Microsoft Word - University of Bristol Fry Building summary feedback report appendices.docx

University of Bristol Fry Building

November 2013 Consultation

Appendices

to

Summary Feedback Report

Appendices:

Appendix A

-

University

Community Forum note

s

of

meeting

on 31.7.13

Appendix B

-

Key Stakeholder invitees

Appendix C

-

Key Stakeholder and

neighbour

invitation letters

Appendix D

-

Consultation exhibition

Appendix E

-

Notes of Key Stakeholder session

Appendix F

-

Web pages from

Estates section of the

University website

Appendix G

- Un

iversity

u

pdate to staff and students

Appendix H

-

Written response from Bristol Civic Society

Appendix I

-

Written response from Hamilton Caswell, CSAQ

Appendix J

-

Minute

from Conservation Advisory Panel Meeting 19.11.13

Appendix K

-

Comment Fo

rm

Avril Baker Consultancy

AVRIL BAKER CONSULTANCY

-

NOVEM

BER

2013

2

Appendix A

Minute

of

University Community Forum

meeting

31.7.13

INUTES

OF THE MEETING OF BRISTOL UNIVERSITY WITH LOCAL RESIDENTS ASSOCIATIONS

Wednes

day

31 July 2013

- 4-

6pm

University of

Bristol

Estates office 1

-

9 Old Park Hill

Present

:

University

Residents Associations

Apologies:

Bursar (Chair)

Avril Baker Consultancy (minutes)

Bristol Civic Society/Kingsdown Conservation

Christmas Steps Arts Quarter

Stoke Bishop

residents

Stoke Bishop

residents

Richmond Terrace Residents Association

Kingsdown Conservation Group

Highbury Road

Residents Association

Richmond Hill Area Residents Association

Kingsdown Conservation Group/ CSAQ

Fry Building

Pa

tr

ick

F

inch

-

A presentation of concept sketches and an overview of

proposed

development.

Summary:

Redevelopment of Fry Building has been carefully considered within the context of UoB

precinct masterplan. The University has the long term ambition to open up more routes

within the precinct.

Mathematics move to Fry is a

good fit, and rather than being in disparate locations

staff and academics can be brought together with some room to spare.

Project will help to improve accessibility within the precinct, improve landscaping and

it may also be possible to open up the build

ing to the public through to Wills

Memorial Building.

Seeking to create a more imposing entrance to the building from Woodland Road

(currently Lecture theatre) and retain current entrance as a secondary entrance.

Various old buildings/stores which block th

e view to WMB. Challenge will be to

remove some of that clutter and retain some of the better buildings.

Make use of the front of the building/ground floor level

possibly pedestrianise the

car park area but the detail of that is to be worked through.

P

ossible use of roof top on the extension building/additional 2 storeys.

Significant public realm changes at rear including improving accessibility

Aiming for BREEAM very good, with an improved energy profile and 30 year life

(minimum).

£23

-

£28 million inv

estment.

Looking at an 18m

onth design phase/consultation

and will make a decision to commit

some time in 2014.

Pre application consultation to take place in Autumn 2013.

Community Forum members thanked PF for the presentation at such an early stage and

e

xpressed great support for the project.

AVRIL BAKER CONSULTANCY

-

NOVEM

BER

2013

3

Appendix

B

Key stakeholder invitees

Organisation

Avon and Somerset Constabulary

Avon Fire and Rescue

Bristol City Council

Cabot ward members

Bristol Civic Society

Bristol Grammar School

Bristol Physical Access Chain

Business West

Cabot, Clifton and Clifton East Neighbourhood Partnership

Clifton & Hotwells

Improvement

Society (CHIS)

