public participation - Bristol City Council

AGENDA ITEM NO: 5
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (CENTRAL)
COMMITTEE
7 MARCH 2007
PUBLIC FORUM STATEMENTS
AGENDA
ITEM
APPLICATION(S) NAME STATEMENT
NO
6 (1) 06/03202/F and
06/03211/LC - Clifton
College Rifle Range &
Squash Courts Canynge
Road Bristol
Demolition of all existing
buildings and
redevelopment with two
semi-detached houses
and garages, including
highway works,
landscaping and boundary
treatment.
Richard Bland 1
“ “ Stephen Wickham 2
“ “ Michael Woodman-
Smith on behalf of
CHIS
3
“ “ Stephen
Macfarlane on
behalf of Bristol
Civic Society
“ “ Edward Ware
Homes Ltd (see
6 (2) 06/04643/F - Bristol
Industrial Museum Princes
Wharf Bristol BS1 4RN
Retention of M shed
request attached)
Councillor Mark
Wright
4
5
6

AGENDA
ITEM
APPLICATION(S) NAME STATEMENT
NO
(existing use as a
museum). Retention of L
shed (existing use as
museum service store -
Level 1) and event space
(Ground floor). External
refurbishment of L and M
sheds. Preservation of
North facade and sliding
doors, with formation of
new entrance. Infill of set
back to South facade.
Addition of single storey
roof extension. Application
for A3 use for ground floor
cafe. Application for A3
use for roof level function
space.
“ “ Sue Thurlow
7
(PWAG)
“ “ Stephen Wickham 8
“ “ Stephen Layland 9
6 (3) 06/04694/F - 157-159 St
Michaels Hill Bristol BS2
8DB
Change of use from
existing shop (Class A1) to
mixed use as cafe
bar/restaurant (Classes
A3 and A4) and the
erection of a single storey
kitchen extension to the
rear.
Mrs M. Clifford 10
“ “ Peter Macey 11
“ “ Jonathan Filby 12
“ “ Mr. I. A. Page 13
“ “ Mike Garton 14

AGENDA
ITEM
APPLICATION(S) NAME STATEMENT
NO
6 (4) 06/04097/X - Land At Paul Talbot on
15
Canons Marsh Anchor
Road Bristol Harbourside
Bristol
Section 73 application
relating to the
development of buildings
3A, 3B, 5, 6, and 7 for
residential (C3), retail (A1),
office (B1) and food and
drink (A3, A4, A5) in
compliance with variation
of condition nos. 3, 4, 13
and 50 of planning
approval ref. 04/03230/X
by virtue of amendments
to the permitted land uses,
changes to the approved
total, residential, retail and
office floorspace and
changes to the permitted
number of car parking
spaces.
05/04131/F - Land At
Canons Marsh Anchor
Road Bristol Harbourside
Bristol
Proposed 5 storey
residential building for 48
flats (Class C3) - building
3B.
behalf of Crest
“ “ Edward Cullinan
Architects
16

Sir
My name is Richard Bland and I live with a hundred metres of this site. I have been
opposing this proposal since July 2002 primarily on the grounds that it is contrary both to
government guidelines as expressed in PPG 17 and council policy as expressed in the
Local Plan policy L7b. This states that development will not be permitted if it leads to the
loss of existing indoor sports facilities. If there is a proposal to demolish such facilities
there must be a certainty that they will be replaced by facilities that are as good and as
accessible. There are two facilities at issue, the shooting range and the three squash
courts. Clifton College has twice made different unilateral undertakings under section
106, but the last one, 8 Feb 2005 is now void, and no such undertaking accompanies the
present application. Hence the Council has no certainty that Clifton College intends to
replace either facility, and must reject the application on those grounds.
Furthermore it is clear that Clifton College could not make an undertaking that gave
certainty that they would replace the Squash Courts because they have not sought
planning permission for such a structure on their existing campus, and one anywhere else
would not be as accessible. Unless and until they have planning permission for a
replacement squash courts they cannot undertake to replace the present ones, which thus
cannot be demolished.
What Clifton College ought to have done, and what Bristol Council ought to have
ensured, was to have planned the redevelopment and improvement of both squash courts
and rifle range together with the development of the existing site, so that there was never
any loss of facilities, and that the existing site was truly surplus to needs, and thus
legitimately able to be developed for housing.
There are many other reasons for objecting to this proposal, including loss of protected
open space under policy NE1, the danger to pupils posed by a structure erected five
metres from a rugby pitch, and the proposed insertion into the heart of the conservation
area of a building of incongruous materials and design. Your committee has twice before
accepted these arguments, as have two successive inspectors.
Ensuring the existence of a wide variety of sports facilities for Bristol children and adults
matters, and I trust that you will ensure that they are maintained.
R.L.Bland 11 Percival RD BS8 3LN 0117 973 4828

Clifton College Rifle Range 06/03202/F, 06/03211/LC
DCC 7 th March 2007. Attn Mr Steve Gregory
I have sat through four days of the last appeal on this property in part as a speaker on
sport (inc policy L7B) and lines of sight; and in part to observe the machinery of such
an appeal; and having become a participant cross examined some of the witnesses.
I have always felt this building more than appropriate to the New Build zones of
Portishead where it would make a most prestigious impact within a sea of early 21 st
century developments. I have equally always felt it completely inappropriate to the
Northern Half of Canynge Road in the Clifton Conservation area. Context is a vital
consideration. The original proposal made for poor townscape, a silly little dolls
house among solid stone villas as a local resident put it to the inspector. Clearly
neither he nor I considered the proposal conserved or enhanced the conservation area.
During the appeal I have listened to learned architectural arguments about the need
for this style of building to be symmetrical to fit a Regency period aesthetic. I am
therefore amazed to see what has been done to the structure in an attempt to shoe horn
it around the inspector’s final grounds for refusal. This includes making it lopsided to
get around issues with the neighbouring property, while introducing new overlooking
windows. This appears to me akin to cutting off a child’s right arm in the hope of
bettering the chance of receiving a scholarship for left handed children. Crippling the
building to order is no grounds for approving the proposal, and it still does not
conserve or enhance the conservation area.
Therefore I support the officers’ recommendation that the proposal be refused.
I would urge you to reject the scheme.
Stephen Wickham
201 Coronation Rd BS3

