KCG have commented on all recent major developments at the bottom of our hillside. Here in the historic centre of Bristol, Broadmead and the Bearpit we are about to see a surge in the construction of new developments with their dominating tall buildings. Below is our full response to the city’s Broadmead SPD Consultation document.
The Kingsdown Conservation Group regrets that it cannot support this document in its current form as it persists in actively encouraging the erection of tall buildings to the north and south of Broadmead.
At the time of the public consultation on the Bristol City Centre Development and Delivery Plan we were assured by the planning officer that areas on the plan identified as “areas of amplified heights – potential for contextual tall buildings” did not mean that this encourage more tower blocks. Instead it was more likely that buildings in the region of ten storeys in height would be allowed. The proposed SPD however makes it abundantly clear that yet more tower blocks are to be actively supported, even encouraged. This is so wrong.
Most people accept that a high “carbon premium” comes with building at heights. Buildings over ten storeys are significantly less sustainable than those under ten storeys, in terms of embodied carbon, their lifetime occupation and in their ultimate demolition. How then can Bristol, which declared a climate emergency and claims to support net-zero targets, still encourage such buildings? Surely it is time to ditch this outdated building form and look to other more sustainable solutions. It is no good excusing unsustainable design just because it can be linked to the district heating system.
If Broadmead is to remain a place people want to live and visit it needs to offer a welcoming environment. Encircling it in tower blocks will achieve the opposite. Outdoor spaces will become oppressive, dark, windy and uninviting. Claims in the document that “well-designed tall buildings can aid the pedestrian experience by creating legible environments that benefit from comfortable levels of daylight, sunlight and wind” are utter nonsense and should be removed. Sensible suggestions in the SPD of set-backs at roof level will achieve little is cast into shadow by exceptionally tall buildings
Why is there a minimum housing density but no maximum? Numerous studies have shown that housing developments with excessively high densities should be avoided. Such developments make it hard for residents to feel a sense of community and belonging. Instead they encourage anti-social activity and can have a significant impact on mental health. This is particularly true of tall buildings where a sense of isolation is more common. Excessively high housing densities with limited or no private outside space, as seems likely given the two towers recently granted permission (Premier Inn and Debenhams sites), would put undue pressure on the public spaces in Broadmead and Castle Park which they cannot sustain.
If there are to be towers, which we sincerely hope will not be the case, then why is the bar in terms of design set so low? Given their prominence towers should be designed to the very highest standard. Yet the guidance in the SPD shows examples of banal tall buildings as a reference point (Images 24 and 25). Furthermore it is prescriptive in how tall buildings should be designed to the extent that one of the more successful towers in Bristol, over Harvey Nicholls, would not comply with the SPD, being built over a podium building.
On the question of sustainability in general, why is Bristol not adopting a “Retrofit First” approach to development? This has already been adopted by a number of London councils (City of London, Camden and Westminster) with more likely to follow. Surely with a Green MP and the Greens the largest party in the council this should be a priority. Such an approach could work particularly well in Broadmead. Retrofitting the existing buildings, adding additional floors above and infilling courtyards could revitalise Broadmead while at the same time providing a sensible number of new housing units.
Furthermore we would question why the relatively recent redevelopment around Quakers Friars is included in the zoning for “10-13 storeys with opportunities for tall elements” (Diagram 10). Surely this should be excluded as having been already completed? For that matter why is St James Priory shown on the plans as a site suitable for a tall building?!
We believe that Bristol is being sold short by this SPD. Instead of being an aspirational document it sets low design and sustainability standards and leaves the redevelopment open-ended for developers to exploit. This is disappointing given that the architects responsible for the document were founding signatories of the Architect’s Declare movement.
Please don’t allow this document to be passed in its current form