Conservation Advisory Panel

C

hristmas

S

teps

A

rts

Q

uarter

Destination Bristol

English Heritage

First

Bristol

Great Western Ambulance Service NHS Trust

High Kingsdown Residents Association

Kingsdown Conservation Group

MP for Bristol West

Neighbourhood Planning Network

RIBA Bristol & Bath/Bristol Society of Architects

RIBA South West Region

Sustrans

The Architecture Centre

University of Bristol

School of Mathematics

Wessex Water

West of England LEP

AVRIL BAKER CONSULTANCY

Appendix

AVRIL BAKER CONSULTANCY

Appendix

C

Key stakeholder and Public Invitation letters

AVRIL BAKER CONSULTANCY

-

NOVEM

Key stakeholder and Public Invitation letters

NOVEM

BER

2013

Key stakeholder and Public Invitation letters

2013

Key stakeholder and Public Invitation letters

4

AVRIL BAKER CONSULTANCY

-

NOVEM

BER

2013

5

AVRIL BAKER CONSULTANCY

Appendix

AVRIL BAKER CONSULTANCY

Appendix

D

Consultation Exhibition

AVRIL BAKER CONSULTANCY

-

NOVEM

Consultation Exhibition

NOVEM

BER

2013

Consultation Exhibition

2013

Consultation Exhibition

6

AVRIL BAKER CONSULTANCY

-

NOVEM

BER

2013

7

AVRIL BAKER CONSULTANCY

-

NOVEM

BER

2013

8

AVRIL BAKER CONSULTANCY

-

NOVEM

BER

2013

9

AVRIL BAKER CONSULTANCY

-

NOVEM

BER

2013

10

AVRIL BAKER CONSULTANCY

-

NOVEM

BER

2013

11

AVRIL BAKER CONSULTANCY

-

NOVEM

BER

2013

12

AVRIL BAKER CONSULTANCY

-

NOVEM

BER

2013

13

Appendix

E

Notes of Key stakeholder Session

U

niversity of Bristol Fry Building

Notes from Key Stakeholder session

13 November 2013

Team:

Patrick Finch

-

University of Bristol

Stafford Critchlow

Wilkinson Eyre Architects

Tony Musson

-

Wilkinson Eyre Architects

Rebecca Woodhams

-

Wilkinson Eyre Architects

Jeremy Bladon

CSJ Planning

Julie Laming

CSJ Planning

Michele Lavelle

4DLD

Avril Baker

ABC

consultation co

-

ordinator

Attendees:

Hamilton Caswell

Christmas Steps Arts

Quarter

John Frenkel

Bristol Civic Society

Kevin Gibbs

-

Business West Transport & Planning Group

Alun Howells

Avon & Somerset Police

Nicholas Kidwell

Kingsdown Conservation Group

Colin Knowles

University, Fry Building Zone IT Manager (late arrival

)

Gerry Mitchell

Bristol Grammar School (late arrival after tour)

Jeremy Newick

Kingsdown Conservation Group

Maggie Shapland

Clifton & Hotwells Improvement Society

Ben Tavener

Bristol Grammar School (site tour only)

Dr Nick Whiteley

School of Mat

hematics

Clare Williams

School of Mathematics

The presentation discussion session was preceded by an option guided site tour which was

attended by 9 of the above attendees.

Presentation:

P

atrick

F

inch

welcomed everyone and explained that the Fry Build

ing was the next major

project to be undertaken by the University and would provide a new home for the School of

Mathematics. The enabler was the move of Biological Sciences to their new building on St

Michael s Hill which is due to take place by Easter.

A first pre

-

application enquiry for the Fry Building had just been submitted to Bristol City

Council. Subject to the planning process the University is aiming for planning consent next

Summer, and assuming a final decision by the University to progress work could start on site

in 2015.

Jeremy B

ladon

set the scene reiterating the University s commitment to consultation and

engaging with stakeholders and public on such projects. An initial design has been prepared

and the team is now seeking comments both

in terms of a pre

-

application enquiry to Bristol

City Council and through this first round of public consultation. Given the historic importance

of the building there had been early engagement with English Heritage and further dialogue

with them and the C

ouncil s conservation officer would continue.

By February more detailed proposals would be available for a follow up round of public

consultation after which an application is due to be submitted in March/April.

Presentations were also being offered to

the Bristol Urban Design Forum and the

Conservation Advisory Panel.

AVRIL BAKER CONSULTANCY

-

NOVEM

BER

2013

14

A key issue is the importance of the building as a heritage asset. The team s heritage

consultant had prepared a statement of significance and carried out an internal audit which

was informing the overall design approach. Externally the project offers scope to create a

better public realm and linkages to other parts of the University campus.

S

tafford Critchlow

then ran through the background to the scheme and the emerging

design proposals as shown on the accompanying exhibition boards.

He referenced this project to the key moves in the adopted Strategic Masterplan for the

campus the last of which mentions refurbishment and improvements to the Fry Building and

integration within the pr

ecinct.