Canynge Road Application Nos 06/03202/F and 06/03211/LC
Statement by Michael Woodman-Smith
Planning Group
Clifton & Hotwells Improvement Society
As you will know, this is the third planning application to be submitted on behalf of Clifton College for
the redevelopment of a part of the School’s playing fields and sports facilities on Canynge Road.
This Committee has twice refused planning permission for this redevelopment; CHIS has assisted
CRCG (the local campaign group) at two Planning Inquiries. This application is for essentially the
same scheme as previously submitted, with only a few very minor amendments. None of these
address any of the fundamental principles for development established by the two Inquiries, nor any
of the fundamental concerns regarding the failure of the scheme to harmonise and blend with the
sensitive surroundings, both architectural and landscape, in this part of the Clifton Conservation
Area. Our objections are based closely upon these two Planning Appeal decisions: please refer to
our document ‘Analysis of Planning Appeal Issues’ which we understand was included in the dossier
provided to Members by the CRCG.
We would like to propose amended grounds for refusal in the event that the Committee agrees the
Officers’ recommendation to refuse planning consent to the above application.
You will appreciate that it is important to give the Council’s team, as well as the team representing
the local residents, the best possible chance of success at the forthcoming Planning Appeal.
1. Loss of Sports facilities
The proposal would result in the permanent loss of the well-used, purpose-built, squash
courts building due to Clifton College’s Unilateral Undertaking, which offers an alternative
comparable squash facility, being legally unenforceable due to its lack of clarity, certainty
and relevance to the current applications. Consequently the proposal would be contrary
Policy L7B of the Bristol Local Plan First Deposit Proposed Alterations 2003 which requires
that ‘an alternative up to date facility has been identified in consultation with the local
community’, that this ‘alternative provision is made of at least an equivalent standard in an
accessible location’, and that this facility is provided without any time delay so that it can
serve existing users. The proposal would also be contrary to the Inspector’s conclusion in
the appeal APP/Z0016/A/05/1183395 that the proposal would accord with Policy L7B and
that there would be “permanent replacement facilities”.
2. Conservation Area
It is considered that the design proposal would have a damaging effect upon the character of
the Conservation Area, both in terms of the landscape and the built form. It would neither
enhance nor preserve the Conservation Area. The design proposal fails to comply with the
principles established by the first Planning Inquiry for this site, nor with the specific
objections of the second Planning Inquiry.
40 Canynge Square Clifton Bristol BS8 3LB telephone: 0117 3778825
email: mike.woodman-smith@blueyonder.co.uk

3. Consequences for the Amenity of the Neighbouring Residents
The building would be unduly assertive and dominant resulting in unacceptable overlooking
and infringement of the privacy of the adjoining residents.
4. Non Compliance with Policy and Guidance
The design proposal is considered to be in contravention of Local Plan Policies Chapter 4
(The Built Environment) B1, B2, B8, B13, B16
The design proposal is considered to be in contravention of Local Plan Policy Chapter 10
( Leisure) L 7(b)
The design proposal fails to comply with the principles of PPG15 and PPS1.
The design proposal fails to comply with the findings of two previous Appeal Decisions
(APP/Z0116/A/03/1114350 and APP/Z0116/E/03/1114348 14 November 2003 and
APP/Z0116/E/05/1186528 and APP/Z0116/E/O5/I183395 11 April 2006 ) as summarised in
the CHIS document ‘Analysis of Planning Appeal Issues’
Michael Woodman-Smith

From: Stephen Macfarlane
To:
Date: 06 March 2007 11:29:05
Subject: Canynge Road
06 March 2007
comment to the Development Control Central Area Planning Committee
for the Meeting to be held on 07 March 2007, from Stephen Macfarlane.
Ref : Item 1
Application Numbers : 06/03202/F and 06/03211/LC
Proposed Development of Clifton College Rifle Range and Squash Courts
at Canynge Road, Clifton.
These applications relate to new development within an important
Conservation Area of the City of Bristol.
I have approached these applications with the benefit of knowledge
gained from attendance at the Public Inquiry held between 7 and 10
February last year to consider the same site and the same proposal
now resubmitted by the applicant.
The Inquiry was the result of an appeal against refusal of planning
consent and the proposal was subjected to very detailed witnesses and
many members of the local community.
My own interest came about from being a former local resident and as
a member of Bristol Civic Society for whom I gave evidence to the
Inquiry that supported the decision by the Central Area Planning
Committee. It is my considered opinion as an architect who has long
experience of working on conservation issues in Bristol that the
applications now submitted do not resolve the major objections
identified in the Public Inquiry nor do they contribute to the
conservation or enhancement that is necessary to maintain the
character of this remarkable Conservation Area.
I wish to endorse the advice given by your Officers that these
applications should be refused by the Committee.
On behalf of Bristol Civic Society I confirm that the Society
supports this view and also the grounds for refusal that have been
suggested by Clifton & Hotwells Improvement Society.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Macfarlane
CC:
"WOODMAN-SMITH, Michael & Gillian Woodman-Smith"
,

From: "Heidi Davis"
To:
"Simon Trafford" ,
Date: 06 March 2007 11:37:48
Subject: RE: Development Control (Central) Committee: 7 March 2007
Thankyou for this which was received at 11:20am which I have also
forwarded to Clifton College. We had decided not to make a presentation
to the Committee tomorrow on the report made available last week but now
wish to reserve the right to do so following receipt of the attached
addendum. I understand any statement should be with you by 12noon today
ie in 25 minutes time. Clearly this is not possible and in the
circumstances I would be grateful if you could please advise on an
alternative timescale to allow our statement to be submitted and given a
chance to be read out tomorrow evening at the committee meeting.
I look forward to hearing from you by return.
Heidi Davis
Planning Director
T: 0117 9071200
F: 0117 9071201
M: 0781 8095616
E: heidi@edwardware.co.uk
Edward Ware Homes Ltd
36 Whiteladies Road
Clifton
Bristol
BS8 2LG
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Trafford [mailto:BRPLSYT@bristol-city.gov.uk]
Sent: 06 March 2007 11:13
To: Heidi Davis
Subject: Fwd: Development Control (Central) Committee: 7 March 2007
Heidi,
Please find an addendum report for agenda item no.1: 06/03202/F &
06/03211/LC- Clifton College Rifle Range and Squash Courts, Canynge
Road. The report completes officers views with regards to the loss of
Sports Facilities.
Happy to discuss any issues arising.
regards,
Simon
Simon Trafford
Area Co-ordinator
Central Area Planning Team

