should be reduced by one or two floors. Height has been reduced from an originally much higher Others thought it was appropriate. scheme to seven and down to six. To reduce impact on neighbours further, roof lines have been lowered and distances where possible, marginally increased.

While we recognise not all agree, we feel that we are delivering a scheme that is appropriate, consistent with planning policy and that has responded as much as possible to feedback. The height is supported by the Design Review Panel, City Design as well as many in the area.

Design

10 Overall, feedback has been supportive of the design and materials being This is a prominent location and crucial to get right. The proposed. A few would disagree, one neighbour told the Bristol Post it team have employed a leading architectural practice and was a monstrosity. much work has been carried out to deliver an exemplary scheme that adds value to the setting.

There have been a number of presentations and meetings with groups like the Design Review Panel, the Civic Society, HCCA and Destination Bristol who have given useful feedback and are supportive in principle.

Neighbour specific Extensive feedback has been provided by neighbours and included here. Right to light The team have made changes to the scheme to ensure the right to light impacts are marginal and above policy requirements. The accompanying report shows this. Overlooking The current design has no inclusion of windows at the closest point with the boundary in the northeast corner of the site. The design has also sought to reorientate or remove balconies and windows where the greatest risk of overlooking was evident so as to minimise the instances of overlooking along the eastern boundary. Construction With more people working from home at the moment, questions were These will all be agreed as part of a Construction asked about how disruptive the construction might be and what Management Plan that will need to be agreed with BCC residents rights are.. prior to any commencement of works

A Construction and Ecology Management Plan will be produced detailing the construction details and how potential disruption will be minimising and managed.

The team have committed to setting up a liaison group ahead of construction, should planning be granted, to help with this.

11 All Aboard - Some of the members of All Aboard, a water sports charity As part of the consultation we have been meeting with All that uses the buildings beside the development had raised concerns Aboard and feedback has been supportive. around the development.

Vehicles and parking Local residents raised concerns around whether the development would Bristol City Council’s parking policy is to reduce parking make the parking situation worse and whether they would be able to levels in the city to help reduce car use and the consequent apply for RPZ permits. issues around congestion and air quality. We are delivering more parking than policy requires.

To protect existing residents, residents will not be able to apply for parking permits on Spike Island. Questions were asked about where deliveries, waste and visitors would Temporary parking has been provided to the south of the park. development of Cumberland Road to manage this. Movement Concerns were raised about potential traffic impact on local roads and This is a city centre and very sustainable location, car use subsequent impacts on air quality. should be minimal as for most it will be easier to walk, cycle, get the ferry or bus to work etc. A Traffic Assessment There were also suggestions made that this should not proceed until the is included with the application. Avon Crescent and Cumberland Road are reopened. The road closures are temporary and outside of our control. If the roads are still closed when construction starts, suitable solutions will be found.

Trees Concerns were raised about some of the trees having to be removed. Losing any trees is always regrettable and has been considered in detail. We have also met with Bristol Tree Forum to discuss the situation with them.

While some trees will be lost, many will be retained, new ones planted (especially on the eastern boundary) and there will also be off site contributions. We are delivering a biodiversity net gain here. The application includes an ecology and arboriculture report. 12

Having sufficient landscaping and established trees near the boundary Following feedback, additional trees have been planted would help protect privacy and residential amenity. along this boundary.

Sustainability Energy – feedback opposed heating systems powered by fossil fuels and This will be a very environmentally focused development. It urged the scheme to look at zero-carbon solutions. is being designed to be compatible with the Bristol wide district energy provision and will include solar, air source heat pumps, and electric, not gas boilers. There were suggestions that there should be more electric charging 20% of the schemes parking will have direct access to points electric charging points. It will also be future proofed to allow easy adaptation of more in the future. The commercial units Specific concerns were raised around what these might be and whether The development has been encouraged to become a vibrant they would attract late night noise, a change of character to the area new location that makes use of the view and setting. (which is currently quiet) and potentially anti social behaviour. We support this as do many who fed back however we also understand local concerns around this. The commercial units close to Baltic Wharf residents will be subject to operational and noise control and is unlikely to be a pub. Flood We request further investigation and analysis with regards to flood risk The accompanying flood report shows this development to Baltic Wharf properties as a direct result of the planned development. will have no detrimental effect to existing residents’ properties. We request that the development team produce a Flood Risk Assessment in order for stakeholders to gauge the risk of flooding to Bristol City Council and the EA are currently conducting a Baltic Wharf. flood consultation aimed at managing future risk.

Engineering The recent collapse of chocolate path has caused concerns over the A full intrusive investigation has been conducted and sustainability, size and mass of the proposed development, especially engineering operations will be adequately designed.

13 with forecasts of increased heavy rainfall and water flow in coming (future) years. Other Not suitable for family living - The local area has no outdoor Homes will predominantly be one and two bed homes but recreation space and is surrounded by open water and a busy road. there will be 3 bed units.

The proposals adhere to the Urban Living SPD meaning they provide quality and flexible living for all. Being apartments, they are not primarily for family housing but there will no doubt be some who come to live here. Private, shared private and public spaces are being provided onsite.

Conflict of interest – how can the application be considered Bristol’s planning department, and all Planning Authorities, independently when Goram is part of the council? are used to dealing with ‘their own’ applications and treating them independently. Often you will see these applications are closer scrutinised than private applications, as was seen at Hengrove.

Name of development – residents have argued that this should not The current site is called the Baltic Wharf Caravan Club be called Baltic Wharf as the existing development has taken that name. however the point is taken and a new name will be considered through the process.

14 8. How has feedback influenced the scheme

Being a prominent and important site, there has been unsurprisingly a great deal of interest in the proposals with lots of people getting in touch. This has been a reiterative process and the key changes through the process have included:

• Reducing the height from seven to six storeys • Additional screening and tree planting along the eastern boundary • Removing the gable roof from the eastern blocks to increase light to neighbouring properties • Reorientation of living accommodation along eastern boundary • Removal of balconies on certain units on the eastern side of block D • Lowering of parapet levels on blocks C and D.

9. Conclusion

The team have undertaken a comprehensive programme of public consultation, responding to the challenges of social distancing and lock down, and ensuring the local community had the chance to learn more about the application, ask questions and feed in at appropriate stages of the process.

The local community have provided a great deal of constructive and useful feedback and while some would want us to go further, the team are pleased to have been able to make some significant changes as a result and be submitting an exemplary scheme that delivers much needed quality and affordable housing, and champions many of Bristol’s priorities such as ecology, climate change, liveability and place making.

We would like to thank all that have got involved in the process, particularly direct neighbours.