Bath Western Riverside / Discuss

analogueandy    says:

Along with rogerh and over 100 others, I attended Crest's public meeting in the Hilton Hotel on Tues evening. It was literally standing room only. The developer, architect and a number of other consultants were all represented at senior levels.

The Chronicle's report is here. As you might expect, it's not wholly accurate ;-)

www.thisisbath.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=163490&co...

True, there were one or two vocal opponents and supporters but on the whole the audience was nowhere near the baying crowd that the Chronicle would have you believe.

The architect, Keith Bradley, lead the presentation and tried to 'brush over' issues around the height, scale, massing and detailed design of the buildings. Unsurprisingly, members of the audience wouldn't let him!

On height: it is clear the reductions Crest are now proposing will make little significant impact overall. Keith's own slides showed this (at one point he was forced to toggle between two slides taking the extra storeys off and adding them back on again!).

On the design: Keith made a valiant attempt to try and justify his designs (which were labelled 'car park' 'brutalist' and worse!) claiming they followed classical idioms. He challenge the audience to tell him what was wrong with the designs and upset a lot of the objectors when he picked upon one lady who did comment by asking "how are you qualified to comment upon my deisgns"! - We may not all be qualified "award winning" architects Mr Bradley but we can all plainly see what you're proposing is not right for this site - especially the 'landmark' buildings alongside the river.

On materials (remember Crest at one time were saying it might not be Bath stone) we did not get a clear answer on construction techniques and details. Instead we were fobbed off with the statement that modern insulation standards preclude them using traditional (ashlar) construction methods - "total rubbish" was someone's correct response.

There was much debate on the relationship of the 'smaller' (four storey) blocks (which happen to contain the social housing) to the taller blocks around them (you need to look at the plan to see which I mean). Many were concerned that they were too close, it was too much like 'Snow Hill' 'high rise living' - the architect and Crest would rather you believe they were trying to create a 'mews' type street pattern and kept using Brock Street as an example of how far apart the buildings would be and the street pattern.

There was better news (from my perspective anyhow):

Car parking provision was debated and Crest are obviously open to ideas around reducing reliance on the car - car sharing clubs, new pedestrian and public transport links. Car parking will be 0.7 per unit, unallocated and hidden away underground.

On sustainability: Crest are employing local consultants who are looking at introducing cutting edge energy efficient systems including a local heating network.

Overall, whilst I'd give some credit to Crest for organising the meeting, they rejected any idea it was too late, too little, that they failed to listen and they were non-committal on the idea of putting the plans on permanent display or further such meetings.

I was left thinking that the real reason they'd organised the meeting was not to actually listen to local people's views but to enable them to claim that they were (and cherry pick off any comments in support). They clearly intended it to be a staged managed presentation of their wonderful 'new' plans, part of a clever strategy to position the Council, GOSW, the Secretary of State into a position were they obtain planning permission.

One of the final comments made by Crest sums up their attitude. Asked what would happen if these plans were not approved, Debbie Aplin, Crest's managing director for regeneration, said Quote If we don't get permission, the site will remain as it is for years and years and years. Unquote

That lead to my misreported comment in the Chronicle ( I would rather see the site lay empty for another 15 years).

The last thing I would like to see is for it to remain empty for another 15 years! It's a disgrace that it's been allowed to lay empty for so long already and it’s development is long overdue, but that is not a reason we should be forced into accepting Crests plans for the site.

The point I was making was that such threats are totally unacceptable and reveal these plans for what they are. Crest Nicholson is trying to blackmail the GOSW / SofS, the Council and the people of Bath. These plans might maximise Crest’s commercial gain, but they will do serious damage to Bath and potentially it’s World Heritage Status. The site deserves better. We shouldn't give in to such blackmail and threats.
Originally posted at 5:59AM, 20 September 2007 PDT (permalink)
analogueandy edited this topic 57 months ago.