Bristol City Council
______________________________________________________________________
Please note the new simpler name for our website:
http://www.bristol.gov.uk
Our email addresses have also changed - visit
http://www.bristol.gov.uk/bigchange for further details.
Sign-up for our email bulletin giving news, have-your-say and event
information at: http://www.bristol.gov.uk/newsdirect
CC:
"Mike Innes"

From: Mark Wright
To:
jo.edwards@bristol.gov.uk
Date: 28 February 2007 15:55:57
Subject: Industrial Museum
Dear Jo,
Please pass on the following statement to the DC committee on Mar 7th.
----------
The original Museum of Bristol plans were bold, but were out of tune with the
vision that Bristol residents had for the building. It is to Cllr Anne White's
credit that she intervened to ensure that Bristol could get a MoB that people
wanted.
I am very pleased to see this new set of plans. This building will be one of
very few original functional buildings left on the Harbourside which makes it
all the more important that we retain it as it is. The scene of the industrial
museum will continue to sit on the south side of the Harbour, clearly
reminding residents and tourists alike of the history of the Harbour and the
buildings on it.
Therefore, please support the plans before you today.
---------------------
Yours,
Mark
--
Dr Mark Wright
Liberal Democrat Councillor for Cabot

From: "Thurlow, Sue"
To:
Date: 04 March 2007 22:48:48
Subject: Development Control (Central) Committe - Application Ref
06/04643 /F - Princes Wharf - Attn Steve Gregory
I'm writing to give you notice that I would like to make a statement on
behalf of Princes Wharf Action Group to the Development Control (Central)
Committee on Weds 7th March regarding application ref 06/04643/F. The
statement, already submitted as a comment to the planning department, is as
follows :
The City Council's plans for the refurbishment of the Princes Wharf transit
sheds to house the Museum of Bristol take full account of the results of
extensive public consultation over the past 2 years. The site is part of
the best remaining 1950s general cargo wharf in the country, and the
consultation has led to a conservation-based approach which as far as
possible preserves both the physical aspects of this, such as the massive
sliding doors making up the docks-facing façade, and the much-loved gritty
feel of a historic working dockside. In order to create an effective museum
building some necessary interventions have been included, such as the 2-bay
glass entrance in the centre of the building, and these are sensitive to the
nature of the building and the site. The plans include visual links, through
creative use of the sliding doors, between the dockside and the stories and
objects inside the museum, and will provide opportunities for the museum to
be closely integrated with its surroundings. The plans also include the
supporting infrastructure necessary to ensure the continued operation of the
Museum Services large and very popular working exhibits - the cranes, the
boats & the railway.
Princes Wharf Action Group was formed almost 2 years ago with the objective
of supporting the Museum of Bristol project by pressing for a conservation
approach to the building and for effective public consultation. We are now
happy to give our full support to the planning application currently under
consideration.
Regards,
Sue Thurlow
9018305
This e-mail is only for the above addressees. It may contain confidential or
privileged information.
CC:

Museum of Bristol 06/04643/F
DCC 7 th March 2007. Attn Mr Steve Gregory
This proposal has turned out so much better than originally feared when it
finally came in late 2006, that I think most campaigners against the (dreadful)
first and second proposals made public in 2005 have now relaxed and
decided not to comment. The watershed event was the heated public meeting
at the City Museum and Art Gallery in September 2005 and a few weeks later
the politicians decided to intervene to put the project on a new financial base,
and conservation based approach, in response to the prevalent public view.
As an original PWAG member I would endorse Sue Thurlow’s recent letter of
support for the application.
I can quite see that Bristol might benefit from a wild 21 st century building to
compare or contrast with the Opera House at Cardiff Bay somewhere else in
the central area, but linking this idea with Bristol’s hugely successful old
industrial museum structure and surrounding period industrial infrastructure
was always a disastrous concept. This is clearly a very sensitive sector for
designers to engage with and in this case it appears to have turned out “all
right on the night” despite a fraught development process.
Therefore I support the officer’s recommendation that the proposal be
approved.
I would urge you to accept the scheme.
I look forward to visiting the completed MOB at the earliest opportunity.
Stephen Wickham
201 Coronation Rd BS3
Bristol BS3 1RQ

From: Stephen LAYLAND
To:
Date: 06 March 2007 09:59:22
Subject: WRITTEN STATEMENT from Stephen Layland for 7th March DC{Central}
Committee Agenda Item 4
From:
Stephen Layland
73 Hampton Park
Redland
Bristol
BS6 6LQ
Att'n Steve Gregory
For:7th March 2007 Meeting of the Development Control [Central] Committee
Subject: Stephen Layland's Written Statement of objection to the application under
Agenda Item 2 - 06/04643/F
Bristol Industrial Museum Princes Wharf Bristol BS1 4RN
Retention of M shed (existing use as a museum). Retention of L shed (existing use as
museum service store - Level 1) and event space (Ground floor). External
refurbishment of L and M sheds. Preservation of North facade and sliding doors, with
formation of new entrance. Infill of set back to South facade. Addition of single storey
roof extension. Application for A3 use for ground floor cafe. Application for A3 use for
roof level function space.
Please allow me to voice an oral introduction paraphrasing the substance of the
following written ATTACHED statement of objection to:
the truly iconic inapproriateness of both the principle and architectural form of the
plan to incorporate the proposed "Museum of Bristol" largely within the telling
"pathology" of some otherwise nondescript conversion of the "grimly utilitarian" post-war
sheds that, until recently, housed Bristol's Industrial Museum.
Attached WRITTEN STATEMENT OF OBJECTION
Stephen Layland.
---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the
Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes.

