A PLACE TO LIVE IN
One of the
things that make Bath special is the number and social diversity of people who
choose to live in the historic heart of the City. They play an important role
in creating the vibrant community and culture that attracts knowledge workers
and industries to locate here and the maintain many of the Georgian buildings
that draw tourists here in their millions.
We think it
is important that this plan explains how residents will be supported, what sort
of place BANES is aiming to create for city centre residents and how BANES
plans to preserve and maintain the things that resident’s value.
We would
like to see for all the key sites and areas a statement of what the impact on
residents is likely to be both in the short and long term.
SB1a and SB1b WALCOT STREET/CATTLEMARKET
In general
TARA supports both the analysis and the proposals that flow from it which are
in line with recommendations made by us in September 2013. We endorse, for example, the suggested mix of
uses, the need to repair the ‘broken frontage’ on Walcot Street, preserve views
across the site to the east and conserve and find a viable use for the
Cornmarket building. We support the
emphasis on variety in the form, function and scale of buildings and the need
to provide two east-west cross routes to improve vehicular access to the site.
However we
notice some confusion and lack of clarity in suggestions for building height
restrictions and the river corridor.
Limiting building height to that of local Georgian buildings is
recommended but this is not typical of Walcot Street where buildings range in
height from two to four storeys as well as in date of original
construction. Furthermore, because of
the pronounced fall in the site from west to east higher buildings would presumably
be acceptable on the east edge of the site.
We believe that higher buildings could also be acceptable on the west
edge of the site if set back from the building line provided functional
continuity is achieved.
The need to
extend the riverside pedestrian route northwards from Pulteney Bridge is
acknowledged but it is not clear whether continuing this route north of the
Cattle Market site is envisaged. If not, then a publically accessible space should
be provided as a destination on the river bank adjacent to the Cattle Market
possibly incorporating a new pedestrian cross route linking Walcot Street with
St John’s Road via a new pedestrian bridge across the river. ‘Privatization’ of the river bank should be
avoided at all costs.
SB2 CENTRAL RIVERSIDE AND RECREATION
GROUND
In general
TARA supports the analysis and the proposals but we suggest that the following
points be taken into account as proposals are finalized.
The Colonnades
The council
is currently seeking planning consent for enabling works in relation to the
development of the vaults below Grand Parade for high end dining facilities
(14/01772/REG03). However, proposals
included in the application documents (Design and Access Statement, page 13,
Use of the Colonnades) envisage that the public would have no right of access
to the south colonnade even during daylight hours when Parade Gardens are open
to the public. This effective
privatization of part of the Colonnades would be in direct conflict with
proposed Development and Design Principals 1 and 3 where the opening up of
historic pedestrian routes in the area is rightly emphasised; it would be
unacceptable to our members and we believe that, given the substantial
expenditure of public funds on the development, the wider public would be
likely to share this view.
Pedestrian river crossing
Given that
Site SB2 occupies a strategic position between the recreation ground and the
city centre we believe that cross-river links, particularly for pedestrians,
are insufficiently emphasised. A recent
study of the traffic implications of the additional 4,300 supporters likely to
converge on the new stadium on busy match days (assuming it is built) concluded
that the main impact would be, not in enhanced congestion on city centre
streets, but in a marked increase in pedestrian traffic in areas around the
stadium. Links to the stadium for
pedestrians are currently poor, relying too heavily on flights of narrow,
twisting, stone steps leading to the river bank from Argyle Street and North
Parade. A new foot and cycle bridge
across the river linking the stadium and other recreation facilities with the
commercial heart of the city to which many supporters are drawn during their
stay should be given serious consideration.
This might be provided in conjunction with proposals to provide improved
links between Terrace walk and Parade Gardens and between Parade Gardens and
the river, or possibly as an extension eastwards from South Parade.
Radial Gate
Whether or
not the radial gate is removed or renovated the potential of the island linking
the radial gate with Pulteney Weir should have been explored.
SB3
MANVERS STREET
We accept
the analysis but with qualifications.
Proposals for the most part consist of options and qualified principles
reflecting an inherent, and perhaps justifiable, confusion over the role of the
site. Where more definitive guidance is
provided, for example over routes serving or crossing the site, there is
sometimes confusion over purpose and Intentions. For example
Roads and Access
A
north-south extension of Duke Street ‘must be provided’. This is to be designed as a ‘shared space
that also potentially allows limited vehicular access to the rail
station’. It is not clear what this
means. Could a north-south traffic route
serving the entire area be upgraded to relieve pressure on Manvers Street? If so could this serve the site with a series
of loops which might render the east-west route, which is also proposed,
unnecessary?
A new pedestrian
and cycle route across the river is proposed.
We support this but do not see why it should be ‘connected to the
existing railway bridge’. Could it not
extend eastward from South Parade providing a more direct link between the
rugby stadium/recreation facilities and the rail and bus stations which are
used by large numbers of fans on busy match days.
Land Use
We agree
that the site should be regarded as a ‘Gateway’, a new commercial quarter
linked to Bath’s rail/bus hub and consisting of a complex of small industrial
units, offices and workshops but we see no reason why other uses such as
residential and local retail should be excluded. Neither do we see why a hotel or major public
institution such as an auditorium would be incompatible with this vision.
Public Spaces and Building Massing
A
significant ‘public space’ is envisaged responding to South Parade, Duke Street
and St John’s Church. It is not clear
what the function of this space would be and it is arguable that the space
between buildings on this site could consist of a finer grained network of
pedestrian and cycle routes providing a chain of more intimate spaces. It is also envisaged that Zone 1 building
height limits should be adhered to ‘subject to modification’ and that Bath
stone should be used throughout. We see
no justification for imposing such disciplines.
The emphasis in our view should be on variety and flexibility in the
form, function and scale of buildings as well as in the materials with which
they are finished. And we suggest that
more attention could have been given to the river bank as a green edge and as
part of the pedestrian/cycle network serving the wider area.