report including detailed summaries (pdf, 0.7 MB) - Bristol City Council

Bristol Central Area Plan Preferred Options: Responses to Consultation, 

November 2013 

Introduction 

The Bristol Central Area Plan Preferred Options Consultation (BCAP) took place between 9 September and 18 October 2013. 

327 responses were received during the consultation period. The comments received will help shape a revised document to be taken to a meeting of Full 

Council on 17 December 2013. 

If you would like further information on the Bristol Central Area Plan please contact a member of the Strategic Planning team on 0117 9036725 or 

bdf@bristol.gov.uk. 

The following section of the report includes detailed summaries of the individual responses to the consultation. The summaries are organised by policy 

area.

Bristol Central Area Plan Preferred Options Consultation ‐ Summary of Responses 

Policy Ref: BCAP01 

Mixed‐use development in Bristol City Centre 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Charles Stirling 

Comment No: 0274/01 

Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Para 3.1 ‐ The provision of 7,400 new homes in the central area is excessive. The density is already high and amenities and services have not kept up 

as it is. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Bristol Civic Society 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The plan should propose a flexible approach to the change of use classes in the city centre to give the Council more freedom to encourage the 

redevelopment of redundant office space. Partnerships between the Council and developers should be encouraged to accumulate economically 

viable sites to build attractive residential developments to increase residential population in the city centre. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The Council must develop housing (particularly starter homes and homes for older people) within walking distance of the facilities they need. 

Currently the city centre lacks a critical mass of residents to support additional retail development. Increased retail provision is not sustainable 

without substantial city centre population growth. 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Hotwells & Cliftonwood Community Association 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Para 3.2 ‐ last sentence requires stronger emphasis regarding provision of space for schools. "Future development…." replace "may" with "must". 

There is a shortage of places now which will worsen with additional homes. Note reference to family sized homes which will mean more school 

places. 

Objection 

Page 1 of 162


New homes through efficient use of land 

Respondent: Simon Margetts & Emily Wolfe 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Type: Support 

Comment Summary: Residential use of upper floors of commercial premises is a great response to the housing shortage and the over supply of shops. 

Respondent: Bristol Disability Equality Forum 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Pg 8 Para 3.6 ‐ New homes ‐ will these be built to facilitate occupation by residents with disabilities (physical or mental)? 


Comment Type: 

Other 


Family sized homes 

Respondent: Penny Germon 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Please define "harmful concentration". 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

South West HARP Planning Consortium 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Support the intention to deliver more family sized homes within the area. Whilst it is noted that the proportion of dwellings to be family sized will 

depend on the existing housing profile and site characteristics, it is important that this flexibility takes account of the deliverability of the scheme, 

the viability of alternate proportions and the funding mechanisms associated with the site. Without a threshold officers could spend a considerable 

amount of time micro managing small development sites across the city centre. Suggest the exclusion of sites under 10 or the use of different 

thresholds within different areas depending on their typical development portfolio. 

Objection 

Page 2 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Anthony Negus (Cllr) 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The defined BCAP area contains wards peripheral to the commercial centre. These have a number of policies associated with them that might have 

been equally applied to other peripheral wards which are not within the BCAP boundary. Needs correction as developers with city wide view will 

infer that if the new policy refers only to these areas and not to others it is intended not to apply to those others. Example of BCAP 3 given: 

The policy uses the wording "will not be permitted" which does not appear in the SA&DM policy document for areas with acute and potentially 

worsening imbalance. This could be interpreted that the battle is lost in wards such as Cotham which are not within BCAP. This must be corrected. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Curo Group 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Support the desire to see more family accommodation in city centre. However, when development proposals are considered it is vital that an 

analysis be undertaken of the availability of the range of facilities required by families such as schools etc. 

Other 

Respondent: Jane Miller 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Type: Objection 

Comment Summary: Applaud the objectives of Policy BCAP3 to provide more family sized homes. However, saddened that this does not apply to Harbourside. 

Respondent: Clifton & Hotwells Improvement Society 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: This should apply to the whole area not just the areas listed within the policy. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 3 of 162

Respondent: Steve Woods 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Plan refers to "harmful concentration" of certain types of development, but no definition of what constitutes harmful development. 



SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Type: Other 

Comment Summary: Want to see mixed neighbourhoods where there is family housing as well as flats. The policy needs to ensure a balance of housing types and tenure. 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Support proposals for family sized homes. Provisions must be made for both car and cycle parking for each and very new accommodation unit. 

Housing should not be built without car parking provision. 

Other 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: The plan refers to "an element of usable outdoor space" ‐ this needs to be defined. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: St Pauls Unlimited Community Partnership 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Need to reflect what is meant by "significant" in the following policy wording: "A significant proportion of family sized homes will usually be sought.." 

Page 4 of 162


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Family homes must have meaningful amenity space. The housing policy needs to be strengthened. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 



SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Provide a clear definition of HMO and student accommodation and a clearer description for what is meant by "harmful concentration" 


Specialist student housing in Bristol City Centre 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Welcome any plans that will develop sufficient student accommodation so that pressure is taken off what were family houses and they can be 

returned to ordinary residential use. 

Support 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Watkin Jones Group 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Consider the city centre is an appropriate location for purpose built managed student accommodation. Support some clustering of purpose built 

student accommodation in the Nelson St and Lewins Mead area as referred to in the accompanying text. 

Support 

Page 5 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Bristol Urban Design Forum 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Student accommodation is often designed / located where other residential users would arguable find unacceptable. Due to their structural life and 

proposed occupancy ‐ there should be some guidance on achieving reasonable amenity to make them sufficiently robust for re‐use. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

University of Bristol 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The key issue which needs to be more carefully defined is "what constitutes a harmful concentration of specialist student housing ….". There is no 

mention to the University of Bristol cluster of halls of residence within the Clifton area. Specific reference should be made to the halls of residence 

and their modernisation, redevelopment and improvement should be supported in principle subject to other policies in BCAP and LDF. Consider the 

policy should state "Specialist student housing schemes which contribute to the diversity of uses within a local area and are easily accessible to 

higher educational institutions will be acceptable" 

Consider quote within the final sentence of para 3.14 of the BCAP is at odds with para 2.2.10 of the DM Policies DPD. Clarity is required on this issue. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: See 0380/02 

The text in para 3.14 includes reference to areas of a strong residential context and provide St Pauls and parts of Harbourside as examples where 

concentrations of student housing should be avoided. This policy also applies to other areas in NW Bristol not included in this policy and this must be 

corrected. 

Objection 



SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Plan refers to "harmful concentration" of certain types of development, but no definition of what constitutes harmful development. 

Page 6 of 162


Development and flood risk in regeneration areas 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Cllr Mark Wright 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Clarity required regarding what is meant by "homes in flood risk areas". If includes residential above commercial in flood risk areas then object as no 

one seriously expects flooding at level of 20ft above ground level. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Environment Agency 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The current lack of a strategic flood risk solution could potentially have a significant impact on the deliverability of the BCAP. Clarification must be 

provided regarding the council's proposed means of ensuring allocated development, or otherwise, will be safe from the risk of flooding, in 

accordance with the NPPF, prior to the delivery of an agreed strategic solution. A reliance on site specific FRAs to facilitate extensive development 

would not be acceptable. It would be beneficial to revise the wording of the proposed policy to emphasise the importance of avoiding "more 

vulnerable" development within areas at risk of flooding, notwithstanding any perceived socio economic considerations. 

Para 3.19 ‐ Any assertion that allocated development defined as "less vulnerable" is deemed to have passed the sequential test and may therefore, 

subject to an appropriate FRA, be sited in high flood risk areas, must be supported by appropriate justification and proof of the tests application. 

Objection 

Respondent: Bristol Urban Design Forum 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Significant sustainable amelioration measures at a strategic and individual site level should continue to be part of planning decisions. 

Page 7 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Flood prone areas should be firstly treated as open spaces and secondly for other amenity uses which can stand to be flooded. Businesses and 

housing will increasingly have problems with insurance if in flood prone areas and the resulting costs to Bristol for flood defenses could be 

prohibitive. 

Objection 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Para 3.21 (air quality) ‐ Robust action is needed to protect health and standards must be improved. 


Comment Type: 

Other 

Para 3.22 (noise) ‐ Urge the Council to use EMROs as a tool to tackle sleep deprivation resulting from late opening of licensed premises. Also suggest 

consideration is given to making Whiteladies Rd a no street drinking zone. 



SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Para 3.22 ‐ How will "reducing the level of through traffic" be achieved and what are the proposed measurements for achieving this? 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Sue Flint 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Para. 3.17 ‐ Against the suggestion that some new homes will be sacrificial lambs to avoid blight. If BRT2 is built a diversion will be needed when 

flooding threatens Aston Avenue Bridge. 

Objection 

Page 8 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: SA503 

Chapter: 

Mr O Roberts 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Site development considerations for site SA503 should include the objectives from with the text in the last sentence of BCAP05 "Development 

adjacent to the neighbourhood's parks and green spaces will be expected to provide new or enhanced access points and improved surveillance". 

This would be in common with the same objectives as site SA504. There is no reference in the plan to the important opportunity to create additional 

access into Brunswick Cemetery through site SA503. 

Objection 


Delivery of employment space in Bristol City Centre 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Substantial commitment to new office floor‐space but no justification (I.e. is this due to market projections, loss to residential, future working 

patterns etc?. What policies exist for refurbishment or renewal of existing offices? 

Objection 



SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Pg13 Para 4.4 Developments in the city centre ‐ will these be built to facilitate use by employees with disabilities (physical or mental)? 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Steve Woods 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: There should be no more speculative office building in central Bristol, there is already sufficient vacant commercial floorspace. No permission should 

be granted unless the applicant has already secured 60% occupancy. 

Objection 

Page 9 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The plan should acknowledge that: 

I) Bristol has probably in excess of 1.5m sq.ft of obsolete office space for which alternative uses must be found. 

Ii) There is an overhang of new built offices and unbuilt permissions in a market where demand for large scale accommodation has virtually stopped. 

Objection 


Loss of employment space 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Bristol Pubs Group 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Regarding sub section I) Concern as to how developers would demonstrate there is no need for employment uses in Old Market, the Dings, St Pauls 

and Stokes Croft. Could be small businesses such as pubs. Clarity should be added to the wording. 

Objection 

Respondent: South West HARP Planning Consortium 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Support the policy and the potential to identify offices of low demand as potential sites for housing or alternate uses. 


Comment Type: 

Support 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: We do not want to see the overall balance of employment uses and residential to change. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 10 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Small workshop spaces are difficult to find and planning in the past has allowed conversion to housing. Saying a space is underutilised, under 

performing or lower commercial value as an excuse to convert to housing should be resisted not just accepted from a developer. 

Objection 

Respondent: Bristol Civic Society 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: The two opportunities that the current plan misses relate to finding alternative uses for office and retail space. Comment also relates to chapter 5. 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

St Pauls Unlimited Community Partnership 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: How will "no demand for employment uses" be measured? Suggest the wider community and St Pauls Unlimited are made aware of any proposed 

changes from office to housing. What mechanism will be put in place to ensure this happens effectively? 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Support the presumption in favour of the loss of office/employment accommodation in the Nelsons S and Lewins Mead area and re 

use/redevelopment for alternative uses. 


Comment Type: 

Support 

Page 11 of 162


Maritime industries 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Para 4.14 ‐"Industrial and warehousing growth is not feasible in Bristol City Centre after the area's other development needs have been taken into 

account." This assumes the large increase in housing. Some of that housing increase should be curtailed to allow some increase in industrial 

development. 

Objection 


Cultural and tourist facilities and water‐based recreation 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Para 4.17 ‐ 4.18 ‐ The inclusion of major works to the Colston Hall as a priority and a major indoor arena that will be completed is an appropriate 

juxtaposition. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

English Heritage 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: BCAP currently does not appear to refer to Bristol's cultural tourism offer nor a commitment to invest in its potential. The City needs to recognise 

the role and potential of its historic environment. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

The Theatres Trust 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Support the policy as there is a growing recognition that the rounded experience of a city including its cultural offer and added attractions are, and 

will increasingly be, essential for attracting trade as well as talent and tourism. 

Support 

Page 12 of 162



SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Pg16 ‐ Cultural and tourist facilities and water‐based recreation ‐ will the proposed changes be designed to enhance / actively benefit disabled users. 


Hotel development 

Respondent: Charles Stirling 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Adequate car parking is needed for hotel development and must be allowed. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Bristol Disability Equality Forum 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Pg17. Para 4.21 ‐ Small scale/ boutique hotels ‐ will these still be required to maintain the same level of provision for disabled hotel users as are 

provided by larger chains? 

Other 

Respondent: Business West 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: High quality hotel development should also be encouraged. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 13 of 162


University and hospital development 

Respondent: University of Bristol 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Welcome this positive policy, however, reference should be made within the policy to SPD11 "Master plan for the Precinct" 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Although the university and hospital have had major physical / functional impacts on the city centre ‐ there are only laissez‐faire policies aimed at 

their development proposals. Their impacts require further attention. 

Objection 


Vacant sites and temporary uses 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Surprised that the temporary use vacant sites for car parking is unacceptable given the chronic lack of car parking. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Proposals for the temporary use of vacant sites for car parking should be allowed. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 14 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Business West 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Agree temporary uses should be encouraged particularly ones which give other benefits and help stimulate regeneration and investment. However, 

concerned about the impact of not allowing car parking on sites in key locations e.g. close to Bristol Temple Meads and on making development 

more viable. 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Pg17. Para 4.24 ‐ Temporary uses ‐ all temporary uses must still conform to the highest standards with regards to supporting disabled users of the 

site. 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The Rummer (now named The Looking Glass) is a positive example of how BCAP12 can be used. There are many other pubs in Bristol which could be 

revived in similar ways. Central examples suggested: Condells (St Nicholas St), Cattle Market Tavern (Cattle Market Rd), Printer's Devil (Broad Plain) 

and Bell (Prewett St). 

Support 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Asks how the policy will be achieved and considers there is a need for a statement or map referring to appropriate sites and their possible 

alternative uses. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 15 of 162


Delivery of retail growth in Bristol City Centre 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Greater emphasis needed on promotion of and support for St Nicholas Market. 