From:
Stephen Layland
73 Hampton Park
Redland
Bristol
BS6 6LQ
Att’n Steve Gregory:
For:
7th March 2007 [6.pm] Meeting of the Development Control [Central] Committee.
Subject:
Written Statement of objection to the application under Agenda Item 2 - 06/04643/F
Please allow me to voice an oral introduction paraphrasing the substance of the following
written statement of objection to:
both the principle and architectural form of the tell-tale corporate/civic pathology that
would incorporate the proposed "Museum of Bristol" largely within some otherwise
nondescript conversion of the "grimly utilitarian" post-war sheds that, until recently,
housed Bristol's Industrial Museum.
As would be the case of the Museum of any city’s History, the architecture housing the
inherently iconic subject of the "Museum of Bristol" would itself be inherently iconic and, as
such, will be inevitably come to be understood as having enormous symbolic and historic
significance as an educational object and architectural lesson in itself - albeit a lesson on the
“folly” by which the corporate and civic interests seem content to see a city to become ever
more deeply attached within the prison of the Boiled Frog Syndrome.
The architectural unit is best thought of as the city. The unit is not some block, or
column, or window; not some chamber or single building, but the whole complex of
structures in organic relation which make up the city, the breeding place of men. Each
least work must be done in loyalty to the whole.
W. R. Lethaby A National Architecture - I
The Builder Oct 4th 1918
The lesson of history by which peoples knowing and needlessly continue with a fateful
policy despite knowing that a better one exists.
Barbara Tuchman The March of Folly
Those that take the inherently iconic history [past and present] of Bristol to be unworthy of
being acknowledged by the rise of some more celebratory architecture should necessarily
agree that some more generalised breakthrough or departure is required. The corollary is that
the promise in the launch of that departure should be taken to be occasion marked by the
commissioning of some fitting work of architectural celebration – namely a work in which the
architect undertakes to subordinate their personal ego to the need celebrate the promise in
the past, present and future history of Bristol.
The tragedy is that the record of the many development around Bristol’s Floating Harbour –
under the licence of The Habourside Brief – have left the people of Bristol with nothing more
worthwhile to cling to but the conceit that some protest-group had somehow “saved” the
facade and frame of the otherwise nondescript grimly-utilitarian frame of the post-war sheds.
1

The irony is that the same Habourside Goup that had facilitated the wholly dreadful
developments that are still rising to surround Bristol’s Floating Harbour were allowed to
change sides and appear to agree with the protest-group in appearing to support the retention
of the otherwise nondescript grimly-utilitarian frame of the post-war sheds.
While the low line of two-story sheds provides and acceptable lines of any partly enclosed
perspective, the same lines create a quite dreadful anticlimax, when sen crossing the end of
the panorama of St Augustine’s Reach. The attachment of the boxed extension [as if] on the
roof of the post-war sheds manages to achieve the impossible – only making things worse.
The "vision" of the Harbourside Development Brief is, pointedly, to: unlock the vast potential of
the area and make it one of the centres of attention for investment in Bristol.
Now that the Members of the Development Control [Central] Committee have endorsed almost
all the remaining development plans for the available sites, the key provided by the Harbourside
Development Brief has since turned full circle and is about to lock Bristol’s Floating Harbour
against the precedent of some more enlightened approach to urban development – turning to
lock the Bristol’s inherently iconic Floating Harbour against the transformative moves of paradigm
change or departure.
It could hardly be argued that the content Museum of Bristol is somehow going to open the
minds of the visitors to the deeper and more useful lesson of Bristol. The exhibitions would be far
more likely to work to leave the visitors in ignorance of everything of real relevence in the
patterns of Bristol’s history.
It is widely improbable, for example, that the Museum of Bristol will allude to the extent to which
the arrival of the SS Windrush should be understood as actually marking the “return of the long
repressed” – acknowledging the return of the perfectly symmetrical consequences of Bristol’s
enthusiastic attachment to the business of the Slave Trade.
The architectural form of the proposed Museum of Bristol perfectly expresses the extent to
which the urban development in Bristol is dominated by the wholly internal considerations, as
if the extension of those internal/sovereign considerations into the public realm where some
wholly incidental consideration.
This distinction is enough to explain the feeling of empty sterility, the odd proportions and the
seemingly random scattering of Art after-thoughts within Bristol’s public realm – negative
qualities most obviously found throughout the redevelopment of “Maggies Island” nee
Canons’ Marsh.
The same distinction also reflected in Bristol’s corporate and civic indifference to the infinitely
deep dictates of the visual sensibility and, above all, literally, the de facto lack of vision or
blindness [as if] brought about by a mixture :
of corporate tunnel vision and civic myopia.
The plan to contain the inherently iconic history of Bristol within the rectilinear frame amounts
to an acknowledgement that the corporate and civic interests of Bristol are widely indifferent
to the actual state of Bristol - trapped in a crisis of civic mediocrity, notwithstanding
the excellence of the undertakings of a few individuals in launching wholly atypical
breakthroughs [as if] against the drift of corporate and civic interests.
The tragedy of a city that has long been trapped at the boundary of diminishing returns is its
corporate and civic interests come to be deeply embedded and attached to the sort of
extensions than can be achieved through the use of the manipulative trick – i.e. able to
achieve the profits of quantitative extension that the cost of foreclosing the promise of the
much greater rewards that would flow from qualitative transformation.
2

