• Home
  • The Magnificent Seven
    • Blackfriars
      • Blackfriars Consultation

Blackfriars Masterplan Consultation / Exhibition Information

Gloucester Heritage URC and the Gloucester City Council are carrying out a joint consultation exercise on the draft Masterplan that has been prepared for the eastern half of the Blackfriars site, and on the amendments proposed to the draft development brief which applies to the whole of the Blackfriars site.

Click here to open PDF

To download the Blackfriars Draft Masterplan click here

To download the Blackfriars Masterplan Questionnaire PDF click here

You can send us your response by downloading and completing the questionnaire, by right clicking the above link and click 'Save Target As', then point to Desktop. Open PDF document from desktop and print to complete form.  Return the completed form to GHURC, 15 Ladybellegate Street, Gloucester GL1 2HN

The Draft Masterplan Consultation runs from 10th August 2009 and ends Thursday 24th September 2009

Click here for links to Gloucester City Council Greater Blackfriars Planning Brief

Gloucester City Council would be grateful if you could spare a few moments to tell us what you think of our service. Please click on the link below to fill in our online questionnaire.

www.gloucester.gov.uk/CouncilServices/Planning/WhatMatters/SpatialPlanning-CustomerQuestionnaire

The Results

The total number of forms returned: 65

Section One

1.                  The proposals take into account the historic importance of the area.

            Total: 59 respondents

2.                  The regeneration of Blackfriars will improve the city for residents and tourists.

Total: 61 respondents

3.                  The proposals will improve the links between the Docks and Gloucester City Centre.

Total: 60 respondents

4.                  The proposed phasing of development makes sense.

Total: 58 respondents

Comments detailed below 

Section Two

1. Do you agree/disagree with the key Masterplan principles? (E.g. routes through the area, a new Blackfriars Square, access to car parking)

• It has been well thought out/correct/agree in principle/sound/makes sense/good/excellent (14 mentions)

• But surely the route between the Quays and the city centre should have been sorted before the development.
• Get on with it!
• proposals shown on 3a would provide needed access.
• Incoherent. There is no historical association between the Blackfriars area other than with Longsmith and Ladybellegate Streets, nor between Blackfriars and the Cathedral.
• Routes between Docks and cathedral most important, but not to detract from Southgate Street.
• Why build a car park? The city has Park & ride: make more use of it and discourage car access to the city centre.
• I don’t think that the new housing should be on the riverfront, due to flooding along the Quay. This could be used for car parking instead.
• Perhaps one good reason for the plans is due to the recession: making lots of jobs etc should be the real benefit.
• The principles sound fine although I am not clear how much car parking is needed and how this fits in with Park & Ride developments etc.
• The end product can disappoint.
• Very important to open up pedestrian access from the Docks to the Cathedral. Car parking always vital.
• Route between Docks and Cathedral definitely needs enhancing. Amazed at the number of people who don’t know the way to the Docks.
• Don’t believe we need another multi-storey car park, as Longsmith Street is almost never full. Have open space for performers and artists.
• Routes look direct. Don’t create another Kings Sq: it’s an eyesore.
• Access for the disabled is needed.
• 3e. No to new housing.
• 03a agree linking centre and Docks is preferable. 03b Disagree what are people to do when they get to the river?
• We see no reference of tree planting or anything to help wildlife, can we hope for some please.
• Good people flow.
• Routes through the area are a good idea. Assume there is going to be new footbridge over the river to Alney Island?
• Bus routes should be considered from the train station & bus stops & cycle routes to encourage people not to come in cars.
• No exhibition boards on display at Tuffley Library.
• Concealed car parking is good – hopefully it should be reasonably priced.
• Is there really going to be a new river crossing? Is the ‘energy centre’ feasible?
• Central energy plant should be as environmentally friendly as possible.
• Avoid traffic movement through Blackfriars Square.
• Existing flats on riverfront are too high. Hotel around car park may have unattractive views from windows, and may have problems with fumes.
• Glad to see routes to the city centre improved. Not so sure of the value of the routes to the river.
• Interesting: some good ideas. Worried by squeezed nature of the Quay, and impact on bypass.
• Any improvement of the route between the Docks and Blackfriars is a good idea.
• In general approve: however the square should be bigger, and should be ‘green’.
• No need to develop routes to the river: nothing there when you get there.