Comment Type: 

Other 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: The Council must plan not to expand but to defend the Broadmead primary retail space and the strongest local centres. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: The retail characteristics of Old Market and West St should be strengthened. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Network Rail 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Support the policy and wish to promote Temple Meads station as a local retail centre for the Bristol Quarter. 


Comment Type: 

Support 

Page 16 of 162



SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Para 5.6 & 5.7 ‐ The unevenness of old paving/cobbled streets in some areas of the old city needs to be reviewed ‐ due to safety hazard. 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Joanna van der Veen 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Concern over the number of retail units in the centre, when parts of the plan imply more such units are needed. Active ground floors should be 

sought but with more emphasis on non‐retail uses. 

Objection 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: There should be no further retail development. There is already sufficient vacant floorspace. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: IRERE Kingdom 1 & 2 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Generally supportive of the citywide policies for shopping with particular support for BCAP13 and para 5.3. However, BCAP 13 should have a clearer 

hierarchy set out stating that the Bristol Shopping Quarter is the priority location for future retail development. As currently drafted there could be 

some ambiguity with the policy and the proposed retail hierarchy. Recommended that a hierarchy between the PSA's is clearly established where 

priority is given to the Bristol Shopping Quarter PSA for major retail development above other PSAs. Suggest the following text is added to the end 

of para 5.3: "Priority will be given to Bristol Shopping Quarter as the location for major retail development in the first instance. Retail development 

in other Primary Shopping Areas must be complementary to Bristol Shopping Quarter" 

Objection 

Page 17 of 162

Respondent: Sue Flint 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Para 5.2 ‐ Surprised that expenditure growth is expected despite economic downturn. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Clifton & Hotwells Improvement Society 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: CS Policy BCS7 does not specifically mention West End. It gives Queens Rd and Park St as a retail part of the city centre. Consider this should be 

clarified in the BCAP in para 5.5. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Peter & Jenny Weeks 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: We recognise the need for the city centre to be economically successful but don't think pure retail is where the future lies. It will be more about 

services. 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Car parking is often essential to maintain the smaller scale/independent retail and leisure uses in secondary shopping areas. Any reductions should 

be vigorously opposed and additional spaces implemented when possible. 

The continued expansion of cafes/restaurants/bars should be avoided. Too much A1 retail is being lost to such uses which are beginning to 

dominate to the detriment of other retail businesses. 


Comment Type: 

Other 

Page 18 of 162


New retail development 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Little guidance on achieving commercial viability and appropriate location of mixed uses. Many examples in Bristol of ground floor shop provision in 

new developments which has never been taken up. Often in locations unlikely to have sufficient footfall. Active frontages generally should be 

advocated to avoid extensive street level parking / storage. 

Objection 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Support the policy and wish to promote Temple Meads station as a local retail centre for the Bristol Quarter. 


Comment Type: 

Support 

Respondent: Sainsbury's Supermarkets 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: The policy as it stands does not conform with the retail policy tests as set out in the NPPF. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

The policy states "new larger scale retail development within Bristol City Centre will be primarily directed towards the identified Primary Shopping 

Areas or to sites which adjoin them". The policy should more accurately reflect the wording of the NPPF in terms of the sequential test. 

Suggested replacement wording for BCAP 14: 

"New larger scale retail development within Bristol City Centre will be primarily directed towards the identified Primary Shopping Area or, where 

sites aren't available within the Primary Shopping Areas, to edge of centre sites which are well connected to them. Elsewhere in the city centre 

larger scale retail developments will be acceptable where: 

‐ No sequentially preferable sites within the Primary Shopping Areas or edge of centre locations are identified; and 

‐ Proposals would not result in any significant adverse impact on either: 

a) the vitality and viability of defined primary shopping areas; or 

b) existing, committed and planned public and private investment in the identified primary shopping areas" 

Page 19 of 162


Primary shopping frontages 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Para 5.11 ‐ Any new retail units must be accessible by larger mobility scooters. A number of units are currently not accessible. Also accessibility 

issues in relation to narrow aisles. Café / restaurant pavement furniture must be movable to accommodate a wheelchairs / scooters. 

Other 


Secondary shopping frontages 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The reference to "special" should be deleted in BCAP16(i) as alternative uses play an important role in maintaining and improving the vitality and 

viability in town centres. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Park St and the West End cannot continue to be designated primary shopping areas. The promotion of a mix is a more realistic approach to the West 

Ends future. Is it realistic to propose Perry Rd and Christmas Steps as primary shopping frontages? A more flexible approach to street frontages here 

might allow a viable mix of retail, catering and community uses to prosper. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Walsingham Planning 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The recognition in para 5.16 that non retail uses can make a valuable contribution to the vitality…etc of primary frontages is welcomed. However, 

the wording of "special" in BCAP16(I) is too vague and should be omitted. 

Objection 

Page 20 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Consider reference needs to be included to pubs in the penultimate paragraph of the policy and para 5.16 as they do not have their own 

classification and can be appropriate in primary shopping areas. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The wording about certain relaxations of retail uses is too loose and impossible to defend. Such applicants should be made to prove or demonstrate 

such an effect and there should be some form of assessment statement. 

Objection 


Retail development outside shopping areas and frontages 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Pg22. 5.17 ‐ All frontages should be immediately accessible to the public from the street. Avoid stepped entry ‐ a barrier to wheelchair / scooter 

users. 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Welcome any measures which will encourage development in secondary shopping areas such as Hotwells. Support of the local community is also a 

vital ingredient to such developments, therefore, suggest sub para iii) reads:" To demonstrate local support by being of community and general 

public interest and thereby show an expectation of a reasonable level of footfall" 

Other 

Page 21 of 162


Leisure and Evening Economy 



SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Pg24 Para. 5.28 ‐ all new development in these categories (A3‐A5) must be negotiable by wheelchair / mobility scooters ‐ I.e. larger gangways. 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Jane Miller 

Comment Summary: There is already an over supply of pubs and bars in Harbourside. Any new such establishments should only be licensed after another similar 

establishment in the immediate area closes down. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

The Theatres Trust 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Support the inclusion of the evening economy in this policy. Para 5.27 provides cinema as an example of D2 use, for clarity it should include theatre 

and nightclubs as examples of sui generis use. 

Other 

Respondent: Bristol Pubs Group 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Maybe some existing but closed pubs could be re‐opened to small start ups including publicans or micro breweries. 


Comment Type: 

Other 

Amendment suggested to reinforce the protection of closed properties classifications. 

Page 22 of 162


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Would strongly support measures that mitigate a dominance of licensed premises in one area. 


Comment Type: 

Other 


Sustainable design standards 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Jane Miller 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: If all housing from 2013 must be built to the standard of Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4, why is the developer of Wapping Wharf permitted to 

build only to level 3? 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: With the timescales associated with BCAP, there is the potential that the Housing Standards Review will be implemented prior to the DPDs adoption. 

It is necessary to consider this policy with the intention to revoke the Code for Sustainable Homes. Changing policy targets from the Core Strategy 

would require a viability assessment. 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Savills 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Consider "Excellent" should be deleted and replaced with "very good" from the middle column/ second row and middle column bottom row of the 

table of sustainable design standards. 

Objection 

Page 23 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The requirement for a BREEAM rating of excellent for residential schemes of 100+ and non residential 1,000m2 or greater is inconsistent with other 

policies in the LDF and should be reworded to provide consistency with the Core Strategy. 

Objection 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Use of flood plains for open spaces, parks, trees would help instead to trying to build more housing on this land. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 


Connection to heat networks 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Welcome the inclusion of measures to encourage heat networks in the centre. However, language should be firmer. Amend text in final para in 

BCAP 21 to read "be required unless exceptional reasons prevent it". 

Objection 


Habitat preservation, enhancement and creation on waterways 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Natural England 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Policy BCAP22 should help to ensure that development on sites adjacent to waterways is sensitively designed, protects existing habitats and species, 

secures enhancements at site level and contributes to the wider network where possible. 

Support 

Page 24 of 162


Totterdown Basin enhancement 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Martyn Trowbridge 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Would welcome the provision of an access route for Totterdown pedestrians and cyclists to get to central Bristol avoiding the Wells Rd and opening 

the Totterdown Basin riverside with a walkway. 

Other 


Development on Proposed Green Links 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: There is no mention of public art within the St Pauls Green Link. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Bristol Cycling Campaign 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: There are elements of BCAP which Bristol Cycling Campaign would like to particularly support and become involved in these include BCAP 24 para 

6.23 & para. 6.24 

Support 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Sustrans 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Support the formation of a green link through St. Pauls and the link along Dove Lane to Newfoundland St along the M32 corridor. Consideration 

should be given to on road continuity for pedestrians and cyclists linking the green spaces and to improved links across Riverside Park, with options 

for a green bridge to connect green spaces at Fox Rd. 

Other 

Page 25 of 162


Green infrastructure in new development in the City Centre 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Living Heart for Bristol 

Comment Summary: Supports the principle of traffic removal within inner city access routes but believe to be effective more specific proposals are required (for 

pedestrians). See Living Heart for Bristol response to Public Realm and Movement Framework for examples. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Woodland Trust 

Comment Summary: Pleased to see the role of street trees in BCAP 25, however, street trees and urban planting can also deliver other benefits for landscape design, 

cultural resonance, noise shielding and improving air pollution. These additional benefits should be included in the BCAP. 

The following guidance should be noted in the Plan ‐ "Trees in Townscape" (TDAG June 2012). 

The comment on trees should include reference to the Planning Obligations SPD (section on trees page 20). 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Green infrastructure should be given greater emphasis through the BCAP ‐ including guidance on how the city and developers can contribute. 

The importance of maintaining, extending, managing tree canopy should be a key policy. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Simon Margetts & Emily Wolfe 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: More green areas are needed in the centre and Broadmead areas and tree planting is essential. Roof gardens should be encouraged. Small parking 

or paved areas of The Centre could be converted to raised beds. Commercial premises could be encouraged to convert some hardstanding back to 

grass/garden to reduce flash flooding etc. 

Objection 

Page 26 of 162

Respondent: David Paul 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Far more green space is needed in the central areas as there is currently too much concrete which makes areas impersonal. 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Bristol Tree Forum 

Comment Summary: Suggested the policy is amended to read: 

"Development will be expected to incorporate as many as possible of the following design features: 

‐ Green roofs and roof gardens; 

‐ Living walls, 

‐Existing and new street trees and other trees; 

Water features linked to SUDS; 

‐Waterside landscaping where appropriate" 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Penny Germon 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The Council should examine opportunities to extend or create new green space in the Ashley, Easton and Lawrence Hill area. Options could include 

extending Riverside park along to Cabot Circus, extending St Pauls Park into Dove Lane, extending Rawnsley ark into Goodhind St. 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The use of water permeable paving seems to be causing problems in adjacent building and slabs are not staying level causing trip hazards. Better 

techniques for using paving need to be developed and implemented. Considers solar photovoltaic and wind turbines should not be pushed. 

Concerned that LED street lighting is leaving streets darker and that deployment should be postponed or slowed until efficiency improved. 

Other 

Page 27 of 162


Old City: Reducing traffic in the heart of Bristol City Centre 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Supports the principle of traffic removal within inner city access routes but believe to be effective more specific proposals are required (for 

pedestrians). See Living Heart for Bristol response to Public Realm and Movement Framework for examples. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Parking and vehicle use in the central areas needs discouraging. 


Comment Type: 

Other 



SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Support the movement policies enshrined in BCAP26‐29 which reflect the movement framework principles set out in section 3 of the PR&MF. 

Respondent: Hotwells & Cliftonwood Community Association 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: The first sentence is too weak. The word "significantly" should be removed. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 28 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The proposals to allow less parking provision are detrimental to a mixed community of ages, job types and disabilities. These policies need to be 

moderated. 

Objection 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Para 7.10 ‐ Consider hotels and attractions will need car parking. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: David Paul 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Please do not make it more difficult for car drivers to get access to the economic areas of the centre. 


Comment Type: 

Other 

Respondent: Sustrans 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: References to "traffic" should be changed to "motorised traffic" when discussing traffic volume reduction, acknowledging that cyclists are traffic. 

Page 29 of 162


Safeguarded transport links and railway land 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Support Metrowest and safeguarded routes. 


Comment Type: 

Support 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Para 7.11 ‐ Plot 6 at Temple Meads should also be protected for a future public transport interchange. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Andrew Stevens 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: A decent tram or light railway system is needed. This should have been done when Cabot Circus was constructed. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

SS Great Britain Trust 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The MetroBus stop "Spike Island for the SS Great Britain" must meet the demands of passengers by being as close as possible to the entrance to Gas 

Ferry Road. 

Other 

Page 30 of 162



SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Transport for Greater Bristol 

Comment Summary: No mention of possible city centre tramtrain network. Any central bus network should be planned with possibility of future conversion to tramtrain 

operation. The tram alignment protected in planning documents (Temple Meads, through Plot 6 to the Friary) must continue to be protected. 

All existing Network Rail and British Rail Residual Board owned land should be stated to be protected for continued railway use. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Railfuture 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Supports the protection of railway land at Kingsland Rd and former Refuse Transfer Station at Barrow Rd. Believe rail freight will grow due to road 

congestion, opportunities from electrification, re‐opening of Bristol Freightliner depot and proposal for deep water port at Avonmouth. 

Support 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The default position should be to protect the present rail infrastructure and dilapidated routes of all transport systems as they provide the actuality 

or possibility of through routes. 

Objection 

Page 31 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Business West 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Para 7.11 ‐ Comment is not possible on the important MetroBus routes. How will there be an opportunity to express views if this is only included at 

publication stage? 

Objection 


New interchange facilities 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Working with stakeholders to deliver an enhanced interchange as part of the masterplan study. 


Comment Type: 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Business West 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Para 7.14 ‐Concern on the lack of any clear policy on the transport and movement requirements around Temple Quarter Enterprise Zone. Is Spatial 

Framework now adopted as policy? 

Objection 



SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Page 32 of 162


Car and cycle parking in Bristol City Centre 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Bristol Cycling Campaign asks for some potentially positive items to be strengthened ‐ BCAP29 "development… expected to provide the minimum 

standards for cycle parking…" 

Objection 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Long term commuter parking needs to be protected in Temple Quarter to support passenger growth at the station. 