The extent to which the manipulative tricks have become the first rule of corporate practice on
all sides and every level can be seen at:
• the meta-level of setting the original decisions of the Secretary of State for Culture,
Sport and Leisure in potential opposition to the decision of the Office of the Deputy
Prime Minister on the same subject; and by
• uploading the computer-generated graphics of proposed developments onto the BCC
website not by using the grey-scale but as highly contrasting black-and-white
reproductions that serve to make the images completely unreadable and, as such,
refuting the sham facade of due process.
The Boiled Frog Syndrome refers to the situation in which corporate and civic interests would
rather extend the fateful status quo [to the death] than face the marginal costs and supposed
trauma of having to admit to having long been content to carry-on with a range of misguided
[almost thoughtless] undertakings – undertaking based [at outset] on nothing more thoughtful
and worthy than some un-argued [merely assumed] consensus.
The fact that the architecture of the proposed Museum of Bristol will be cloaked in some
seemingly positive rhetorical facade only draws attention to its own pathology – i.e. reflecting
a self-conscious mismatch between the sham facade of appearances and the crisis at the
level of corporate interests that are quite unable to acknowledge the flaws in the history of
Bristol’s corporate and civic character.
Bristol is about to extend itself to occupy a still wider [larger] area. The tragedy is that until
those fateful flaws can be openly acknowledged Bristol will never become great city – will
remain a city that relies on: the mask of hypocrisy, the use of the manipulative trick and
pathology of mere extension.
The same mask of hypocrisy is the only obstacle that prevents the world from acknowledging
that non-transformative model of straightforward extension is the root cause of the world’s
environmental crisis. Even the seemingly principled practice of carbon-neutrality has since
come to be employed as just another mask – the partial truth that masks the extension of the
greater lie.
Appearances to the mind are of four kinds. Things either are what they appear to be;
or they neither are what they appear to be; or they neither are, nor appear to be; or
they are, and do not appear to be; or they [matters] are not, and yet [are made to]
appear to be. Rightly to aim in all these cases in the wise man’s task.
Epictetus Discourses
This life's [five] dim windows of the soul
Distort the heavens from pole to pole,
And make us to believe a lie
When we see with, not through, the eye.
Blake
Just because everything looks different, doesn’t mean that anything has changed.
Anonymous.
The attachment to this family of three pathologies will lead to the need to keep visitors [and
school parties] in ignorance [in a state of only partial awareness] of the wider and deeper
lessons of any exhibition likely to found supported in the Museum of Bristol.
The result would more nearly equate to the face of corporate and civic propaganda.
• A half truth is a whole lie
Unknown
3

Under The Historic Environment - A New Vision the Government looks forward to a future in
which Pt1[9]:
• the full potential of the historic environment as a learning recourse is realised;
• the historical environment's importance as an economic asset is skilfully harnessed;
Under Realising educational potential
2.1 '....The historic environment has immense value as an educational resource, both as
a learning experience in its own right and as a tool for other disciplines. Whether at
school, in further and higher education or in later life, the fabric of the past constitutes a
vast reservoir of knowledge and learning opportunities.'....'Nor is the education
significance of the historic environment confined to the teaching of history.' [my
emphasis]
The generic pathologies seen expressed in the architectural iconography of the proposed
Museum of Bristol perfectly illustrates the extent to which the flaws in the character of the
corporate and civic culture of Bristol betray the same family of flaws that are most implicated
in the problems of the world.
• the simplistic logic that finds most perfect expression in the rectilinear [merely
utilitarian] framework
• the pathology of the equally simplistic straightforward boxed extensions, as
attachments to the frame
• the pathology of the hypocritical facade.
The tragic irony is that the hypocritical facade has been retained to mask the extension of the
rectilinear frame - i.e. bringing together the most sublime [dreadful/awful] alliance of the three
damaging pathologies known to be threatening our world today and in the future?
One of the threats of globalisation is that all identity would come to be submerged within the
same more or less homogeneous stew of globalisation. The tragic irony is that this
characterless outcome would appear to correspond to the urban “stew” or “one-stop-shop” of
Bristol architectural landscape.
Yet I think of I had to show a foreigner one English city and one only, to give a
balanced idea of English architecture, I should not take him to Oxford or Cambridge,
which have developed in once special direction, nor to the cathedral cities where
nothing much has happened since Henry VIII quarrelled with the Pope, but to Bristol,
which has developed in all directions and where nearly everything [architectural] has
happened.
J Summerston Bristol and its Architecture
The Listener 2nd December 1948
George Ferguson has still recently said of Bristol that ‘it would be very hard for Bristol to lose
its identity since we have enjoyed such a variety of buildings over a long historic period’.
The urban stew of the “one-stop-shop” would clearly represent the inverse of the right
principle recognised by Frank Lloyds Wright:
"The mother art is architecture. Without an architecture of our own we have no soul
of our civilisation"
Frank Lloyd Wright Architect [International Style]
4

The error is in framing that lack of some more particular architectural tradition as it were
something positive. Given that all cities are spiralling down into that non-descript
everywhere-nowhere state, the only truly significant distinction is that corporate Bristol the
first city to frame its fateful lack of character as if that were somehow a good thing.
The following extract is from the English Heritage recent meta-level Representation to the EiP
review of the South West Regional Spatial Strategy - i.e. within the General RSS Comments
section.
This does not mean that there is a finite limit that should be placed on development.
‘Capacity’ is a flexible concept. It is dependent upon the quality of development as well
as its quantity. High Quality Design and Master planning. The need for these policy
sectors is essential to integrate the levels of development proposed with the quality of
our existing historic environments. The aim should be to ensure that in creating a new
built environment it is as valued as much by future generations as the development
delivered by our forebears is valued by us.
The tragedy of the Boiled Frog Syndrome is that those inside are unable to face the marginal
costs and trauma of having to acknowledge that almost every decision they have made has
served to consolidate the inertia and momentum towards extension rather than the required
departure.
The decision to endorse the recommendations of the Planning Officer would trap the promise
of Bristol past, present and future history with the pathology of the now redundant paradigm –
will only add enormously to the marginal cost and trauma that future Members of Bristol City
Council will have to face in attempting to bring about the required departure.
The first principle of sustainable development is not to foreclose decisions that should be left
to future generations to decide.
While the decision to launch the departure of paradigm change will be nominally left open for
future generations to take or decline, the recommendations of the Planning Officers and,
indeed, the earlier support of the Full Council, will only consolidate the inertia and momentum
against the need to launch that eventual departure.
When raised to the level of the world as a whole, the willingness to add to the inertia and
momentum against paradigm change seems all too fateful – reflecting a hope against hope of
some near death wish.
Where people once are in the wrong
Each line they add is much to long
Who fastest walks, but walks astray,
Is only furthest from his way.
Prior
I would contrast the willingness of BCC to introduce the onerous duty of separating wastes
and recycling bottles and paper, building cycle lanes and road charging while still remaining
deeply committed to the family of pathologies that are most implicated in the cause of the
world’s socio-environmental crisis. This amounts to the attachment of the Boiled Frog
Syndrome – preferring complicity and death to launching the sort of change that would really
made a difference.
Let the decision on this application be known to have been taken as a measure of the level of
indifference of the Members of the Development Control [Central] Committee and the extent
to which some are fettered by the unwillingness to appear to acknowledge past mistake in
having supported earlier developments surrounding Bristol’s Floating Harbour.
Stephen Layland.
5