2. Have we got the proposed land uses right?  (e.g. re-use of the priory, hotel, car park, student housing)

• This is very good/super/good/sensible/could enhance area/agree (14 mentions); Need new hotel (8 mentions); Support the re-opening of Blackfriars Priory with public access (6 mentions); Concern about student housing (9 mentions)
• If it materialises! Proposals for re-vamping of this area and Kings square have gone on for years and not come to fruition.
• Quite appropriate: but student housing and a hotel possible I suppose.
• Demolition of the multi storey car park will be an improvement!
• Perhaps the “energy principle” is possible. Other than student instruction and housing the proposals are in conflict with the adjoining areas. Neither local authority needs further space, no matter what claims to the contrary.
• Land use mentions hotel, but 2 hotels adjacent have closed in the last few years: what will happen to these buildings?
• Do you need another hotel? Are existing ones fully occupied? The view of the Cathedral should be opened up as much as possible. Open space for sitting is an excellent idea.
• There appears to be a balance between housing and business use,
• Concert hall and performance area akin to and get events as, dare I say it, Cheltenham Town Hall.
• There are other people who need homes.
• As long as the car park is not an eyesore.
• No more shops needed in this area.
• Car parking for public.
• This is a major chunk of the city which is dormant at present. Cultural facilities would add to the city’s offer. Linkages between Docks and City are key, would love to see a boutique hotel and the University. Student housing may work: Gloucester needs to lift its self image.
• Anything better than what’s there.
• Yes to all except new car park.
• What about affordable housing?
• What about restaurants and café spaces. Council offices make the area dull at night.
• Agree to in town accommodation (not necessarily students). Would not want more car parking as Park & Ride sites are all within a reasonable distance of the centre. Open green spaces would be good.
• Good for trade but should not be entirely dependant on retail or cars – a modern tram system should be included as Gloucester originally had.
• Student housing, hotel etc are a good idea in the centre again so people can walk to work and other facilities they require.
• Don’t disagree with any of it – hopefully the student accommodation is built ‘sensitively’ and in a manner in keeping with the ‘historical’ atmosphere – not a blue margarine tub!
• Multi-storey must be very carefully designed.
• There will need to be commercial involvement or the project will not be viable.
• Like the idea of a University presence and significant cultural development in this area. Excellent building design will be needed. Where is student car parking?
• Not another hotel!
• Why not family housing?
• Use the site for retirement housing: guaranteed to sell!
• Not particularly impressed with hotel wrapping car park.
• Do not build on any remains of the east range of the Priory.
• Query viability of hotel at the moment.
• Assess car parking proposals against Local Transport plan.
• Slightly concerned about parking: more needed for commuters.