Comment Type: 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Pg35 includes a short, vague policy on design of car parking provision e.g. it should be "finished to a high standard" ‐ no clear guidance for DM or 

developers to ensure sustainability. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Sustrans 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: There is little mention of good quality cycle parking. There should be a requirement for any retail frontages and public realm improvements to 

include high quality cycle parking provision. 

Objection 

Page 33 of 162

Respondent: Bristol Tree Forum 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Consider car parks are a major opportunity to add green infrastructure. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Suggest amendments to Policy BCAP29 (Design of car parking in Bristol City Centre section) to read: 

"All parking, including on‐street and off street provision, should be finished to a high standard of design that preserves or enhances its context and 

contributes to the green infrastructure" 

Respondent: Joel Moreland 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to no commitment to reduce long term car parking. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Living Heart for Bristol 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Reference to car‐free development should be more specific (I.e. identify sites for car free developments). 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Para 7.18 should be reworded to remove the statement that some residential parking will "continue to be a necessity". This statement contradicts 

policy on car‐free housing. Extensions of residents parking zones offers possibility of car‐free development in locations outside meter zones (if wellserved 

by public transport). See London boroughs such as Camden for examples of this. 



SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Page 34 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Policy text is confusing and needs to be reworded. Resident parking schemes need to be mentioned in the plan giving a clear indication of the areas 

affected. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: New developments should anticipate increased demand for cycling ‐ including providing larger numbers of secure stands. Developers and BCC 

should start to provide all‐weather cycle parking in areas of high demand. Employers / developers of employment spaces should ensure there is 

provision for staff cycle stores. Employers should provide shower/ changing facilities for those walking / cycling. Retail / businesses should provide 

access for cycle couriers and cargo cycles. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Business West 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Para 7.16 ‐Getting the right balance is the key issue. Use of Smart and Electric cars also need to be considered and built in and can be accelerated 

potentially as part of Green Capital 2015. 

Other 


Pedestrian routes 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Sustrans 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: More references needed to "pedestrian and cycle" routes rather than pedestrian routes being viewed in isolation. The policy fails to recognise the 

importance of the legibility of cycle routes in the city centre area where legible city signing is inadequate for cycle navigation. Cycling facilities should 

be clearly signed and marked to signal their presence to all users. 

Objection 

Page 35 of 162


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The expectation that development will be expected to provide an appropriate level of public realm improvements to the pedestrian routes is 

considered to be an onerous requirement for smaller schemes and the policy should be amended to reflect appropriate requirements in line with 

the proposed scale of the development. 

Objection 


Quayside walkways 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Sustrans 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Disappointed that the policy fails to mention the importance of existing cycling facilities around Harbourside. Further cycle access should be sought 

through new development fronting Harbourside where it would improve access. 

Objection 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Ensure quayside walkways include ample space for two way traffic of cyclists and pedestrians. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 36 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Savills 

Comment Summary: Suggest the following text is added to the end of para 8.16: "The precise route should have regard to the need to adapt or compromise the integrity 

of historic buildings". 

Suggest "where feasible" is added between "expected" and "to" in the 1st sentence of the 1st para of Policy BCAP32. 


Comment Type: 

Consider the 2nd paragraph of BCAP32 should be deleted as it is an unviable proposition in most parts of the proposed walkway due to a lack of 

continuous footfall. 

Objection 


Coordinating major development 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Masterplan work supports the co‐ordinated development of sites at Temple Quarter. 


Comment Type: 

Other 


Temple Quarter Enterprise Zone 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: The masterplan supports this policy for Temple Quarter. 


Comment Type: 

Other 

Page 37 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Suggest the bullet point regarding "hotel and conference facilities" be re‐phrased to "hotel, food, drink and conference facilities" as there are closed 

pubs in the area which could be revived to serve occupiers of new developments in Bristol Temple Quarter. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The policy and preamble fails to mention the historic status of Brunel's Grade 1 listed Temple Meads Station. To accord with the NPPF the policy 

needs to set out how Temple Meads significance will be maintained during this period of change and how this activity may be positively employed to 

enhance its condition and setting. Consider whether BCAP needs to identify where development would be inappropriate because of the stations 

historic significance. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Temple Meads need to be completely overhauled. Another crossing point should be provided from Chatterton Sq to Temple Meads station. Good 

example is the revamp of Amsterdams Central Station which removed the majority of car traffic from the area. 

Other 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Para 9.1.3 ‐ Awareness of the Spatial Framework is not widely understood. 


Comment Type: 

Other 

Page 38 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Pg44 ‐ Major indoor arena / hotel / retail ‐ will these all conform with highest standards of legal requirements for meeting needs of people with 

disabilities? 

Other 

Respondent: Peter & Jenny Weeks 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: While supporting the aim of reducing traffic entering the city, car access to Temple Meads station from all parts of the city must continue. 

For Temple Meads to be successful it must be an interchange for all modes of transport including private transport and be equally accessible to all. 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Should be amended to emphasise ‐ access to redeveloped Temple Quarter will be via almost entirely non‐car modes. Parking should be strictly 

limited, pedestrianised with appropriate cycle routes. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: There are elements of BCAP which Bristol Cycling Campaign would like to particularly support and become involved in these include ‐ Para 9.1.4 ‐ 

"new walking and cycling routes to connect developments" 

Support 

Page 39 of 162


Bristol Shopping Quarter 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Para 9.2.5 ‐ Union St is already too narrow. How will it be improved unless the building line is brought back? 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Anthony Negus (Cllr) 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Support para 9.2.6. 


Comment Type: 

Support 

Para 9.2.7 ‐ There is a synergy between student use, night time and day time economies and students would inject life into an area otherwise turned 

off at night. 



SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Support the wording in the policy which seeks to direct major new retail development in this location as well as encouraging a diversification of uses. 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Union St should neither be considered as part of the primary shopping centre nor defined as having primary shopping frontages. 

The retail quarter would be more realistically consolidated to the east of Union St with alternative town centre uses or residential use being 

encouraged in Union St and the area to its west. 

Objection 

Page 40 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: There is no mention of green infrastructure despite evidence that trees increase the vitality of shopping areas. 

Suggested amendment to the 3rd para of Policy BCAP36 to read: 

"Development across the Bristol Shopping Quarter will be encouraged to implement innovative design solutions finished with high quality materials 

whilst respecting the surviving historic and landmark buildings and reflecting, where appropriate, the historic development of the area and 

contributing to the green infrastructure of the area" 

Objection 



SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Pubs are not mentioned in the policy. Suggest inclusion of "pubs and bars" in the specified leisure uses in the first para of policy BCAP36. 



SA Ref: 


Chapter: 5. Shopping, Services and the Evening Economy 

Comment Summary: Only primary retail space in Broadmead and some local centres for e.g. Clifton will survive. Nearly everything in between is economically vulnerable. 


High Street, Wine Street and Castle Park 

Respondent: D Ewins 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Object to development on Castle Park. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 41 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Gavin Spittlehouse 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: All the grass and trees in the St Mary le Port area should be retained and more added. Any redevelopment should be within the existing foundations 

and where possible the existing hard surfaces should be replaced by trees, grass and raised beds etc. 

Objection 

Respondent: Jemma Cross 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Object to development on Castle Park 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Pat Kingsbury 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development on any green areas of Castle Park. Loss of green space for this purpose is not justified due to the amount of vacant office 

and retail units in the centre. In favour of redeveloping derelict brownfield sites. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Paul Fletcher 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals on Castle Park. Losing trees or green space would be a great loss to people of Bristol, especially central office 

workers and shoppers (standard text response). 

Objection 

Page 42 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Jesmith 


Comment Type: 



Objection 

Respondent: Julia Guest 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Katie Gallacher 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Carla Denyer 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Object to development on Castle Park. It is a valuable space to get away from the noise and air pollution in the city and it would be a detriment to 

the city if the green space area was reduced. It is incompatible with Bristol's European Green Capital status. 

Objection 

Respondent: Graham Ditte 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 43 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Malcolm Fairbrother 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The green space in Castle Park should be protected but something should be done with the derelict buildings. Would not be opposed to a very small 

loss of open space if that helped facilitate some development but only a very small loss. 

Objection 

Respondent: Nicholas Eaton 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Siobhan Kierans 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Laura Ferrario 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Agree that the area of Castle Park on the corner of High St/Wine St needs redevelopment and that it would be a good thing to have more of a link 

between the main shops at Broadmead and the independent shops. However, opposed to the loss of green space/mature trees from the area. 

Perhaps a mix of structures could be used with lower profile at front and higher profile further back. 

Objection 

Page 44 of 162

Respondent: Jenny Nobbs 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals on Castle Park and also to the felling of any mature trees along High St & Wine St. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Paul Freeman 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Object to development on Castle Park as green space is very limited in this area. What is required is open retail space for independent retail 

concerns as per St Nicholas Market. 

Objection 

Respondent: Turloch O Siochain 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to any development on Castle Park. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Rob Holder 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development on Castle Park. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Pete Douglas 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 45 of 162

Respondent: Gemma Langley 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Object to development on Castle Park owing to loss of green space, felling of trees and impact on the pedestrian/cycle route. 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Ben Friedland 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Object to development on Castle Park. The disused car park adjacent to the old Bank of England building should be greened over and added to the 

park. 

Objection 

Respondent: Chris Rayner 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Supports the redevelopment of existing buildings (old Norwich Union building) but objects to any development on the green space at Castle Park. 

Respondent: Paula Dangerfield 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development on Castle Park 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Claudine Wheeler 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 46 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Sam Thomson 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: KS04 ‐ Does not object to redevelopment of St Mary‐le‐Port buildings but development should not be extended onto any additional green space. 

This area is shown in AGSP as 'important open space', and the AGSP identified that the central area already fails to meet minimum green space 

standards. The council should wait for a better economic market to enable the development of the current buildings. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Sam Thomson 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: KS07 ‐ Should not be used for anything other than ancillary facilities for the park (café, formal garden or play area). The previous depot area has 

always been designated as part of the park. 

Objection 

Respondent: Dr John Tarlton 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Object to loss of green space proposed at Castle Park as green space in central area is limited. Proposal contrary to European Green Capital status. 

Respondent: Brendan Tate 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Object to development on Castle Park. There is a lack of green space in inner city Bristol. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 47 of 162

Respondent: Gordon Bottoms 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Objects to development on Castle Park. Proposals should not encroach on green areas beyond the existing development or fell any mature trees. 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Support the reinstatement of historic streets. An example of the historic street plan should have been provided within the BCAP document overlaid 

to the site plan and a picture of the Dutch House and pre war St Mary le Port scheme. More should be made of the historic nature of this area. A 

phrase "missing quarter" was previously used on this site. In favor of removal of trees. Reason could include possible damage to 13c cellars under 

the site by tree roots. Would like to see cellars opened up as part of the development and for building designs on lower levels to be restricted to 

match historic foundations. 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Sam Thomson 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: KS05 ‐ Old Market Neighbourhood Development Plan have proposed this site be converted to green space, to help meet minimum green space 

standards in the central area. This is supported but only if this is in addition to Castle Park land and not as a land swap. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Rosie Morgan 


Comment Type: 



Objection 

Page 48 of 162

Respondent: Nick Rees 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Object to development on Castle Park. Do not allow any development that would reduce the amount of green space in the city centre. 

Respondent: Veronica Pollard 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Francisca Reinoso 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Liz Gooding 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals on Castle Park, due to the loss of valuable central green space of historical importance. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Jenny Rust 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The Castle Park area does need regeneration but the plans are not the way to go about it. The derelict buildings should be removed to allow for an 

enhancement of the remains of the medieval churches and existing earthworks. 

Objection 

Page 49 of 162

Respondent: Mike Sadler 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Richard Breakspear 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to the development of any green area of Castle Park. Efforts should be made to preserve the trees and enhance the public realm. Objects to 

the loss of trees along High St & Wine St. If roads were narrowed to pre WWII streets plans they would be to narrow for buses & large vehicle to 

pass. Suggests along the eastern side of Castle Park a pedestrian walkway could provide natural surveillance to the park. 

Objection 

Respondent: Jo Corke 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Object to development on Castle Park. Inconsistency between section 6 (European Green Capital) and section 9.3 (Castle Park development). 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Mustafa Sarioglu 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Object to development on Castle Park. The derelict buildings should be demolished and the space be made available to public in the form of a 

playground for kids, recreation area or skateboarding. 

Objection 

Page 50 of 162

Respondent: Denise Sebastian 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Jane Pursey 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Object to development on Castle Park. Development should be concentrated around Temple Meads. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Mark Lilley 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Jason Warren 


Comment Type: 



Objection 

Respondent: Laura Corke 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Objects to any development on existing Castle Park. The main attraction of Bristol is the way it is built up around these green spaces. 

Page 51 of 162

Respondent: Dr Jenny Slaughter 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Object to development on Castle Park and the felling of mature trees. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Richard Simms 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Tracey Hatch 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Jennifer Hill 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Object to development on Castle Park. It should not be encroached upon and all trees should be protected. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Joe Hoare 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: The development area should not encroach upon Castle Park or cause the felling of mature street trees. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 52 of 162

Respondent: Steve Hudson 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: William Alden 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Objects to development on Castle Park. The green area is a major attraction widely enjoyed by workers, shoppers and tourists. 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Amy Ackland 


Comment Type: 



Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Kate Burton 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to any development on Castle Park. Agrees the old Lloyds building should be redeveloped but not at the expense of any green space in this 

area. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Katherine Martin 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Object to development of green space at Castle Park but would be happy to see the derelict buildings demolished and the site of the original 

medieval carfax given real prominence. 

Objection 

Page 53 of 162

Respondent: Maria Kabakova‐Upfold 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: David McKeown 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Object to development on Castle Park and the felling of mature street trees. If anything like the current plans are built it ceases to be a park. 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Jacob McMurchie 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Object to development on Castle Park. This proposal undermines the need to preserve green infrastructure in the city which is set out in chapter 6 of 

the document. The proximity of the green area to Corn St is crucial in identifying the character of the area as "old" Bristol. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Paul Newport 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Object to development on Castle Park, however, would support development of the derelict buildings. Consider building on green space is against 

Bristol's claim of being a green city. 