From: ". ."
To:
Date: 05 March 2007 15:08:15
Subject: ref 06/04694/f
from Peter S Macey
Ponits I wish to raise at commity meeting 7th March
1 At this moment there are valready 6 cafes of which 2 are already licenced
and 3 Public Houses
all serving food and drink in some form or another all within a few meters
of the propsed applicants.
2 We have at present a very difficult problem with parking which is offten
worse during term time one more venue will make a huge impact.
3 Niose pollution at night can sometimes be a problem but at its present
level in not to bad an increase in venues will again add to this problem. I
am sure you are aware that right opposite the proposed venue is an elderly
persons residence from which i am sure youwill have recieved many
objections
4 I and my neighbours keep in close contact with our local beat manager and
have expressed our concerns to him and we are all of the oppinion that at
the present levels noise drunkeness and anti social behaviour are
managable. Any further increase in the number of licenced outlets will
require
an increase in policing and will have an adverse affect on the quality of
local residents lives.
5 Finnally I find it difficult to understand when the original application
for a restaurant was rejected
how this application has been recommended for approval by the planning
officer.
This area of St Michaels Hill is very much a community and does not attract
lots of people from outside the area and we certainly do not wish to become
another Whiteladies Rd
_________________________________________________________________
Exclusive Ed Byrne daily comedy clips on MSN Video
http://specials.uk.msn.com/edbyrne/

Statement to Development Control (Central) Committee
Re: 06/04694/F 157-159 St Michael’s Hill, Bristol BS2 8DB
I am an ex- senior Manager of the London Underground and have worked for over 20
years in the public sector. My son Tom is a student at the University of West England
and is a regular visitor to the St Michael’s Hill area where he has many friends. I am
here today to represent the students who signed the petition asking for approval to the
European Style café/restaurant at the above address and wish to make the following
key points:
1. The area surrounding the University of Bristol Library is currently
severely under catered and if the City wish to host two world class
Universities they must provide something approaching world class
facilities for students to use.
2. I am particularly concerned about the lack of seating available in eatinghouses
in the area. On cold and wet days, the type of take-away facilities
that are currently available are wholly inadequate to meet the needs of
hungry and industrious students.
3. I understand that the proposed premises will be suitable, in both pricing
structure and environment for students and local residents alike to use as a
meeting place and an eatery.
4. I have spoken to a number of the parents of friends and associates of my
son and there is unanimous agreement that an additional facility of the type
proposed is urgently needed in the area.
5. I urge the Development Control Committee to take the opportunity to
bring something of the European Café scene to the St Michael’s Hill area
and to offer their full support to the proposed development.
Jonathan RW Filby
5 March 2007

Statement to Bristol City Council Planning Committee
regarding application 06/04694
Change of use at 157-159 St Michael's Hill, Bristol BS2 8DB (from retail A1 to A3 AND
A4 usage AND rear extension)
General
1. This application is for the creation a new late night drinking establishment within
the St Michael’s Hill city-village.
2. The area is currently a finely balanced mix of shops, businesses, bars, cafes
and residential housing.
3. That balance will be irreversibly tipped by permitting this application. St
Michael’s Hill will become a secondary late night entertainment strip, akin to
Whiteladies Road, Cotham Hill and Gloucester Road.
4. This is not what the local residents want, nor is it in keeping with the Local Plan
for the area.
Change of Use
Need
1. The premises are situated in a parade of shops, designated as a Local
Shopping Centre. Were they on the opposite side of the road, this application
would, I suspect, have been recommended for refusal. This is because one
side of the road is deemed to be primary frontage and the other secondary.
2. However, being a secondary frontage does not mean carte blanche to convert
shops into bars, merely a greater latitude to do so. Notably, this particular unit
is the only double fronted shop on either side of the road and is in a prominent
location. As such, its loss would be of commensurate significance, both to the
shopping capacity and to the overall viability of shopping in the area as a
whole.
3. It has already been recognised, by this committee that conversions from A1 to
A3/A4 usage has reached a critical point in the area. For example,
A similar application to convert 152 has been refused because ‘food & drink
use would be likely to have a detrimental effect on the amenities of local
residents’ and because ‘loss of retail floor space would seriously undermine the
retail function of St Michael’s Hill’.
Two applications to convert 151 St Michael’s Hill to A3/A5 usage were only
granted with severe conditions limiting opening hours to 10.00pm, restricting
capacity and forbidding its ‘use as a bar, public house or any other drinking
establishment’, because ‘a further pub or bar in this location is not considered
appropriate’. Yet, 151 is in the same terrace as the proposed new bar, with just
two building separating them.
4. This application constitutes an excessive depletion of the retail space in the
area and an inappropriate usage.
1. It is not clear that the site is not viable as a shop. The applicant has sent in
evidence that it was marketed from February 2005 to August 2005. This is itself
a relatively short time frame, particularly when for a good part of that time the
premises were under offer to the applicant. It should also be noted that a To Let
sign was only displayed for a couple of weeks before being ‘Let’ so any
interested party not already in contact with the agents would not have had
chance to offer. Since acquiring the building in August 2005, the applicant has
permitted it to deteriorate with an accumulation of graffiti and rubbish; a