 3. What do you think about the design principles?  

• Very encouraging/good/excellent/agree/sound and constructive (15 mentions)
• Difficult to see from the display. So much heritage was lost in 60’s and 70’s.
• Oh dear. Other than the one main open space (and remember part of the site is a graveyard) and introducing or keeping a sight of the Cathedral, the proposals are pedestrian and unimaginatively predictable. The site deserves better.
• Ladybellegate Street already has quite a “draw” towards the Docks and this should be enhanced.
• They are interesting but will be difficult to carry out because of finance. If development is too protracted, the whole site will look like a giant builder’s yard.
• The idea of enhancing views is excellent, however no more blue buildings, or black car parks!
• OK do not use modern materials: keep in mind historical context.
• Again, sounds fine. If either or both of the Councils move then the dynamic of the area will change significantly, unless there is a lively replacement.
• Essential to keep buildings looking in context to historical area.
• The scale definitely needs to be right, and to consider existing buildings. Reflect contemporary building designs, but do it in such a way that they do not date badly.
• Taking out ‘Clutch Clinic’ building huge advantage especially if road pedestrianised.
• The Cathedral is a real asset and would be good to maintain skyline.
• Good to see historic sites and buildings being highlighted: some of G’s best features.
• Keep Glos historic lanes and buildings, no to modern buildings.
• Enhancing open views from the Docks to the Cathedral would be ideal along with walkways and open spaces.
• Buildings should hopefully be in brick and stone and not look out of place with masses of glass/steel etc.
• Reasonable justification though the height of the Cathedral should not take priority – a modern sky tower would landmark the city from the Cotswolds for young people.
• I hope design principle incorporate environmental factors such as shading buildings to keep them cool, green roofs, collecting rainwater, natural ventilation etc.
• Too vague.
• Likes the idea of the ‘wrap around’ hotel.
• Not a great deal on the design.
• They are sensible and maintain/expand open spaces. Any buildings should be in keeping with existing.
• Respecting the height of buildings is particularly important. Do not obscure views of the cathedral.
• Appropriate and well thought out.
• Have you considered the walking distance between Blackfriars and the City centre?
• If the buildings “reflect the historic height and massing” why do none of them have pitched roofs?
• Any design which enhances the view of the Cathedral is welcomed.

4. Are there any other specific comments you would like to make about the Blackfriars Priory and Barbican sites? 

• Open the priory to use by the public (7 mentions)
• All the empty/derelict buildings are an eyesore: demolish and grass over sites.
• The layout looks delightful, and the thought of demolishing the eyesore clutch clinic being demolished great but would be hopeful that some of the buildings around there could be kept.
• A much greater use of this are will be very welcome – and better access between the Docks and the City centre.
• The leaflet enclosed with the correspondence is poorly designed and too small to follow any essential detail. It is impossible to grasp which blobs relate to others and why.
• Gloucester already has two very different but equally important hotel sites: is there a need for a new one or should we develop what we already have? Likewise a new police station: does the old one become derelict?
• Don’t forget the funds come from the taxpayer!
• Blackfriars should be used much more and open to the public. Care must be taken to keep the character and the design of the priory paramount.
• The plans seem to be well thought through and will provide an attractive addition to the city.
• All of the literature looks good.
• Do not sacrifice pedestrians to the motor car. Parking, yes, but walking around old cities is both relaxing and exciting.
• Homes not offices.
• Proposals remind writer of cultural quarter development in Christchurch NZ. Key was to arrange visible activity during day and night, giving a friendly and vibrant atmosphere.
• Enable good car parking for tourists/shoppers.
• Clear the Barbican site (Shirehall?). There needs to be a plan to preserve and display as much of the archaeological remains as possible.
• Don’t forget the Via Sacra.
• Agree to both.
• Demolish the Clutch Clinic building. 06a – agree, 06b – agree, 07a – disagree, 07b – agree.
• A model of the site would help people to understand the layout. I was pleased to hear that a lot of people like me found pictures confusing.
• Include modern 21st century architecture and public art and outdoor arena.
• Hope a better design for a multi-story car-park can be found than that used at the Docks. Will never approve of relocating the retail centre from current centre. I know it used to be around the Docks in @1940! But that was then & this is now. Current small business’ need a functional centre – not a ghost centre.
• Get archaeological investigation going soon.
• Multi storey car park needs to be better designed than the current ones.
• Need to show more clearly how the development relates to the ‘Cross’ Streets. 
• Need to be tidied up a great deal if you want Gloucester to be a tourist attraction.
• Suggestions are reasonable and provide a good mix.
• A Blackfriars Square is needed: other open spaces would be a bonus. Coach drop off close to the Priory will be needed.
• Very ambitious in the current climate.
• Public Square should be larger.
• Looks OK to me.