Objection 

Page 54 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Clare Ogden 

Comment Summary: Consultation questions 9.3.6: 

Q1 ‐ No. Development should be restricted to existing buildings only and not encroach on the grass/trees of Castle Park. 

Q2 ‐ Yes. Support Roger Mortimers alternative plan (see 0362) put forward by Castle Park Users Group. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Consultation questions 9.3.7: 

Q1 ‐ No. Please leave the trees where they are. 

Q2 ‐ Yes. Support Roger Mortimers alternative plan (see 0362) put forward by Castle Park Users Group. 

Respondent: Clive Oughton 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Simon Oxenham 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Object to development on Castle Park. The derelict buildings need renovating but there should no development on the green space. 

Respondent: Matt Larkham 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 55 of 162

Respondent: Amy McArthur 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Annabel Williams 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Ev Milker 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Amy Harrison 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Anna White 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals on Castle Park 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 56 of 162

Respondent: Kamala Banerji 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Emma Bond 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Alice Corbel 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Jill Tarlton 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Wendy Moreton 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 57 of 162

Respondent: Susannah Mallaghan 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Paul Hunt 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Against any removal of trees or reduction in green space at Castle Park. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Sally Britton 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Jo Barrell 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Kevin George 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 58 of 162

Respondent: Sara Melia 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Policy as it relates to KS05 should be amended to only allow uses compatible with a residential area (I.e. no late night leisure uses) 

Respondent: Sara Melia 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Policy as it relates to KS05 should be amended preserve access to natural daylight for residents of Ferrymans Court 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Para 9.3.6 ‐ The option in the plan is only one of many options. Others should be considered, including one which maximises the extent of Castle 

Park and confines built development to the three existing buildings. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Para 9.3.7 ‐ The option of narrowing High St and Wine St closer to their historic proportions is not straight forward. The mature trees are now 

attractive parts of the central area and careful study needs to take place to consider the pros and cons of any options which involve their removal. If 

retained there is potential to maximise their contribution and create more attractive tree lined boulevards. 

Other 

Page 59 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The Ambulance Station site (identified for the improvement of the provision of green space in the Old Market NDP)‐ regeneration of this part of the 

city centre should be delivered in conjunction with the improvement of Old Market Roundabout and the area around St Philips Church. 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Business West 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Support the proposed policy enabling redevelopment of St Mary‐le‐Port with wider regeneration benefits for the adjoining areas. The policy should 

enable sympathetic development. 

Support 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Para 9.3.6‐7 ‐ Surely this has been debated enough? 


Comment Type: 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Business West 

Comment Summary: St Mary le‐Port, the Ambulance Station including Castle Ditch and the Vaulted Chambers and the Council depot off Queen St are noted as suitable 

for redevelopment/reuse. 

The recently landscaped site at Lower Castle St offers a new gateway to Castle Park. 


Comment Type: 

Support 

Page 60 of 162

Respondent: Destination bristol 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Sympathetic redevelopment is long overdue and would have a positive impact on the central area. 


Comment Type: 

Support 

Appreciate that to achieve an economically viable scheme some land from Castle Park might have to be integrated into the development. 

Every reasonable effort should be made to find a development partner that could deliver a scheme on the existing footprint of the site. If this is not 

possible then the wider impact should be accepted with replacement of trees and public realm improvements in the remainder of the park. 

Respondent: Ben Seabourne 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Roz Clarke 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development of Castle Park 


Comment Type: 

Objection 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: The plan in section 9.3 should appear far earlier and should also be in the policies map document. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 61 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Para 9.3.6 ‐ None of the green space of the park should be lost. Instead more should be added with the demolition of some of the dilapidated 

buildings. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Cllr Alex Woodman 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Para 9.3.6 ‐ The loss of existing street trees is unacceptable. Any narrowing of High St/Wine St should be achieved without sacrificing the trees, for 

e.g. by creating an enhanced pedestrian space. 

The boundary indicated for development includes too much green space. Ideally redevelopment should take place within the footprint of the 

existing buildings with any poor quality green space included if absolutely necessary. If this cannot be achieved because of viability, a much taller 

building would be the preference over an increased footprint. 

Objection 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: (Also para 8.5) ‐ Using your policies it is appropriate to reinvent the city in this location not restore it. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

The Tree forum objects to the loss of up to 44 mature trees. The proposed replacement ratio of 10:1 is noted but don't see how 440 trees can be 

planted in central Bristol. The centre is where they are most needed for climate change mitigation but there is a lack of appropriate spaces. We 

would welcome an analysis of where such pits could be located. Policy BCS9 states that development should retain existing trees wherever possible. 

Not persuaded that the options that would retain some or all of the trees have been properly considered. 

The work on identifying street tree planting locations in the old city should be included to show whether it is feasible to replace any street trees lost 

in this area. 

Page 62 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Para 9.3.6 (consultation questions) ‐ Q1‐ No the area has been designated important open space and there was cross party agreement to protect 

open space and not dispose of any for development. 

Q2 ‐ Other options include: 

a) retaining the green space and the trees to contribute to the environment of the central area. 

B) Creating a farmers market and/or retail market area within the existing green infrastructure. 

Q3 ‐ No the trees affected are all well established providing significant benefit in respect of urban heat island and air quality. 

Q4 ‐ Yes. Retain the trees and use them as an asset to encourage expansion of the St Nicholas Market area. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Mark Henstridge 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to proposal to reduce size of Castle Park 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Laura Abdou 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to proposal to build on Castle Park 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 63 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Laura Abdou 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Reduction in amount of City Centre green space will have adverse impact on business as the City Centre will no longer be such an attractive place to 

come to. 

Objection 

Respondent: Bob Langton 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development of Castle Park beyond the footprint of existing buildings 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Ben Lanyon & Jodie Comperat 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Emma Rygol 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Rachel Slee 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 64 of 162

Respondent: Sue Taylor 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Megan Jarman & Kiranjit Mejer 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Concerned that the leisure uses associated with development of the ambulance station (KS05) could create noise, traffic and other nuisance. 

Request restrictions on late night noise, and delivery hours in order to protect residential amenity 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Megan Jarman & Kiranjit Mejer 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Concerned that development of the ambulance station site (KS05) may include tall buildings. Request that development should be at a level (height) 

consistent with the surrounding townscape 

Objection 

Respondent: Helen Sewell 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Amy Creech 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 65 of 162

Respondent: Amy Creech 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Concerned about loss of cycle route through Castle Park 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Amanda Brown 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Sandra Bartolomeu‐Rook 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Chandra Wilby 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Dominique Pahud 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 66 of 162

Respondent: Helen Williams 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Mary Bannerman 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Areas adjoining or linked to the park, such as the service yard, the Ambulance Station site and the area at the junction of Broad Wier and Lower 

Castle Street should be used for extending Castle Park and not for other purposes. 

Other 

Respondent: Ben Lanyon & Jodie Comperat 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Object to development of Ambulance Station Site (KS05) 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Susan Acton‐Campbell 

Comment Summary: Consultation Qns 

Para 9.3.6 Q1 ‐ No. Only development within the footprint of the existing buildings is acceptable. 

Para 9.3.6 Q2 ‐ One option is to demolish all the buildings, then take the joint footprint area and put that in one development on the NE corner of 

Wine St and High St, restoring the rest of the area as park land and replacing some lost trees in that area and having fewer, smaller street trees 

closer to the road or in a central reservation on Wine St and High St. 

Para 9.3.7 Q1 ‐ Some could if suggestions in respect of 9.3.6 above are followed. 

Para 9.3.7 Q2 ‐ Any that mean the existing green space will not be reduced. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 67 of 162

Respondent: Mary Bannerman 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Mary‐le‐Port site ‐ The park space between Bridge St and the water should not be used for development and both rows of cherry trees should be 

protected. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Thought should be given to moving St Nicholas Market into a combination of St Nicholas Church and newly constructed space in the St Mary‐le‐Port 

development. 

Stourhead estate should be contacted again to ask for the return of the Bristol High Cross for the redevelopment. Failing this the historic replica 

from Berkeley Square should be restored and used. 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Bristol Parks Forum 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Concern that the City Council has not consulted separately on the principle of disposal of green space at Castle Park, especially given the campaign 

against disposals in other parts of the city. 

Objection 

Page 68 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: St Mary‐le‐Port Site KS04 

The development area should be as shown in the Feb 2012 BCAP consultation document. Do not accept the area needs to be extended to provide a 

viable development. List the requirements for the development from the 2012 document which BPF agree with. 

Objection 

Respondent: Bristol Parks Forum 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Consultation questions para 9.3.6 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Q1 ‐ No. The boundary should be as shown in Feb 2012 document. 

Q2 ‐ An imaginative and viable scheme could be designed without building on Castle Park and without removing the trees. The streets could be 

narrowed under the trees forming public space to be used for outdoor markets or seating areas. 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Consultation questions Para 9.3.7 

Q1 ‐ None of the existing mature trees should be removed. If trees are to be removed then felling should not be permitted until suitable 

replacement sites have been identified. Replacements should be as a minimum in accordance with the standards in DM policies based on the size of 

the tree felled. Support view that at least 10 trees would be required to replace each. This should be a condition of any planning approval and 

written into final BCAP document. 

Q2 ‐ An imaginative and viable scheme could be designed without building on Castle Park and without removing the trees. The streets could be 

narrowed under the trees forming public space to be used for outdoor markets or seating areas. 

Objection 

Page 69 of 162


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Site KS07 ‐Land to the west of Castle St/Queen St 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Object to the proposed allocation for housing. It was not suggested for disposal as part of the AGSP consultation. Disposal would set a precedent. 

Site should be allocated as Important Open Space. If not needed for park operations then use would be supported for small scale development 

which is ancillary to the park and of benefit to users e.g. café or information centre. 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Site KS06 ‐ Land at Lower Castle St and Broad Weir 


Comment Type: 

Other 

Support exploration of opportunities to provide a new gateway. The site should not be used for retail use. Any development should form an 

attractive green area and forms an attractive park entrance. 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Site KS05 ‐ Central Ambulance Station 

Welcome the ideas for the site set out in the Draft Old Market Quarter NDP. Expansion of the park onto the site currently occupied by a car park and 

the incorporation of Castle St into the park has great potential to enhance the park and its setting and should be included in BCAP. 

Other 

Page 70 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Allison Bromilow 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Para 9.3.7 Consultation questions: 

Q1 ‐ No. Street trees should be retained. 

Q2 ‐ Yes. Studies should be undertaken looking at options to narrow streets by using single storey structures which support types of business 

presently in St Nicholas Market. 

Objection 

Respondent: Diane Acon 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Object to any development at Castle Park. It one of the few green areas in Bristol and should be kept. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Para 9.3.6 consultation questions: 

Q1 ‐ No the St Mary ‐le‐Port site and Castle Park Important open space should be designated as previously shown in the BCAPP Old City Options 

consultation. 

Q2 ‐ Yes. A number of options (including that put forward by Roger Mortimer) should be investigated and assessed. 

Objection 

Respondent: Antony Scott 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: The development area should not encroach on Castle Park or cause felling of mature trees. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 71 of 162

Respondent: Jennifer Ashman 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Do not develop Castle Park. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Pippa Auton 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Steve and Anne Barraud 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Object to development on Castle Park as it would reduce the sense of openness and tranquility of the park. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Jeremy Birch 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Object to development on Castle Park owing to loss of green space and trees. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Philip Bird 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 72 of 162

Respondent: Marcus Blitz 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Bristol‐in‐Bloom Community Association 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Simon Bright 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Francoise Brindle 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Matthew Bryan 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 73 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: General agreement with wording where not compromised elsewhere. 

Site KS04 St Mary‐le‐Port 

The site area is out of kilter with undertakings made by the democratic city council. 


Comment Type: 

Other 

Respondent: Peter Spavin 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Vanessa Cheng 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Sarah Hughes 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 74 of 162

Respondent: Sarah Hughes 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to the loss of any trees on Castle Park, or in High Street or Wine Street 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Sarah Hughes 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Suggests the scheme proposed by http://www.castlepark.org.uk should be considered as it offers redevelopment in a more sustainable way that 

allows a more seamless interface with Castle Park 

Other 

Respondent: Janet Faire 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Harriet Lloyd 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Wendy Pollard 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 75 of 162

Respondent: Wendy Pollard 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to the loss of trees surrounding the existing Bank of England Buildings 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Wendy Pollard 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Supports the extension of the park into the Ambulance Station site, the retention of the parks depot and the use of the land at the Broad Wier / 

Lower Castle Street junction as part of Castle Park 

Support 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Wendy Pollard 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Any development of the Bank of England Site needs to include housing in order to provide a balance of uses and 24 hour natural surveillance of the 

area 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Cllr Tim Kent 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The BCAP includes a larger area than what was planned under the last Liberal Democrat administration. These plans were stopped when it became 

clear they were unpopular. A new scheme was published which included far less park area. The current BCAP massively increases the development 

area which will be unacceptable to the public. Demand to know why ideas have not been shared with councillors and public at an earlier stage. 

Objection 

Page 76 of 162

Respondent: Sarah Piercey 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Mary Bannerman 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Supports the improvement of the St Mary le Port area, including reinstating St Mary le Port Street, providing a safe street crossing and extending 

the market area in that direction. 

Support 

Respondent: David Thorogood 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Paulios Bailey 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: David & Estela Harryman 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 77 of 162

Respondent: Mario Zapata 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Toni Brown 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to any loss of green space at Castle Park. More green space should be available in the centre. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Sara Cox 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Andrew Twemlow 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: The development area should not encroach upon Castle Park or cause the felling of mature street trees. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 78 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Agree with aim to address development of the St Mary le Port area, however, there are some aspects of the proposed approach that are 

unacceptable. 

The importance of the street trees is not recognised (shading, pollution reduction, air quality enhancement etc). 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Narrowing Wine St and High St does not have to mean felling the trees and the old city pattern does not mean new buildings have to be erected on 

the back of the pavement line of the former street line. The narrowing with a full height building would create a narrow heavily shaded street which 

would not encourage the expansion of the street market in Corn St and St Nicholas Market. 