Statement to Bristol City Council Planning Committee
regarding application 06/04694
Change of use at 157-159 St Michael's Hill, Bristol BS2 8DB (from retail A1 to A3 AND
A4 usage AND rear extension)
situation that some supporters seem to think should warrant the reward of the
applicant, as it will ‘bring the building back into use’.
2. Permission has recently been granted for a similar sized restaurant facility at
142 St Michael’s Hill by means of extending and refurbishing a disused
restaurant. This will more than suffice in the event that a restaurant is genuinely
needed. Indeed, the planning permission specifically seeks to restrict its
restaurant capacity ‘because of the potential detrimental impact’.
3. The need for further A3/A4 premises is highly dubious since two
café/restaurants have ceased operations in the area, one to convert to a
takeaway business and the other has applied for change of use to a shop. In
addition, one of the largest restaurant sites in Bristol remains vacant in the
nearby Queens St/Triangle area and has done so for some four years.
4. The application has a number of letters of support and a petition. Close
scrutiny of these letters shows that they come from as far away as Surbiton,
Surrey , Keynesham and Bishopston. The petition is remarkable for the
absence of BS2 postcodes. Indeed, many signatories are students living in
halls of residence in Clifton village and on Clifton Downs.
5. In contrast, the neighbours at Holly Court, sheltered accommodation
immediately opposite the site, have petitioned against, as have a number of
immediate neighbours. The implication is clearly that local people do not want
or need this facility and that such support as the application has comes from
people who will not be affected since they live far away.
Concentration of Uses
1. Immediately opposite the site is the Highbury Vaults Public House.
2. Immediately adjacent to the site is Bar 155, Public House and Restaurant
3. Within the immediate vicinity are a further four licensed premises and another
already granted planning permission but yet to obtain a liquor licence.
4. Policy Advice Note 17 addresses the need to consider carefully the ‘cumulative
effects … from … concentration of similar uses’. It clearly says that ‘Where
such a situation already exists, or is likely to arise from the introduction of
further food and drink establishments, the council will generally resist new
uses’.
5. Permitting this application would constitute excessive concentration of bars and
public houses.
Crime, Disorder and Noise Nuisance
1. This issue is closely allied to over-concentration of late night drinking
establishments.
2. These are matters that are normally overseen by the Council Licensing
Department rather than the Planning Department. However, the applicant has
not yet made application for a provisional licence under the new 2003 Licensing
Act. A provisional licence application is the proper and normal forum for the
Police Licensing Department to make their position clear. The risk is that, by
granting this application in absence of proper consideration by licensing, a fait
accompli is established.
3. There is a significant risk that, despite planning conditions, the applicant will
seek to obtain similar licence conditions to those of its immediate neighbour at
155. Here they are permitted late night drinking until 2am.
4. A further consideration must be the up-coming smoking ban. The site has no
outside facility to accommodate smokers. Inevitably this will mean a

Statement to Bristol City Council Planning Committee
regarding application 06/04694
Change of use at 157-159 St Michael's Hill, Bristol BS2 8DB (from retail A1 to A3 AND
A4 usage AND rear extension)
Transport
concentration of patrons using the street in which to smoke with the attendant
noise and disorder risk.
1. The application makes no provision for parking or even for cyclists. In fact it
removes space that have historically been used as parking for staff.
2. Although previous similar applications have been relaxed about parking
provision, it is now the case that parking provision has reached critical point in
the area.
3. The cumulative effect of a further 100 people in addition to similar numbers to
be anticipated at 142, which is currently under construction, would significantly
increase congestion in the area.
Planning Conditions
1. The recommendation is to grant permission subject to numerous conditions.
This is, I think, indicative of how perilously close to causing harm to the area
this application is.
2. Notably there is condition 2, which attempts to restrict the area available as a
purely drinking establishment. Such a condition is practically un-policeable.
3. Even were you minded to grant permission for a restaurant (A3) the only
prudent way to prevent the additional strain on the amenity and the risk of
increasing crime, disorder and noise would be to refuse A4 permission.
Conclusion
1. This application is not supported by those people who will have to live with the
implications of another late night drinking establishment
2. Granting the application would irretrievably alter the nature of the area to the
detriment of its use as a local shopping centre and as a residential area.
3. The result would be an over-concentration of bars and public houses in the
area with commensurate risk of crime, disorder and noise from patrons.
4. The application should be refused as unsuitable taking into account the Local
Plan and PAN17, the inevitable loss of amenity due to noise from patrons on
the street and the wishes of the local residents.
I A Page
133 St Michael’s Hill
Tuesday, 06 March 2007

From: "Mike Garton"
To:
Date: 06 March 2007 11:42:51
Subject: Planning Application Ref: 06/046941/F
I wish to register my objection to the above planning application for the
following reasons:
1. There are four licensed premises within 400 metres of the premises which
are the subject of this application and another licensed property is simply
not required.
2. Parking is a major problem at the top of St Michaels Hill and the
attraction of another licensed property will only exacerbate the current
problems.
3. Holly Court is situated directly opposite to the premises. Holly Court
has a large proportion of elderly and infirm residents in "sheltered
accommodation". Additional noise nuisance is inevitable and not acceptable
to these residents.
4. St Michaels Hill is not Whiteladies Road and a proliferation of licensed
premises will change the ethos from "local retail" to the "Golden Mile"
ethos of Whiteladies Road.
5. The extra traffic generated together with vehicles driving around in
search of non-existent parking places will create serious noise and exhaust
pollution.
6. There are many adequate licensed premises on Whiteladies Road just 500
metres away and many of these are under-subscribed and struggling to stay in
business.
Yours faithfully
Michael D Garton
29A Cotham Grove
Bristol
BS6 6AN

