Cameron Centre consultation

Overview of Responses

The Cameron Centre consultation ran from Friday 10 February to Monday 13 March, during which time the consultation website was visited 373 times, resulting in 253 responses.

Survey respondents were asked several questions, the results of these are shown below:

Q1. “Do you support the principle of redeveloping this site as a mixed-use development?”

• 22% of respondents said they support it.
• 33% of respondents supported it with concerns.
• 45% of respondents said they do not support it.
  

Q2. “If you have any comments about the principle of redeveloping the site, please provide below:”

The top themes (those which gathered over 5% of responses) from the comments about the principle of redeveloping the site are shown below:

• 27% of respondents said the Cameron Centre should be retained
• 22% said that not enough community space or facilities were offered.
• 16% said there was not enough local infrastructure, e.g. schools, shops, medical facilities.
• 14% said space should be retained for a library.
• 14% said that more community space was needed locally.
• 9% said that there were too many housing developments in the area.
• 9% said that the focus of the development should be on non-residential.
• 8% said the new space should have the same specifications as the previous space.
• 8% said that there were not enough parking spaces in the proposal.
• 7% said that space for a nursery needs to be provided.
• 7% said that the design is unappealing.
• 7% commented that there needed to be a firmer guarantee that the required community space would be provided.
• 6% said that space should be retained and/or provided for a rentable hall.
• 6% said that space should be provided for a café.

Q3. “Do you support the proposed layout and design of the site?”

• 14% respondents said they support it.
• 21% of respondents support it with concerns.
• 64% of respondents said they did not support it.

Q4. “If you have any comments about the proposed layout and design, please provide below:”

The top themes (those which gathered over 5% of responses) from the comments about the proposed layout and design are shown below:

• 39% said there were not enough community space or facilities offered.
• 25% said the design is unappealing.
• 18% said there were not enough parking spaces in the proposal.
• 16% were concerned about the loss of space for community activities.
• 11% said space should be retained for a library.
• 11% said space should be retained for a rentable hall.
• 9% said a nursery is needed.
• 8% said they wanted more green space and wildlife.
• 7% said a café is needed.
• 7% said there are too many housing developments in the area.
• 7% said kitchen space needs to be retained.
• 7% said there was not enough local infrastructure.
• 6% said that the proposed density is too high.
• 5% wanted a firmer guarantee that community space would be provided.
• 5% said that the proposed building height is too tall.

Q5. “If you have any further comments, please provide them below:”

The top themes (those which gathered over 5% of responses) to this question are shown below:

• 27% said the the Cameron Centre should be retained.
• 14% were concerned that Bristol City Council would not listen to the views of the locals.
• 12% commented that there was not enough local infrastructure.
• 10% said that the new space should be the same specification as the original space.
• 10% said that more community space was needed.
• 8% said that space should be retained for a library.
• 7% were unhappy with the impact of the proposals on community groups.
• 7% said that Lockleaze Neighbourhood Trust should be involved in planning and design.
• 7% said the focus of development should be on non-residential.
• 7% said the designs were uninspiring and need improvement.
• 6% wanted a firmer guarantee that community space would be provided.
• 6% said that space should be provided for a community hall.
• 6% said that too many homes were being built locally.
• 6% said that there were not enough parking spaces in the proposal.
• 5% said that the proposed community space needs to be larger.
• 5% said that the community space should be managed by Lockleaze Neighbourhood Trust.

Below is how we have considered the main themes that were raised in the final proposal.

‘Non residential’ ground floor

You said- ‘The non-residential space needs to be improved, made larger and secured as a community space.’

We did- We have increased the size of the ground floor non-residential space from 302sqm to 376sqm. The new area is 129sqm larger the total current offering at the Cameron Centre.

The scheme will ensure that the ground floor non-residential space is a flexible space that could allow for a café, library, and hall. The exact nature of the use of the space would be determined after planning has been granted.

Access and connectivity

You said- ‘The removal of the path through the site from Nash Drive to Gainsborough Square removes a connection for pedestrians and cyclists.’

We did- The scheme has been amended to include a pedestrian path along its western boundary. Should the wider and safer pedestrian and cycle path through the proposed neighbouring Branwhite Close development be built first, then this will be the main route, and the connection through the Cameron Centre site will be closed.

Parking

You said- ‘Parking provision is inadequate to meet the needs of the development.’

We did- The cycle parking provision has increased since the consultation. A total of 66 cycle parking spaces are proposed, of which 60 would be located within a secure building to provide all-weather protection. A further six spaces would be external for use as short stay cycle parking for visitors to the site.

The 20 car parking spaces proposed is consistent with the standards set out in local planning policy. The number of car parking spaces has been informed by parking surveys and discussed with the council’s transport team.

Building design

You said- ‘The building design does not fit in to the local character of the area and the entrance from Gainsborough Square is disappointing.’

We did- We have amended the corner and entrance of block 1 onto Gainsborough Square to increase the size of the ground floor non-residential space and to improve the entrance of the building from Gainsborough Square.

In addition to this, we have changed how the building looks to add detail and further connect it to its surroundings.

Ecology

You said- ‘We are concerned about the removal of trees on the site.’

We did- Where possible existing trees on and around the site will be retained, however seven poor quality trees are being removed. Twenty-two new trees will be planted on the site to compensate for the loss of the existing trees. There will also be a significant amount of new hedge and shrub planting which results in a 12% net increase in biodiversity. The Willow tree on Romney Avenue is also being retained.

Both proposed apartment buildings will also have green roofs which will help to boost biodiversity.

Next steps

The planning application will now be submitted to the local authority. Residents will have the opportunity to review and comment on the application through the planning portal.