If the option to recreate the street pattern using single height structures between the trees keeping development of the St Mary‐le‐Port site to the 

existing buildings a useful and attractive area of public realm could be created which could still provide an opportunity for incorporation of a new 

modern high cross or Dutch House. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Without a revision to the bus routes and interchange location this area is going to remain heavily used by buses. No evidence provided where this 

traffic would go, therefore, viability of street narrowing is in doubt. 

Objection 

Page 79 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Concerned that the larger site is being suggested on the basis of viability. Consider it is premature to de‐designate Important Open Space. The 

decision on whether loss of park area or street trees is acceptable should be decided through the planning application process when details of 

proposals are available. 

Objection 

Respondent: Raphaella Oliveira 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Sam Kendon 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: In support of the redevelopment at Castle Park and the narrowing of street patterns. Also in support of reinstating the cross‐roads at the High St. 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Tom Ackland 



There are plenty of run‐down offices in the area which could be redeveloped for commercial purposes. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 80 of 162

Respondent: M F H Hobbs 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals at Castle Park. The buildings should not be replaced the park should be extended to the High St / Wine St. 

Respondent: R Nicholls 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals at Castle Park. Development should stay within boundaries of existing buildings, car parks and hardstanding. 

Respondent: Sarina Hayes 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Objects to proposed development at Castle Park. Existing buildings should be refurbished with no loss of green space / trees. 

Respondent: Sarah Curl 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to the loss of green space at Castle Park. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 81 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Jane Devlin 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals at Castle Park due to the loss of green space/ trees and the impact on the environment. The park is well used as a 

cultural facility; including through festivals such as Pride. The proposed development will negatively effect this event space. The existing cycle / 

pedestrian access into Castle park needs to be maintained. 

The plan is based on a flawed economic model with references to economic growth as a marker for economic health. Further retail outlets will not 

help the people of Bristol. 

Objection 

Respondent: Charlotte White 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals at Castle Park ‐ agree the existing building should be redeveloped but not by encroaching on the park. 

Respondent: Richard Snow 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals at Castle Park. If the end plot is sold there should be no loss of green space. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Kitty Henry 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to the loss of green space / trees at Castle Park. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 82 of 162

Respondent: Paddy Bannerman 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to any loss of green space at Castle Park. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Sam Kendon 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Although in support of redevelopment proposals, they do not propose enough restoration of dense historic centre. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Fraser Bridgeford 

Comment Summary: KS04 ‐ Objects to development proposals at Castle Park. There should be no loss of this Important Open Space (PGSS), the increasing central 

population is already putting additional pressure on green infrastructure. KS04 should also not include a loss of mature trees. The proposed area is 

the most highly valued area of park by users. Objects to the emphasis on retail uses ‐ further provision in Bristol would further deteriorate from 

other town centres. Venuescore shows overprovision of retail relative to affluence weighted demand. 

KS06 ‐ Should be limited to providing a new gateway to Castle Park ‐ including ramped access. 

KS07 ‐ Not suitable for new homes. Depots are intrinsic parts of park area, if depot were to move area should revert back to a use consistent with 

the park. 

Objects to restoring High St & Wine St to their previous proportions. We should look to the future for 21st century design. 

9.3.6 ‐ No. Development should remain within footprint of existing building. 

9.3.7 ‐ No ‐ Existing trees should be incorporated into any development. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 83 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

John Young 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to current development proposals at Castle Park. Improvements should not be rushed for financial gain. Current boundaries appear too 

restrictive ‐ consider possibility of realigning Wine St. and High St. to create a square at junction of Broad St / Corn St. Enabling extension of market 

into this area and new building enclosing sq which could take pressure of green space developments. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: KS05 ‐ Policy wording amendment (to encourage mixed uses) ‐ currently reads "A mix of uses including leisure and new homes will be suitable on 

this site" ‐ should be amended to ‐ "A mix of uses including leisure, new homes or other appropriate city centre uses will be suitable on this site". 

Current policy states the Godwin building is listed, which it is not. Do not support the assumption that this building should be retained on the site ‐ 

the building was not constructed to Godwins original plans and has been heavily remodeled. Retaining the building could effect the sites viability. 

Misleading text ‐ the vaulted chambers are within Castle Park site not Ambulance Station ‐ suggest replacing forth bullet with "Further 

considerations to the potential historic features on this site and those in the site surroundings including the chambers of Bristol Castle, a Scheduled 

Ancient Monument within Castle Park" 

Relating to the fifth bullet point ‐ the importance of the culvert should not be set in policy wording until further details are known on its condition 

(may be a pipe or ditch not a feature). Suggest deleting the fifth bullet point and replacing with: "Considerations to the potential archaeological 

interest of the culvert running below the site and reasonable exploration to reveal the feature as part of a future development scheme". 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Austin Ferrante 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Supports the Parks Forums position (see 0348). Objects to current development proposals at Castle Park. Only the existing developed area should be 

redeveloped. 

Objection 

Page 84 of 162

Respondent: Lucia Delli‐Compagni 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to the loss of grassland and trees in Castle Park proposal. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Gaye Tye 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Kate Griffiths 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to the loss of green space & trees at Castle Park. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Huw Harding‐Reyland 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Supports the general objectives of St Mary‐le‐Port improvements, but against the loss of green space. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 85 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Davina Madden 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to any development on Castle Park or the felling of any trees along Wine St and High St. Existing buildings should be refurbished. Large 

buildings have greater running costs, reduce light levels and adversely effect the surrounding environment. Bristol has many empty retail units, 

offices and houses across the city which should be brought back into use before building new ones. The park should be given Town Green status. 

Any loss of parkland would go against Bristol's recent success in winning European Green Capital 2015. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Teresa Cook 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objection to development at Castle Park. There are enough shops, empty office buildings and stalled developments in the centre. There is not 

enough open space. 

Objection 

Respondent: Meriel Lee 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development at Castle Park. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Michelle Griffin 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development at Castle Park. Losing green space and trees will contribute to global warming. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 86 of 162

Respondent: Sharon Seymour 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Semone Williams‐Shaw 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Elaine Snell 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to loss of green space at Castle Park. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: John Dunn 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to the loss of green space at Castle Park. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 87 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Roger Ford 

Comment Summary: Consultation question 9.3.6 ‐ If this is what it takes to get a viable commercial scheme then yes. 

Suggested points ‐ The old back of Bridge St kept open as foot/cycle path ‐ preserving remaining cobbled surface. The avenue of mature trees 

running north‐east from Bridge St be preserved. The pre‐war aspect of the city from Victoria St partly restored with a tall terrace at Bristol Bridge 

end of Bridge St. Bristol Bridge preserved as pedestrian Street. Dolphin St name revived for north east edge of the scheme. 

Consultation question 9.3.7 ‐ Yes ‐ A sacrifice worth making in the interests of restoring medieval centre and making scheme viable. 


Comment Type: 

Support 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Colin Adcock 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals at Castle Park. Supports the redevelopment of derelict building but not the loss of green space. A better idea 

would be to knock the building down and extend the park. 

Objection 

Respondent: Henrietta Bird 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to loss of green space at Castle Park. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Lauren Dawney 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals on part of Castle Park. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 88 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Tom Robinson 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to the development proposals at Castle Park. The building should be retained and adapted as a market building with indoor units and 

storage for out‐door market. A fresh produce market would be of great benefit in this area dominated by supermarket chains. 

Objection 

Respondent: Alexandra Moorhouse 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals on part of Castle Park. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Jill Osborne 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals at Castle Park. Approves the refurbishment of existing buildings but against loss of green space and trees. 

Respondent: Stuart Boulton 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals at Castle Park. Regenerate existing buildings but do not lose green space and trees. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 89 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Geoff Collard 

Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals at Castle Park. By losing open space the council is not following its own objective of safeguarding Castle Park "as a 

large publicly accessible city centre open space". 

Para 9.3.3 ‐Objects to building on existing green space. Existing buildings are in need of refurbishment. The boundary should include only existing 

buildings / concreted area, not green space or existing trees. 

Suggestion made in relation to maintaining the street line, refurbishing the existing buildings in traditional styles and incorporating a covered food 

market. 

Para 9.3.7 ‐ Objects to the cutting down of any trees in this area. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Neil Monty‐Smith 


Comment Type: 



Objection 

Respondent: Paula Strickland 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to any loss of green space or trees at Castle Park. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 90 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

R C Bruce 

Comment Summary: Objects to proposed development of Castle Park. P&GSS delineates need to "safeguard and enhance Castle Park". 

Proposals have no definition of how 'economic viability' is to be calculated. 

KS07 ‐ should remain part of the park not suitable for residential development. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Richard Hill 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals at Castle Park. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Roger Mortimer 

Comment Summary: Para 9.3.3 ‐ "The overriding objectives for the area would be to safeguard and enhance Castle Park…" ‐ Agreed 

Para 9.3.5 "Street Pattern" ‐ St Mary‐le‐Port can be reinvented as a pedestrian street connecting existing footpath route. 


Comment Type: 

Support 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Para 9.3.4 ‐ Castle Park does not need regeneration. It does require replacement play facilities, improvement to historic interpretation, repair from 

major events etc. ‐ all included in community and officer review of the park. This was part of the Neighbourhood Partnership bid for Capital Stimulus 

funding ‐ where they were awarded £500,000 (still to be expended). Therefore the park does not depend on regeneration of St Mary‐le‐Port. 

Objection 

Page 91 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: An extension to St Nicholas market / Old City retail activity has potential for success, however extent of retail space implied is very optimistic and 

would further damage Broadmead. Active retail frontages facing park not realistic due to poor footfall. 

Question Para 9.3.6 ‐ No ‐ Reasons given: 1. Loss of green space (P&GSS) noticed deficit of central green space ‐ loss is contrary to Green 

Infrastructure policy). 2. Financial viability ‐ No figures relating to required retail floorspace or frontage to support assertion concerning critical mass 

of retail. The use of upper floorspace would be a major factor in viability. 

Question Para 9.3.7 ‐ No ‐ Reasons given: 1. The urban design theory is flawed (a) narrowing of streets ‐ people far more interested in quality public 

space than the historical reference proposed. (b) reinstatement of Dutch House & High Cross ‐ impossible to do on historic sites ‐ reducing historic 

relevance. (c) Impact on traffic ‐ no acknowledgement or solutions for impact of vehicular traffic. 

Green Infrastructure ‐ Proposals do not accord with councils policy over green issues in general (specifically OC2 ‐ Central Area Action Plan and 

Public Realm & Movement Framework). The trees at High St & Wine St provide a visual link to Broadmead and tie into Castle Park. The loss of 

mature trees would dishonor 2015 Green Capital status, they could not be replanted in suitable locations and would have damaging environmental 

consequences. 

Alternative approaches: Building line ‐ Narrow streets would exaggerate light, pollution, noise etc. Alternative to create new public realm ‐ new 

landscaped trading / social area between new shop frontages and highway ‐ marking a narrow street pattern at ground level. Market stalls etc could 

be seen to reference medieval life. New public realm could be achieved without losing trees. 

Objection 

Respondent: Chris Bentley 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 92 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Christopher Lelong 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals at Castle Park. There are many empty buildings in the vicinity and it should be a priority to make use of these, 

before building more. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Castle Park Users Group 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals at Castle Park. All green space and trees should be protected. Answers to questions in sections 9.3.6 & 9.3.7 are 

therefore no. Other options for development should be considered which don't include the loss of green space / trees. 

Objection 

Respondent: Johnny Devas 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Dario Domizioli 

Comment Summary: 9.3.6 ‐ Ideally would not lose any green space but understands there is an economic viability issue. However the area marked is too large ‐ potential 

problems include ‐ Zone A (see map ‐ High St entrance) objection to severance of cycle / pedestrian routes, which will disconnect areas of the city ‐ 

affecting both people and business. Zone B (see map ‐ opposite Union St) also objects here to severance of cycle / pedestrian routes. 

9.3.7 ‐ Objects to the removal of trees at Wine St. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 93 of 162

Respondent: Paul Upfold 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Helen White 

Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals at Castle Park. No justification for losing green space or felling trees. 

Questions ‐ 9.3.6 ‐ "…. Should the area proposed for development fall within the boundary indicated" No. 

"Are there other options…" Yes. Suggests leveling the buildings to provide enlarged green space. 

"….should existing street trees be removed…" No. 

"Are there other options which should be considered" Yes. With any all green space and trees should be preserved. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Mary Wells 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals at Castle Park. Suggests a better idea would be to knock down the derelict buildings and grass over, expanding 

the parkland. 

Objection 

Page 94 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Denis & Angela Stuckey 

Comment Summary: Question 9.3.6 ‐ Objects to development proposals which include a loss of green areas of Castle Park. Also objects to the viability argument, by the 

time the project is developed property prices will have risen dramatically, making the scheme involving the redevelopment of just the existing 

buildings viable. 

Question 9.3.7 ‐ Narrowing of the streets is impractical ‐ detrimentally effecting bus and car traffic. No street trees should be removed for this idea. 

There is also nowhere in the central region for the number of replanted trees suggested. 

KS05 & KS07 ‐ should be grassed over and added to Castle Park. Lower Castle St / Broadweir area should be improved. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Fiona Sultana 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals at Castle Park. Would rather see sites such as former Royal Mail sorting office built on before ruining green space 

at Castle Park. 

Objection 

Respondent: Clare Norman 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals at Castle Park. Refurbishment of existing buildings is supported but no loss of green space. 

Respondent: Peter Chapman 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals at Castle Park. Refurbishment of existing buildings is supported but no loss of green space. 

Page 95 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Paul Kelly 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals at Castle Park. The redevelopment of derelict buildings is supported but not at the expense of green space. No 

shortage of offices, cafes in this area but there is a shortage of open space. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Jane Cunningham 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Supports Bristol Parks Forum response to Castle Park (see response 0348). Any development will require greater open space, so a minimal amount 

of encroachment should be priority. 

Objection 

Respondent: Julian Norman 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to the proposed development at Castle Park. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Simon Bradshaw 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to the development proposals at Castle Park. It is a invaluable area of central green space. Development at odds considering Bristol's Green 

Capital status 2015. 

