A View of Castle Park

October 2006

We've been looking closely at the controversial development proposals for the west (St Mary-le-Port) end of this city centre park.

So far, we're agreed on these core facts:
 

Bristol's green spaces cannot be funded by selling off sections of parks and allotments. This is not a sustainable strategy for the future. The trees and parkland threatened by the redevelopment are an asset to the city and to the well being of everyone in the area Proposed improvements in the rest of the park would be welcome, but not as a substitute: they should not be conditional on extensive development at the western end of the park. The present St Mary-le-Port office buildings have outlived their usefulness Bristol already has a surplus [Note 1] of empty office space, and take up of new office space in a St Mary-le-Port development would simply add to the net totals of empty space through displacement. Bristol does need more homes - especially affordable homes. Any development should meet the environmental standards that will be needed for the foreseeable future. The public consultation has been 'managed' to produce a response in favour of option 4 (the maximum build option) [Note 2] There is no 'natural' reason why the development should extend beyond the present St Mary-le-Port site; the case for expansion into Castle Park is financial.

 

We can find only one acceptable development proposal that takes all these factors into account:

Bristol Green Party support only the redevelopment or replacement of the three existing commercial buildings in St. Mary Le Port.

So what form should the development take?

• The redevelopment should be a residential one, with a significant element of social housing.
• Any development should have a low parking ratio ^{[Note 3]}, and a car club car for residents' use. It should be designed along energy efficient lines, and incorporate renewable energy sources.

We're concerned, too, that the present consultation was badly designed. Therefore:

• The people of Bristol should be offered the opportunity to give their views in a fair and unbiased process.

Present proposals for a larger development offer two incentives for the general public:

One is the promise of a local food market and small specialist retail outlets - though there's no intrinsic reason why either should depend on new development at St Mary-le-Port:

• Any new food market should complement, not threaten the existing markets in Bristol city centre: St. Nicholas's Market, the Farmers' Market, and the Slow Food Market.
• We support the development of St. Nicholas's Market to include a higher proportion of local food suppliers.
• There are other sites available without any condition of development into the park (eg around St Peters Church), or in the "food deserts" away from the city centre.
• Likewise, there's already provision for small specialist shops in St Nicks market and in Broadmead. Any increase need not depend on major development at St Mary-le-Port

The second incentive is the improvement of the remaining part of Castle Park :

• We doubt whether improvements will make Castle Park any more safe than any other park in the city
• Improvements can be funded the same way as any park improvements - from capital spending, from prudential borrowing, or from external grants

NOTES:

1. The oversupply of offices is amply illustrated by this printable collage of current local signs. It is probably caused by practice of using empty offices as collateral for corporate borrowing based on their notional rental value, so they appear as 'working' assets in company accounts.
2. See Green Party press release 24/10/2006
3. It is quite practicable to lay down planning conditions to regulate keeping cars (or not) at or near new developments. www.carfreehousing.org/
4. Further information about objections to the development proposals at http://savecastlepark.co.uk/