 5. Do you have any other comments?

• Fears that the credit crunch may become another excuse for not fulfilling pipe dreams.
• The proposals would be a great improvement: the city seemed to have lost its way – now with the new Docks development I commend you – Gloucester is looking up! Please no more housing in the Docks – they have lost a little of the magic!
• The Blackfriars Priory is the jewel in the crown, and needs more use.
• Sadly this is a big failure, as were similar “consultations” for Kings square and Victoria Basin.
• Generally so far good thinking.
• I am passionate about Gloucester and its potential and think GHURC have some fantastic proposals for breathing life into the city and can’t wait to see it happen. Any chance of knocking down the whole of the Kimbrose triangle? – An eyesore!
• This area which is in decline needs to be completely redeveloped without losing its historic importance to Gloucester. No housing or flats.
• Housing and civic quarter uses should change places.
• Just get on and do the things proposed!
• Shops yes on ground floor with accommodation over. There are too many vacant upper floors in Gloucester. Don’t be long about it!
• Yes there is a lot of places in Gloucester wasted.
• Seems a real far reaching future.
• Developing Blackfriars should not mean the loss of the Guildhall. Consider linking the sites.
• Enough potential sites for shops elsewhere in the city, i.e. Kings Square.
• Reference the Roman Quay location in the design of works on Quay St. Otherwise: get on with it!
• I think these masterplan principles are excellent and I would love to see this development go forward. Let’s have a city to be proud of.
• Hopefully any developments will be architecturally sympathetic to existing buildings.
• Go for it! Now we have the Quays it’s essential to carry through and link it to the city. Should make more of the canal waterfront and Llanthony Priory.
• Really hope it all comes off: I think its Gloucester’s turn.
• Please beware of building more flats(except for student accommodation).         Safeguard the link between the Docks, Quays and Cathedral are safeguarded for future generations.
• The Quays is very good: hope this scheme is of an equally high standard.
• Thank you for the great effort and the clear presentation.
• Would the enhanced routes to the river give more potential for flooding?
• Keep Gloucester as a city not as a housing estate like the Docks. Look after our historic buildings, other cities have so why can’t we? We need our heritage to bring in more tourists.
• Seems to be little done to help the environment. It will lack colour without trees/shrubs etc
• Create a new museum and art gallery & performance building.
• You cannot stop progress, however from a selfish point of view, we who are a very few that attempt to make a living at the bottom of Westgate Street are getting more and more isolated, footfall is falling year on year.
• When can it start? The sooner the better!
• Do not know the area in question so not able to answer the questions. Came to live in Gloucester in 2002 and have not explored the area yet.
• Please consider cyclists – Find it very difficult to cycle across the city especially going out to the Forest. Have to walk the bike across, down Westgate Street then have difficulty getting onto the main road.
• More cycle routes need to be included in all new development plans.
• Keep investing in the current centre too!
• Blackfriars square should be a classical square with high quality design.
• Could become the centre of this part of the city.
• Allocate a good amount of space to historic/cultural/arts activities and museum/gallery features.
• Would prefer to see off street servicing where possible.
• This has gone on long enough: it needs to be sorted!
• Beware of predatory developers, and the temptation to compromise! Parts of Blackfriars Priory should be open to the public.
• Never allow a repeat of the loss of historic buildings. Sensitively restore that which remains.
• The three potential show stoppers are the County Council, the courts and the prison. Concentrate on bringing the Priory into use.
• Maps difficult to decipher, but a lot of thought and expertise has gone into the document as a whole.
• V. Impressive.
• Compare Blackfriars with Hailes Priory: open most of year, but has far fewer remains.
• Proposals should create a safer local environment and promote alternative modes of transport.
• Development costs should not fall on Gloucester tax payers.