Objection 

Page 96 of 162

Respondent: Eileen Stonebridge 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to the reduction of open space at Castle Park and the loss of trees on Wine St. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Changing the building line back to the Medieval street line is nonsense with present traffic conditions. 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Daniel Yeo‐Smith 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to the redevelopment proposals at Castle Park. Development could include concreted area along Wine St but if well‐designed does not need 

to take space from Castle Park. 

Objection 

Respondent: Ruth Dawson 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Objects to loss of green space and trees at Castle Park and High St / Wine St. If anything we should remove buildings to create more green space. 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Ruta Delany 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals at Castle Park. The loss of trees and replanting programme is questionable due to the expense and lack of central 

space for planting. 

Objection 

Page 97 of 162

Respondent: R I M Kerr 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Supports the proposals for this site. Preserving a substantial park whilst enabling re‐creation of historic centre. 


Comment Type: 

Support 

Respondent: Ana Lopez Ruiz 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development on green area of Castle Park. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Nicolette Vincent 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to the development proposals at Castle Park. The central area needs more green space reiterated in AGSS. Wherever the opportunity arises 

to raze unwanted buildings and replace them with gardens ‐ this should be done. It may be costly but would be beneficial for the people of Bristol in 

the face of a hotter more crowed future. 

The internet and globalisation has reduced the need for as many shops and offices. There are many boarded up buildings which should be brought 

back into use. 

Objection 

Respondent: John Reynolds 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals at Castle Park. Existing buildings should be redeveloped but there shouldn't be such a loss of park land. 

Page 98 of 162

Respondent: Sian Symmonds 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals at Castle Park. Existing buildings should be refurbished without destroying green space. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Katie Collins 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development on Castle Park. Would encourage the refurbishment of existing buildings. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Robert Tapper 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development on Castle Park. The park as it stands provides a much needed "lung" to the city centre. A sympathetic redevelopment 

involving smaller shops and residential development (although not attractive to developers) is necessary to reinstate the historic character. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Suze Attaway 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to redevelopment of St Mary‐le‐Port encroaching on the park or requiring any felling of trees. Bristol is already lacking in central green 

spaces. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Jayne Taylor 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals on Castle Park. A vital green, historic land at the heart of the city. The development would go directly against 

2015 Bristol Green Capital ethos. 

Objection 

Page 99 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Gill Brown 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals at Castle Park. The loss of 15% park area is unacceptable. The central area is already greatly lacking with green 

open space. Also objects to the loss of mature trees which provide greenery, shade and pollution absorption. There is a lack of suitable space to 

plant proposed replacements. 

Objects to the idea of recreating medieval street plans at Wine St and High St due to pedestrian safety, light and views of the river. To recreate 

Bristol's historic past we could introduce a colonnaded area with market stalls. Objects to the proposal to extend building line to the edge of the 

pathway from Bristol Bridge/ High St ‐this would create a narrow uninviting entrance. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Fiona Lewis 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals at Castle Park and the loss of mature trees at High St & Wine St. Supports the refurbishment of existing buildings 

but not at the expense of green space. 

Objection 

Respondent: John Scott 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Supports the proposals put forward by the Bristol Parks Forum (see response 0348) Objects to the loss of green space and trees. 

Page 100 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Nick Christo 

Comment Summary: Support the position taken by the Environment Working Group (0134/01):Object to development proposals on Castle Park. 

Consultation questions: 

Para 9.3.6 Q 1 ‐ No. Development must not encroach on the existing area of the park and should remain within the footprint of the existing 

development. Careful use of the space within the existing footprint will allow a well‐designed and viable scheme. 

Para 9.3.6 Q 2 ‐ No. 

Para 9.3.7 Q 1 ‐ No. The existing mature trees on High St and Wine St should be incorporated into any development rather than felled. 

Para 9.3.7 Q 2 ‐ Incorporate the existing green infrastructure into any development. Take additional land required from road space. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Proposals in High St, Wine St and Castle Park should not prejudice major development coming forward in the Bristol Shopping Quarter. The policy 

text for each development site should specifically state that any retail proposals should provide a complementary retail function of the Bristol 

Shopping Quarter. 

Objection 

Respondent: Ken Wilkinson 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 101 of 162

Respondent: Brian Williams 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Damaris Young 


Comment Type: 


Query why the existing buildings can't be refurbished and ask what happens when funding provided by the sale of land runs out. Consider funding 

for maintenance of the park should come from the parks dept budget and that empty buildings throughout the city should be brought back into use 

before building new. Asks if it is necessary to connect two different shopping areas with more shops. 

Objection 

Respondent: Sue Graham 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Stuart Bardsley 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Object to development encroaching onto Castle Park and the felling of any mature trees. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 102 of 162

Respondent: Richard Breakspear 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Supports reinstatement of Mary‐le‐Port St as pedestrian only link with new crossing connecting High St to St Nicholas Market. 

Respondent: Eileen Eastment 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Object to the proposed development at Castle Green. However, not opposed to the refurbishment of the existing buildings. 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Anthony Beeson 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Support site to be restored to its pre war status. The townscape needs to be narrower and more crowded with buildings than at present. These 

should be of a size to echo those on the surviving side of the street, perhaps incorporating modern interpretations of historic Bristolian vernacular 

architectural features. The reinstatement of a narrow St Mary le Port St is essential. Would support the Dutch House a copy of the High Cross being 

rebuilt. Enhancement or uncovering of historic features should be a priority in any development. 

Support 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Sue Flint 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Para 9.3.1 ‐ Few people remember Castle Park pre 1940 ‐ little point hankering for the past. 

Para 9.3.2 ‐ Is the ambulance station to be banished? Where to? 

Para 9.3.4 ‐ What is meant by rationalising? Opposed to loss of green space. 

Para 9.3.6 ‐ Narrowing paving of NE/SW face of buildings is acceptable, although some mature trees should be kept ‐ potential incorporation into 

patio areas for new building facades. 

Objection 

Page 103 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Kim Davison 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The redevelopment ideas around Castle Park are too timid and set in a historic city that doesn't exist anymore. 

Wine St/Newgate/Broad Weir should be a modern tree lined boulevard spine of a regenerated city centre. Need high quality public transport, wide 

footways and cycle routes into the centre. Reskin the Galleries car park to create an attractive place to walk. There should be substantial 

redevelopment on Castle Park. Redevelop predominantly real homes (not penthouse flats or student housing) at both High St and Castle St ends of 

the park. Broad promenade all along the floating harbour with wide sitting steps and access down to the water in a number of places. The central 

park area should be revamped to the highest quality and park edge changed to make it more permeable from the street. 

Objection 

Respondent: Elliot Matthew 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Support the proposal to re‐instate the historic High Cross of Bristol. 


Comment Type: 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Alan Dempster 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The restoration of the former road layout and widths would bring back the proper heart of the city. Development on the right scale and reintegration 

of St Mary le Port would be excellent. A through route from St Peters to St Nicholas market passing St Mary le Port would help to bring 

together Cabot Circus/Broadmead and the Corn St area. Rebuilding of Dutch House and High Cross would be an added bonus. 

Support 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Nicola Evans 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals at Castle Park. Encourages refurbishment of existing buildings but not the loss of green space. There are many 

empty buildings around Bristol which could be reused to avoid need to build on the park. 

Objection 

Page 104 of 162

Respondent: Gerry Curnow 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Matthew Wilkes 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: KS04 ‐ Objects to development proposals at Castle Park. There are many vacant lots around St Nics Market ‐ no need for more. Propose recreating 

Mary‐le‐Port Street as pedestrianised route, with market trading. Any non‐listed buildings should be converted to green space. Listed buildings such 

as Bank of England site should be redeveloped. 

Objection 

Respondent: Royston Smith 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Object to any extension to the development area in Castle Park beyond the existing St Mary le Port site. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Charlie Harrison 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The derelict buildings between the old centre and Broadmead need to be knocked down and the gap bridged between the old town and Broadmead 

bridged bringing more continuity to the centre. 

Other 

Page 105 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Hugh Holden 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Para 9.3.6 ‐ Objects to the proposed development area being enlarged from the 2012 consultation. Reasons: 1. City Centre Retail Study makes clear 

(BCPA13 5.2) "additional (retail) floorspace should be directed towards Bristol Shopping Quarter". 2. St Mary‐le‐Port is not intended as a major 

focus for retail (BCAP 13 5.4). 3. BCS2 states additional 135,000m2 office space can be accommodated in Temple Quarter. Castle Park clearly marked 

in as important open space in AGSP; BCAP 37 undertakes to "safeguard and enhance" Castle Park ‐ not to be achieved through losing 15% for 

development. 

9.3.7 Removal of trees on High St & Wine St should be condemned. Trees provide a number of benefits including adding amenity value in visual 

appearance, cooling & reducing water run‐off. Streets could still be narrowed whilst retaining trees. Felling should not be considered until replanting 

sites have been identified/ consulted on. This should be a condition of any outline planning approval. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

A T Thomas 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals at Castle Park. Objects to the loss of green space and the felling of trees. There are already many empty shops / 

offices in the central area. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Brian & Deborah Lanyon 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Object to the proposed development of the ambulance station site (KS05). The proposal to develop clubs/pubs etc would be totally out of context 

with the quiet surroundings of Castle Park and the river area. 

Objection 

Page 106 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Lee Jones 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: It would be wonderful to see the original street pattern of the crossroads of High St/Wine St/Broad St/Corn St reinstated to how it was pre WW2. 

The high cross would be a great focal point for the crossroads giving Bristol back its historic heart. It would also be wonderful to see the Dutch 

House rebuilt and consider an exact replica would be appropriate in this instance. 

Support 

Respondent: Trevor Carter 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to planned development at Castle Park. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Jean Hasse 

Comment Summary: There is no need for more apartments/townhouses to be built near Castle Park. Rebuild and revamp existing buildings. Don't build more 

unnecessary buildings. Green space should not be built on and no trees should be removed. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Catherine Dixon 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Objects to proposed development proposals of Castle Park. Losing any green space or trees would be a great loss to the people of Bristol. 

Page 107 of 162

Respondent: English Heritage 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Support the redevelopment of St Mary le Port including a reinstatement of the former building line. 


Comment Type: 

Support 

Respondent: Hans Baker 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to the proposed loss of green space at Castle Park. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Alec French Architects 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Would like to see a masterplan brought forward which reconnects the city around the park, particularly Old Market to Corn St, based on historic 

street alignments. Redevelopment has to be done very sensitively, with the right scale of buildings and streets to create a seamless transition from 

historic to new. The park needs containment and purpose for its pathways which may result in the park becoming a series of connecting squares and 

spaces rather than an open parkland. This would result in much greater intensity of use, better surveillance and a safer environment. New tree 

planting could be structural to give emphasis to enclosures, routes and views. 

A replica Dutch House might be possible but a contemporary interpretation maybe more feasible unless detailed records are available. The road 

alignment is very important‐ there can be no justification for retaining the broad bend in the highway here, despite the loss of trees. 

Support 

Respondent: Richard Warwick 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 108 of 162

Respondent: Cabot, Clifton & Clifton East Neighbourhood Partnership 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Object to development proposals on Castle Park. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Consultation questions: 

Para 9.3.6 Q 1 ‐ No. Development must not encroach on the existing area of the park and should remain within the footprint of the existing 

development. Careful use of the space within the existing footprint will allow a well‐designed and viable scheme. 

Para 9.3.6 Q 2 ‐ No. 

Para 9.3.7 Q 1 ‐ No. The existing mature trees on High St and Wine St should be incorporated into any development rather than felled. 

Para 9.3.7 Q 2 ‐ Incorporate the existing green infrastructure into any development. Take additional land required from road space. 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Tim Weekes 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Support the aspiration to restore High St and Wine St to their pre‐redevelopment widths and to build a landmark building on the site of the Dutch 

House. It should still be possible to meet this aspiration even if it were to prove impossible to take any green space by narrowing the highways. How 

are units with large floorspace reconciled with the intent to restore the historic ambience? Suggest an alternative approach whereby a few key sites 

are developed using public money and the rest largely based on pre war site boundaries were made available to independent local entrepreneurs. 

Support 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Robin Whitlock 

Comment Summary: Would like to see the Dutch House rebuilt but consider it unlikely. 

Consider St Peter's and St Mary le Port church could be opened up. 

A Bristol war museum could be considered to remind people of what was there before WW2 and of Bristol's part in the war. 


Comment Type: 

Other 

Page 109 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Daniel Bennett 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Object to loss of green space. It is formal parkland which should have statutory protection. New office/shop/luxury flats are not needed in the city 

centre. There is a current excess owing to there being so little demand for office space in the city centre. The proposal is contrary to Bristol's status 

as European Green Capital. 

Objection 

Respondent: Kate Wickham 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Object to development on Castle Park owing to loss of green space and the felling of mature street trees. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Kathy Boyle 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Revamp existing buildings, keep the trees and as much of Castle Park. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Peter Bryant 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to the planned development of Castle Park. It is in the long‐term interest to people of Bristol to maintain this park. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 110 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Aviva Investors 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Draft policy text broadly supported ‐ including mixture of uses and the five elements the development would be expected to provide. 

The location within City and Queen Square Conservation Area should ensure objective to preserve / enhance character at the highest level. A 

relatively dense development will be appropriate at this location. A key objective to achieving placemaking / urban design principles should be 

referred to here. The balanced approach referred to in 9.3.5 will need to seek to secure these key objectives relating to conservation area, 

placemaking/ urban design and Castle Park simultaneously and equally. All 3 should be reflected when finalising para 9.3.3 to 9.3.5. 

Objection 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Supports the reduction of car traffic on High St, Wine St and Newgate ‐ to connect Castle Park to Old City and Broadmead. 


Comment Type: 

Support 

Respondent: Angharad Jenkins 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: With no increased green space included in the plan ‐ objects to any loss of green space at Castle Park. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 111 of 162

Respondent: Gemma Whitmore 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Objects to any development on Castle Park. There is no need for more retail opportunities or new homes at the expense of Bristol's green spaces. 

Respondent: Geoffrey Hyde 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Objects to any development on Castle Park. There is already much empty office space but little open space for use by the public. 