BRISTOL HARBOURSIDE – COMMITTEE SPEECH
Thank you, Chair.
Introduction – Paul Talbot on behalf of Crest.
I am here tonight to invite your Council’s support for the
ongoing implementation of the Masterplan for Bristol
Harbourside.
As many of you will recall a considerable amount of time
and effort was spent by Council officers, members of the
public, Crest Nicholson and other stakeholders in the
formulation of the Masterplan for Bristol Harbourside. This
reflected Crest’s wholehearted commitment to delivering
this important regeneration opportunity. This culminated in
a resolution to grant planning permission in 2001 and
planning permission issued in 2003.
Major regeneration schemes of this scale often take in the
region of 10 years or more to fully implement. During this
time the masterplan must be able to respond to changes in
planning agenda, housing market, and in particular the
requirements of potential occupiers.
Masterplans must be able to respond to these changing
demands in order that potential occupiers are not attracted
elsewhere, and that an opportunity for the successful
physical regeneration of the area is not lost. Our original
Masterplan had to respond to the particular requirements
from end users for example HBOS within Phase 1. We are
LON2006/M5094-060

now in detailed discussion with a local occupier for building
5.
We understand that some concerns have been expressed
because we have sought to amend the masterplan, but we
have always stayed loyal to the urban design principles
established by the Masterplan. At every stage we have
ensured that where changes have been required these have
preserved or enhanced. The retention of Edward Cullinan
Architects as project master planners underlines our
commitment to this.
Officers state in their report that we have submitted an
“inordinate number of applications” since the original
masterplan was approved. There is a responsibility by the
Council to secure the parameters of any masterplan at the
outline planning stage. The existence of such controls
through planning conditions does not easily provide for
changes to masterplans that are inevitably required on
schemes of this scale and complexity.
Given the procedural complexities we wish to clarify the
main issues that we are actually seeking planning
permission for. Simply speaking these are:
The redistribution of approved Masterplan uses to
meet occupier demands.
The sub- division of Building 3 to allow delivery of our
affordable housing requirements, the principle of
which has already been supported by the Council.
An amendment to the masterplan allowing an increase
in building height along Anchor Road.
LON2006/M5094-060

An increase in the total overall floorspace being
provided across the masterplan area of 8%.
Provision of an additional 24 car parking spaces which
is proportionate to the increase in floorspace being
sought.
In our view these changes do not represent a fundamental
change to the nature and character of the approved
masterplan, nor undermine its principles.
We accept our responsibility to provide for the social and
physical infrastructural needs arising from the masterplan
and agree to provide proportionate increases in the financial
contributions towards public transport improvements. Crest
is also pleased to offer an additional and new contribution
of £150,000 towards the enhancement works proposed to
the northern half of College Square. This will hopefully
assist the Council’s implementation of their proposals for
the completion of College Square providing an important
pedestrian link between Harbourside and the City Centre.
Looking ahead. Proposals for the final phase of the
Masterplan are already being prepared ready for submission
following the approval of Phase 3. It is our ambition to have
fully completed Phase 3 by 2009 and the completion of the
Masterplan by 2011. We urge you to support the
applications before you tonight. This would enable us to
build on the success we have achieved to date with your
Council in regenerating one of the most important sites in
the City.
LON2006/M5094-060

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (CENTRAL) COMMITTEE 7 th MARCH 2007
Application ref 06/04097/X
STA TEM EN T BY ED W A RD C ULLI N A N A RC H I TEC TS
It is now nearly five and a half years since our Masterplan for Canon’s Marsh was
approved by this committee. Since then, the contaminated gas works have been
remediated, new infrastructure put in, Phase 1 completed, and Phase 2 started.
Yes, there have been changes to the original plan, but a Masterplan is just that: a plan
that sets a vision and provides a strong framework within which phased development
can take place. It is therefore worth restating the main principles of the Masterplan.
These are:
1. to create and reinforce physical and visual links between Canon’s Marsh and
the rest of the city;
2. to make a strong framework of public open spaces defined by the facades of
the buildings themselves; and
3. for these buildings to have a good mix of uses in order to create a safe and
sustainable new quarter of the city.
We have been privileged to be part of the development of the design as it has
progressed in those five and a half years, both on the ground, as it were, in our role as
architects for most of the residential buildings, and in a continuing masterplanner’s
overseeing role. Phase 1 has now been finished, and Phase 2, the great crescent
facing the water, is well under construction. In the first phase, the enclosure to
Millennium Square was completed, and the first portion of the new Millennium
Promenade now leads out of the Square towards the SS Great Britain. The pair of
curved residential buildings successfully defines the hub of the new quarter and frames
the view of the Cathedral seen both from near and from Wapping Wharf. The new
HBOS office building beside the waterfront and the café and pavilion have reopened
the first portion of the new Harbourside walkway. Already one has the sense of this as
a real piece of the city: the plan is well on the way to becoming reality.
The application before you this evening is for the third phase. It provides further
important pieces in the planned framework of spaces. The completion of College
EDWA RD C ULLINA N A RC HITEC TS 1 of 2
H:\ CLJobs\ 5000 - 5999\ 5000 - 5099\ 5094\ Misc\ M5094-061.doc

Square, one of the key components of the Masterplan, will be achieved in this phase.
Buildings 5 and 6 respond by their setbacks to College Square to the north and set up
the major route for pedestrians coming from College Green and into Harbourside. The
opening up of the route through College Square is an important part of this
connection, to which Crest are contributing. Building 3B provides affordable housing to
satisfy Crest’s S106 requirements and has been sold to an RSL. Its design uses the same
language as the other residential buildings, but has its own integrity, and adds to the
mix of uses along Anchor Road, and sets the scene for a comfortable relationship with
the Purifier House.
We have reviewed the consultation comments received and wish to respond on the
following issues to assist your consideration of the application tonight.
It is asserted that building heights have altered the Masterplan principle of greatest
height in the centre of the scheme. This is not the case. Buildings 5 and 3a have
increased by one storey, but are still lower than the buildings in the centre. This was a
deliberate enhancement of the plan in order to give a clear and distinctive entrance
to the new quarter.
Concern is expressed about the impact on the Conservation Area and the Purifier
House. We fully concur with your Urban Design Officer’s opinion that, “these proposals
are consistent with the original approval and preserve and enhance the respective
conservation areas.”
Finally, greater detail of the buildings was requested and has been provided by the
useful set of computer-generated images.
In what has been done and what is proposed the principles of the approved
Masterplan are being followed. It is a misconception that a Masterplan is conceived
as a completely resolved and final design. In reality it has to be able to develop over
time as demands and opportunities change. The framework we proposed in 2000 has
proved robust in accommodating these changes. We are thrilled with what has been
achieved so far and urge you in your consideration of this next phase to enable it to
continue.
EDWA RD C ULLINA N A RC HITEC TS 2 of 2
H:\ CLJobs\ 5000 - 5999\ 5000 - 5099\ 5094\ Misc\ M5094-061.doc