He highlighted the new entrance on the north side, giving access into the heart of the

building and into the central courtyard. There is also an axial relationship between the Fry

Building and the Wills Memorial Building.

Longer term there is sc

ope to set back a roof extension which is included as a possible

future option in the pre

-

application.

Key features include:

A new entrance lobby created from an existing lecture theatre leading into a new

raised terrace/lawn providing space for outdorr t

eaching, relaxation and leisure use.

Adding new lift cores in gaps between parts of the building to provide full access and

link the various different levels

Removing the later outbuildings and services accretions

A new atrium with scope for a south facin

g maths

-

themed sun screen

Reorganisation of existing accommodation/spaces to create more usable teaching &

research space for students and staff

Re modelling and landscaping the external public realm to the north to create an

attractive entrance/approach

to the building and space for relaxation/social use

Questions/Discussion points

Q1.Would the Arrowsmith Tower lose its function/role if no longer used?

R. The accommodation will be re

-

used as a student consultation area with access retained

via a swipe

card

We are only re

-using the porter s lodge in the existing main entrance (below the Arrowsmith

Tower) as a Student Society Office. The rest of the Arrowsmith Tower above Level 2 will be

used to house one Visitor Office and departmental storage.

Q2.Publi

c think of the Wills Memorial Building as the front door of the University, could there

not be a desire line through the Fry Building?

R. There is a storey height difference in levels but there is a route which one (UCard

holders

only) can percolate through and the new/improved connections through the Fry Building will

assist with this.

Q3.What will happen to key features such as oak panelling in the lecture theatre and the

porter s lodge which give the space its characte

r?

R. The coffered ceiling is being kept together with as much of the panelling as possible. New

panelling will also be pieced in where the tiers of the lecture theatre have been removed.

The porter s lodge is planned to be re-

used as a Student Society Off

ice.

Q4. From talking to the Grammar School aware of the issue of students cutting across from

the school and hopping over the wall? Suggest moving the new access nearer to the apex

AVRIL BAKER CONSULTANCY

-

NOVEM

BER

2013

15

R. We were not aware of this issue. The apex is aligned with the sweep o

f Woodland Road

but also opens out towards the existing crossing point and traffic island on Woodland Road.

We will look at this issue in further detail in the next Work Stage.

Q5. Are the team considering more piercings/removing more of the wall?

R. The

Conservation Area gives great weight to the boundary walls so looking at removing

less than originally envisaged and also keeping as much of the memory of the wall as

possible. The levels across this part of the site also make removing the wall difficul

t as it acts

as a retaining wall along part of its length.

Q6. The pavement is very narrow at the apex and a lot of students/passersby are forced off

the pavement

is there scope to widen it

R. Anticipate this will be resolved by the number of students t

hat will use the new footpath

and level entrance off Woodland Road together with the stepped entrance

Comment: worth asking the question as to whether removing the wall could be compensated

for by creating more soft landscaping area. University could ask

for support from

stakeholders to challenge the position if conservationists disagree.

Alternative comment: Support keeping the wall for safety reasons as it stops people spilling

out across the pavement. It also provides a sense of enclosure (reinforcing

the collegiate

nature of the area) and some separation for users of this new green space from the traffic of

Woodland Road.

Q7. Re landscaping there is a challenge if plan to put back a botanic style garden

R. Had initially looked at more hard landscaping

but now developing a significant area of

planting with herbaceous/perennial meadow with trees and grass. Keeping more of the wall

has also created the opportunity for a sitting area.

Q8. How would the top of the atrium work in relation to the rest of the

building?

R. The upper roof of the atrium sits below the parapet of the adjacent parts of the existing

building. This roof will be predominantly solid with a roof light where it joins into the existing

building. The saw

-

tooth roof is part of the existing

building (adjacent to the atrium) and is to

be exposed as part of the new Staff and Postgraduate Common Room.

Q9. What is the proposed capacity of the building?

R. Looking at approximately 900 occupants and this allows for some future expansion for the

School of Mathematics. Some of the big spaces currently have mezzanines or are sub

-

divided and proposing to strip these back to the original form to create better more useable

areas.

The meeting then adjourned for more detailed individual discussions arou

nd the exhibition

boards

AVRIL BAKER CONSULTANCY

Appendix

AVRIL BAKER CONSULTANCY

Appendix

F