Respondent: Fiona Barrow 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to any development on Castle Park. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Sue Mounsey 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to any loss of green space on Castle Park. There's no shortage of empty retail units / buildings across the city. If more commerce space is 

needed the council could look at Stokes Croft Area extending from the back of Debenhams (still an eyesore). 

Objection 

Respondent: Sarah Page 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 112 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Steve Woods 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The derelict office block near St Mary‐le‐Port should be redeveloped but not at the expense of any green space. Preferred solution would be to 

knock down office block and extend Castle Park. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Object to the inference that reducing the impact of traffic is possible via 'shared space'. See Moody & Melia (2013) which describes flaws over claims 

of 'shared space'. Selective pedestrianisation & removing through traffic is the only effective way to 'reduce the impact of traffic'. 

Objection 

Respondent: Peace Handovsky 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Ann Readman 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Glenn Howe 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 113 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Iain Hepburn 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to any loss of green space at Castle Park. There are plenty of other brownfield sites in this area of the city (e.g. completion of Courage 

Brewery). 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Chris Millman 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Supports the proposals which will restore historic crossroads at the heart of the city. If some trees/ green space is lost it’s a price worth paying. The 

ancient centre is intrinsically urban. We should question whether to keep the churches derelict (St Mary‐le‐Port, St Peters) or imaginatively re‐use. 

Timber from demolished trees could be used to recreate Dutch House. 

Support 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Simon Birkbeck 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development on part of Castle Park. Redevelopment should be confined to poor quality buildings north of St Mary‐le‐Port church tower 

and respect historic buildings. Mature trees to SE of the building should be retained. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Nicky Evans 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals at Castle Park. The unspoilt section of mature parkland is a treasured part of the city centre (see photos attached 

to response). 

Objection 

Page 114 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Andrew King 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Para 9.3.6 ‐ Impossible for public to engage without evidence of what city is advised is viable. As the City is land‐owner with financial interest in the 

development outcome ‐ viability appraisals should be made available to the public (see attached UWE advice note on public access to information). 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Dawn Watts 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to any loss of green space on Castle Park ‐ the park has beautiful trees and natural habitat for squirrels. There are plenty of derelict sites 

(e.g. old post office building) that can be redeveloped with no loss of nature. 

Objection 

Respondent: Kevin Merrett 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Redeveloping areas of derelict buildings is supported however object to the inclusion of green areas/ pedestrian and cycling paths being included in 

site development boundaries. 

Approval of the Mayors statement in The Post ‐ "… I do not accept the need for development to stretch east of the Lloyds office building as was 

indicated in the consultation document". 

The boundary map also includes the cycling/ walking route along the riverside ‐ this must be maintained. The Council should be mindful of setting 

precedents where developers claim sites near parks are unviable. If developers continue to leave site derelict ‐ compulsory purchase powers should 

be used. 

Objection 

Page 115 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Linda Tuff 

Comment Summary: KS07 ‐ Objects to the disposal of the Park depot ‐ designated important open space in the 2012 plan and used for maintenance of the park. 

KS04 ‐ Objects to loss of green space at Castle Park ‐ designated important open space in the 2012 plan. It's already acknowledged that the central 

area lacks green space. Development around St Mary‐le‐Port should incorporate environmental features such as green walls / solar panels and be 

used for community spaces or small independent business/ retail. 

Objects to the narrowing of High St & Wine St ‐ which would reduce light levels and increase noise. 

Questions 9.3.6 ‐ No ‐ development boundary should not include any green space or street trees. 

Yes ‐other options could include reducing the development area to area occupied by existing buildings. 

Questions 9.3.7 ‐ No ‐ no street trees should be felled to bring back history. 

Yes ‐ other options could include expansion of Castle Park. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Bristol Ramblers 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Response to questions Para 9.3.6 & 9.3.7 both "no". Development should be limited to footprint of existing buildings. Adjacent spaces should be 

improved. 

Objects to historical justification for road narrowing and the extension of a development site over existing riverside pedestrian and cycle routes. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Daniel Bott 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: KS04 ‐ objects to the loss of green space at Castle Park. Would be happy is this space was rearranged but in no way reduced. 

In relation to the expected development would suggest an "emphasis on providing an environment suitable for small and independent retail.." is of 

high importance. 

Objection 

Page 116 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Mike Delaney 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to the development proposals at Castle Park. Instead of losing some of the park for commercial interest we should recover the derelict 

building and surrounding land to expand the green area of the park. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

ESHA Architects 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: KS07 ‐ Castle Park should not be reduced in size. While its inevitable some of the park will be lost to ensure St Mary‐le‐Port development is coherent 

/ viable the park area could be compensated elsewhere (e.g. KS05/KS07). 

KS05 ‐ There should be no development on the ambulance station car park ‐ it should be landscaped parkland leading to reopened Castle Ditch. 

Castle St should be closed to vehicles. 

KS06 ‐ should not be a development site ‐ instead a café or restaurant within the park. 

High St & Wine St could be narrowed whilst keeping existing trees, a new square could be incorporated, traffic diverted to Bridge St and Broad St, St 

Nicholas St & Corn St should become shared surfaces. See attached sketch for further details. 

Objection 

Respondent: Denise Howe 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to development proposals on Castle Park. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Heather Overall 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Object to development on green space at Castle Park, however, would welcome the development of the old Bank of England building. 

Page 117 of 162

Respondent: Allan Schiller 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Susan Low 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Diane Karoui 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Objects to the development proposals at Castle Park. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Richard Davoll 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to the development proposals at Castle Park. The business relationship of Ferguson Mann Architects with the 'preferred' developers Deeley 

Freed ‐ has also not been adequately examined. 

Objection 

Page 118 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Tony Muir 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objection to any development on Castle Park or the felling of any trees along Wine St & High St. Existing buildings should be refurbished. Larger 

buildings have greater running costs, reduce light levels and adversely effect the surrounding environment. Bristol has many empty retail units, 

offices and houses across the city which should be brought back into use before building new ones. The park should be given Town Green status. 

Any loss of parkland would go against Bristol's recent success in winning European Green Capital 2015. 

Objection 


Nelson Street and Lewins Mead 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Para 9.4.2 ‐Redevelopment is already taking place. BCC depts need to cooperate if SPD8 is to be achieved. 


Comment Type: 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Para 9.4.1 ‐Good modern but not too high rise buildings with active ground floor uses does seem appropriate maybe with some green space 

included. 

Other 

Page 119 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

The PG Group 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Objects to the precision of policy text and explanatory memorandum, making policy BCAP38 unsound. 

Para 9.4.2 seeks improvements to public realm through wider development schemes but the extent of the area effected is too vague. No mention of 

viability when discussing obligations sought. Will the financial contributions be collected to execute improvements at a later date or will the first 

applications be expected to carry out the improvements? 

Consider SPD8 and its failure to secure significant improvements to date due to far‐reaching requirements of the SPD discouraging developers. 

There is no explanation whether improvements will be delivered through CIL, S106 or both? 

Objection 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Support a mix of uses in this location, however, object to the proposed policy text which states that a large scale retail led regeneration project 

would be acceptable in this location. The policy should be amended to reflect the need to protect the retail role of the city centre in the first instance. 

Objection 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: There is no reference to green infrastructure. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Suggest amendment to penultimate bullet point to add "and green infrastructure" to the end of the sentence. 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Support the development and clustering of purpose built student accommodation in the Nelson St and Lewins Mead area. The provision of purpose 

built student accommodation in the area will enable further regeneration in the area to be realised. 

Support 

Page 120 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Linda Tuff 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: KS08 ‐ agrees this site could be redesigned to provide better access to Castle Park. It should not be considered for retail or Cabot Circus extension 

due to the amount of vacant units which already exist. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: KS08 ‐ Objects to current proposals at Nelson St. There should be no more student housing, but more restaurants and bars, retention of existing 

buildings for use by small businesses, retention of graffiti, better signposting and access to pedestrian routes. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Joanna van der Veen 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Para ‐ 9.4.1 Objects to the statement 'vacant former police station'. 20,000sft is leased to Bridewell Space ‐ providing workspace to 80 SME's. The 

council should acknowledge the large number of independent businesses on Nelson St and not just concentrate support for such businesses in the 

Enterprise Zone. The council should make further steps to ensure there are affordable central workspaces like ours. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Para 9.4.2 ‐ There is insufficient coordination with the need for better integration or re‐routing of the bus routes and stops in Rupert St and Nelson 

St. Without this the buses will continue to dominate these streets. 

Objection 

Page 121 of 162


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: A pedestrian link between Rupert St and Nelson St would be welcome. 

Comment No: 0294‐09 

Comment Type: 

Support 


Newfoundland Way 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Opportunity missed to extend the green and blue infrastructure. Unattractively channeled River Frome / lack of appropriate landscape are not 

addressed. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Adrian Smith 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Priority needs to be given to cleaning the city up. The entrance to Bristol towards the end of the M32 ought to show the city's pride but shows its 

rubbish. Concern also regarding the central area towards Old Market and the Bedminster/West St area. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Business West 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: This could create a great entry to the city centre from the M32 and will require a good scheme. It is not illustrated in either document. Is there a 

plan? 

Other 

Page 122 of 162


Redcliffe Way 

Respondent: Living Heart for Bristol 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Policy should be amended to make clear Redcliffe Way will no longer be available as a through route for traffic. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Bristol Cycling Campaign asks for some potentially positive items to be strengthened. "…development will be expected to provide: Improved 

pedestrian and cycle routes…" 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Suggested amendment to the 6th bullet point to include reference to green infrastructure to read: 

"Enhancements to the quality and accessibility of the network of green spaces and green infrastructure in the area" 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Redcliffe Futures Group 

Comment Summary: "An alignment for the proposed Bristol MetroBus Route" does not adequately reflect the importance which RFG attaches to the need for a near to 

Portwall alignment of any future rapid transit route. 

Alternative wording suggested: 

"An alignment for the proposed Bristol MetroBus route along or close to Portwall Lane" 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 123 of 162


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: The realignment of Redcliffe Way to the north is not mentioned. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 


The Approach to Harbourside 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Pg 56 Para 9.7.5 ‐ pedestrians and cyclists ‐ These changes will also need to be friendly for wheelchairs, mobility scooters, those with visual 

impairment, mental health or learning difficulties. 


Comment Type: 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

SS Great Britain Trust 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The requirement to retain an alternative route for traffic in the event of a bridge swing at Plimsoll Bridge (para 9.7.5) should be dropped. The 

requirement is considered to be a throw back to a time when bridge swings were more frequent. Dropping the alternative route will deliver much 

more widespread public benefit and release more land for development and amenity. 

Objection 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: The policy should also reference the importance of links across the Cumberland Basin facilitating north/south movements. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 124 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Para 9.1 (BCAP 41?) ‐ Ambitions for the Cumberland Basin are limited with inadequate joining up of A&B Bond, the redundant surface and overhead 

roadways and the desire for spatial creation and better access to the waterfront. 

Objection 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Para 9.7.6 ‐Pleased to see the positive endorsement of the Traffic Strategy here. 


Comment Type: 

Support 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The 3rd para says nothing about making highway changes that will enhance living in the area and it should do. Reference is required to the need to 

strengthen public transport services into the city along the main arterial route of Hotwell Rd. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Para 9.7.4 ‐Pleased to see ref to the Traffic Masterplan. Suggested new wording "The neighbourhood also includes a significant part of Hotwells. This 

is a distinct residential community supported by a primary school, a limited number of local shops and other businesses. The area is currently 

adversely affected by the large volumes of traffic that use the Cumberland Basin Rd and Hotwells gyratory systems". 

Other 

Page 125 of 162


The Approach to St. Michael’s 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Christmas Steps Arts Quarter 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Supports references to Christmas Steps and St Michaels shopping area/historic assets, however, consider this area would be improved if measures 

are taken to reduce the impact of traffic (as in options consultation para 7.3.12 ‐ query why this has been omitted). Consider there should at least 

be an aspiration to improve this. The improvement of Colston Street for shoppers and pedestrians should also be included. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Kingsdown Conservation Group 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Proposed amendment to para. 9.9.3 ‐ The planning license to develop functions of the university and hospital should be disapplied to land they sell 

for development by others. This land should be subject to the same policies that apply elsewhere in Kingsdown. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Although the university and hospital have had major physical / functional impacts on the city centre ‐ there are only laissez‐faire policies aimed at 

their development proposals. Their impacts require further attention. 

Objection 


The Approach to Old City 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Support Policy BCAP26 which seeks to ensure that development does not increase the levels of motor traffic. 


Comment Type: 

Other 

BCAP 29's objective should be to remove car parking in Old City. 

Page 126 of 162


The Approach to Stokes Croft & St. Paul’s 



SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: There needs to be a limit on the type of licenses issued in Stokes Croft so there is not an over concentration of any particular business. 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Para 9.12.6 ‐ LDO's need to reflect the Conservation Area's development guidelines. A clear definition of "minor works" is needed and what is meant 

by the term "the council will work with". There is a need for an agreement across the appropriate departments of the Council to endorse that all will 

work closely with St Pauls Unlimited and the wider community of Stokes Croft before any orders will be granted. 

Objection 


The Approach to Old Market & The Dings 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: This policy requires reconsideration to ensure that the Plan and the Old Market Quarter NDP are compatible. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Peter Gibbs 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Recent planning permissions in the surrounding area (Volunteer Tavern) have been purely residential. Encourage more employment uses being 

promoted to retain a mix of uses. The Council could use some of its own landholdings in the area to promote employment uses. 

Objection 

Page 127 of 162

Respondent: Martyn Trowbridge 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Segregated Dutch style cycle routes should be provided on Old Market. 


Comment Type: 

Other 


The Approach to Redcliffe 

Respondent: Martyn Trowbridge 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Segregated cycle routes should be included as part of the redesign. A row of 3/4 storey townhouses would increase the demographic mix of the area. 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Support reference to public houses in the second paragraph. 


Comment Type: 

Support 

Policy Ref: BCAPSA3 

Site Allocations in St. Michael's 


SA Ref: SA302 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Query why site SA302 at 76‐88 Horfield Rd is included within the St Michaels neighbourhood. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 128 of 162

Policy Ref: BCAPSA6 

Site Allocations in Redcliffe 


SA Ref: SA612 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Support the restoration and appointment of site SA612 (The Bell, Prewett St) as a pub. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Policy Ref: N/A 

N/A 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 1. Vision 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Vision includes unexceptional list for a city with great aspirations ‐ appears as a summary of the Core Strategy. 

2 major aspects need emphasis ‐ 1) Ensuring high quality and appropriate design through integration of planning and design policies at high level, 

guidance on DM negotiations, identification of how high quality design may be tested, specification of outcomes and benefits for key sites & 

commitment to improve residential space standards. 

2) Sustainable design, development, transport, green infrastructure ‐ relationship to health and well‐being. This is being reiterated by a number of 

initiatives (e.g. WHO Healthy Cities) but the BCAP should be adopting an enabling role in this area. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 




Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Pg.1: There needs to be awareness that all pedestrian routes are likely to be used by wheelchair and mobility scooter users ‐ whose needs may 

conflict with pedestrians and cyclists. Also awareness of visually impaired users (including raised bump paving slabs at pelican crossings). 

Other 

Page 129 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 


Clifton & Hotwells Improvement Society 

Comment Summary: Query location of Centre Promenade as its not on any of the maps. Is it St Augustines Parade? 

Referred to in section 1 on page 1 and para's: 7.3, 9.4.1, 9.6.1 and 9.8.1. 


Comment Type: 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 




Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The final sentence in the last para of the vision gives the impression that other forms of housing are precluded within the city centre. Other forms of 

housing should be included within this sentence including student accommodation. 

Objection 

Respondent: RSPB 

SA Ref: 


Comment Summary: Supports the councils aspirations for a cleaner, greener healthier city centre ‐ "urban greening" should help this aspiration. 


Comment Type: 

Support 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 




Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Concern over the relatively underplayed contribution of cycling to the City's vision. Believe the strong ambition for cycling in the Core Strategy has 

been diluted in the BCAP through language and weakness in specificity. An indication of this is also the lack of cycle routes/ paths on the proposals 

map. 

Nearly all Bristol's problems have aspects which could be address through cycling and walking ‐ e.g. access, congestion, air pollution, health etc. 

Objection 

Page 130 of 162

Respondent: University of Bristol 

SA Ref: 


Comment Summary: Welcome the inclusion of the final sentence under para 1. 


Comment Type: 

Support 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 2. About 

Comment Summary: Para 2.10 ‐What does "reduce severance of communities" mean? Clearer description is needed. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 


SA Ref: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: It is noted that more has been done in the Preferred Options BCAP to show how the document is in accordance with national policy and adopted 

local policy. Support clarification in para 2.8 that the city centre is at the top of Bristol's retail hierarchy which makes it a suitable location for main 

town centre uses. 

Support 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 


Business West 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: 2.9 and 2.11 Fig 2.2 ‐ An area of east central Bristol is included as part of the Central Area in order to encourage regeneration, though not as part of 

the city centre. How are they different? 

Other 

Page 131 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 




Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Pg4 Para 2.6 ‐ "Improved connectivity by a variety of modes of transport" ‐ must ensure this variety will be sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of 

all users ‐ regardless of disability. 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 




Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: A revised BCAP document should provide a more comprehensive diagram distinguishing between policy & guidance material and general use / 

technical documents (including cross referencing context studies/ guidance that's relevant but not directly planning linked i.e. transportation, 

highways etc. 

Although there has been an enlargement of the BCAP boundary to the east, there's no recognition of areas to the south of the Cut (e.g. Bedminster 

Parade) being more closely linked to the centre. Extension to include some of Bristol 'south of the river' could reduce the perception of north and 

south divide. 

Emphasis on more family homes in the city could also reduce current divide between residential periphery and commercial / cultural core. A 

definition of what constitutes the central area should be included ‐ to justify boundary and identify links. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Business West 

Chapter: 3. Living in the City Centre 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Para 3.17 ‐ Housing, having been discouraged, is reintroduced in each of the area studies. This is a dangerous situation that is being addressed by a 

Bristol City Council Flood Risk Board, including strategic solutions such as a barrier across the river near Avonmouth. 

Objection 

Page 132 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Nigel Davies 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Bringing housing into city centre has merits in creating new life and high st style regeneration in central Bristol. Suggest major retail at Old Market 

to make use of transport links and ready access to M32. Major retail could also be located at Temple Meads making use of rail and bus. Consider 

Broadmead is largely inaccessible and in need of demolition and clearance. 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Penny Germon 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Proposals for new homes must be in the context of understanding where they can be supported and provision made for essential infrastructure. 

There is a strong view locally that the neighbourhood infrastructure is under strain and cannot take any more population growth. How can the plan 

facilitate informed neighbourhood planning which takes account of these things? 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 




Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The commitment for 7,400 new homes (with a proportion being family housing) is welcomed but not justified. Housing should be designed at the 

scale and form of the city centre ‐ maintaining space standards, intimate green space privacy and 'defensible space'. 

People judge the quality of their built environment by management of the public realm ‐ Bristol should consider holistic initiatives (I.e. street 

wardens etc) to maintain the public realm. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Steve Woods 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The majority of planned homes should be council or social housing to address the housing waiting list. Private developers should pay appropriate 

S106 contributions or risk refusals. The plan does not mention additional infrastructure provision required ‐ i.e. schools, doctors etc. or additional 

strain on the road systems. The failure to consider infrastructure implications of the area plan is a serious shortcoming. 

Objection 

Page 133 of 162



SA Ref: 



Comment Summary: Para 3.22 ‐ Note the ambition to reduce noise through reduction of traffic but disappointed not to find references to other noise reduction plans. 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 4. Emplyment, Culture and Tourism 

Comment Summary: The industrial heritage of our area should be sensitively recognised in any development. 


Comment Type: 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

The Mall Cribbs Causeway 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: This response objects to the methodology used in the Bristol City Centre Retail Study 2013. As the Retail Study is evidence used to inform policy that 

would cross boundaries, it is not clear through the documentation how the Council fulfilled its 'Duty to Co‐operate" and therefore the document 

should be seen as unsound. The study suggests the Council should work with South Gloucestershire Council to limit expansion at the Mall or this will 

have significant implications for the centre ‐ although this statement is not substantiated by analysis. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 



Comment Summary: The plan must: 

I) Acknowledge that online shopping has rendered much retail space in both primary and secondary retail areas unlettable. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 134 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 




Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: We should not focus on retail in isolation as a key policy for the city centre. The city centre economy as a whole should be about jobs and economic 

activity. 

Other 



SA Ref: 



Comment Summary: Para's 5.16, 5.17 and 5.27 should include details about acceptable hours of opening, takeaways, storage of refuse and removal of refuse. 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

RSPB 

Chapter: 6. A Greener City Centre 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Some criteria set in section 6 may need to be amended by the Housing Standards Review Consultation results out shortly and also the BREEAM 

standards under review. 

Recommend following similar policies to Exeter City Council Residential Design Guide SPD (see www.exeter.gov.uk/resiguidespd). Biodiversity 

requirements (pg58) endorsed as good practice by T&CPA. RTPI, CIEEM and RIBA. 

Following similar practices in Bristol could make a significant contribution to Green Capital Project. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 




Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Natural England is not sufficiently familiar with the individual development sites to provide detailed comments, however, consider the policies in 

chapter 6 should help to ensure proposed new development is high quality and sympathetic to its context. 

Support 

Page 135 of 162



SA Ref: 



Comment Summary: Para 6.14 ‐ The plan should make clear where these new green spaces are. Welcome and happy to participate in any tree planting. 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 




Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Pg28/29 Para 6.20/6.21/6.23/6.24 ‐ Planners should be aware of safety issues when a routes used jointly by pedestrians and cyclists as well as 

wheelchair and mobility scooter users. 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Steve Woods 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The plan includes no provision for the expanse of public open space. The council acknowledges there is a lack of central open space but does noting 

to address it. Options for enhancing provision could include extending Riverside Park to Cabot Circus. Extending St Pauls park to Dove Lane, 

extending Rawnsley Park into Goodhind St. 

Objection 


SA Ref: 


Comment Summary: This does not support the more community creative aspects of the Green Capital Proposals. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Para 6.26 (BCAP 25) ‐ is not demanding and has no teeth to secure what is listed. 

Page 136 of 162

Respondent: Bristol Cycling Campaign 


SA Ref: 


Chapter: 7. Transport and Parking in the City Centre 

Comment Summary: There are elements of BCAP which Bristol Cycling Campaign would like to particularly support and become involved in these include ‐ Para 7.5 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Joel Moreland 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Supports the views submitted by Bristol Cycling Campaign (0419). The BCAP only includes modest ambitions in relation to cycling in the city. Bristol 

could do better. 

Objection 


SA Ref: 


Comment Summary: Para 7.3 should reference the Cycling City Project and Cycle City Ambition Fund as major projects. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 



SA Ref: 



Comment Summary: Para 7.5 ‐ A stronger reference to the growth in cycling is required to acknowledge the 100% increase in commuting journeys in 10 years. 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Sue Flint 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Roads should be prioritised for public transport. Road systems around Cumberland Basin, the Centre and top of Union St should be corrected 

(untangled). 

Objection 

Page 137 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 



Comment Summary: BCC should anticipate being able to give notice to developers, potential occupants and employers that a valuable cycle network with links through/ 

across the city is planned. This will increase access to visitors and commuters. A systematic signage system should also be incorpated. 

Sites for short‐term cycle hire (I.e. Brompton Dock ‐ Temple Meads) should be indicated within the central area. 

We would support traffic segregation in its own right rather than an expedient when shared roads cannot be made less hazardous. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 


SA Ref: 


Comment Summary: Would welcome a road charging or road pricing system covering central Bristol. 


Comment Type: 

Other 



SA Ref: 



Comment Summary: A lot of the road traffic in Bristol is commercial traffic which is vital to economic performance and must not be squeezed out by anti car policies. 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 




Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: An ongoing commitment to progressive public realm improvements is welcomed. Consideration should be given to the preparation and adoption of 

a central area public realm guide (toolkit) similar to the Bristol Temple Quarter Enterprise Zone Public Realm Guide. 

Other 

Page 138 of 162


SA Ref: 


Comment Summary: Para 7.1 ‐ A Walking Strategy is great but more needs to be done regarding the maintenance of existing infrastructure. 


Comment Type: 

Other 


SA Ref: 


Comment Summary: Para 7.6 "Enhanced inner access route" should not mean another ring road. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Sustrans 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Para 7.6 ‐ Support the city centre loop concept and the vehicle access zones. Good quality cycling infrastructure needs to be provided on the city 

centre loop. 

Support 


SA Ref: 


Comment Summary: Para 7.3 ‐ An M32 Park & Ride needs to be prioritised as its not funded and part of the current major transport schemes. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 


SA Ref: 


Comment Summary: This does not emphasise the need to develop safe pedestrian routes and cycle ways and indicate a priority over the car. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 139 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Business West 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Para 7.16 ‐ Vehicle Access Zones are not illustrated in BCAP. 

This is a fundamental change in the working of the city centre which may be desirable but only if it can be shown to be workable. What are notional 

vehicle access zones? 

Continue to express concerns of the business community that there isn't in place a properly set out city centre movement framework which provides 

the means for the different modes of transport to move around the city centre now and for the future. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 




Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Sustainability can only be achieved through cross disciplinary work ‐ important to cross reference planning and transport at the BCAP level as well as 

work in the City Centre Public Realm and Movement Framework. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Transport for Greater Bristol 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The BCAP takes walking routes seriously ‐ however there is no equivalent statement, policy, map or plan for bus routes, cycleways, vehicular access 

for servicing or through traffic. It appears environmental and land‐use planning are being undertaken in isolation from public transport or cycle 

planning. 

Developer contributions should (as with traffic management and park & ride) be specifically available for implementing public transport and cycling 

policies. 

Objection 

Page 140 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 




Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Pg28/9 ‐ Will all public transport be fully accessible for those with mobility issues? Will all service points information use simple English / provide 

audio & Braille? "Walking is glue" ‐ will environmentally low impact transport such as wheelchairs and mobility scooters be given equal 

consideration? 

Pg32 Para 7.9 ‐ Pedestrian routes ‐ there should be awareness of safety issues with multiple user types ‐ I.e. pedestrians/ cyclists/ mobility scooters. 

Pg33 Para 7.10 ‐ Will provision be made to avoid exclusion of disabled people from usual 'close parking'? 

Para 7.13 ‐ Enhanced walking / cycle routes ‐ Will these include safe provision for wheelchair and mobility scooter users? 

Pg34 Para7.18 ‐ Residential parking ‐ will disabled residents be given priority allocation of adjacent parking? 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 


Chapter: 8. Design & Conservation 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Endorse the Bristol Central Area Context Study and consider this should underpin the BCAP with its recommendations fully incorporated. Para 8.2 

suggests it is merely a descriptive assessment, consider it is evidently much more. Are the policies and guidance in the allocations annex consistent 

with the Context Study? Might they more fully reflect the advice contained within the Context Study? 

Objection 

Respondent: Bristol Cycling Campaign 


SA Ref: 



Comment Summary: There are elements of BCAP which Bristol Cycling Campaign would like to particularly support and become involved in these include ‐ Para 8.5 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 




Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Para's 8.23 and 8.24 ‐ Do not allow the centre of Bristol to be blighted by more tall buildings as they hide and spoil the unique character of central 

Bristol. 

Objection 

Page 141 of 162


SA Ref: 


Comment Summary: Fix and maintain existing pavements and roads now before new grand schemes. 


Comment Type: 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 



Comment Summary: Para 8.5 ‐ Support in "the Restored City" that the approach does not advocate pastiche. This is put in jeopardy by the reference to the landmark 

Dutch House in para 9.3.1 and references to restoring the historic character in BCAP37. 

Full agreement with Legible City approach. 


Comment Type: 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Steve Woods 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The cultural, industrial, archaeological heritage of the area must be treated sensitively in any industrial, commercial or residential redevelopment or 

new build. 

Objection 


SA Ref: 


Comment Summary: There is no mention of the importance of archaeological remains and their treatment. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 142 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Nicolette Vincent 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Bristol should preserve the 18th/ 19th century line of steeping hills ‐ not obliterate with tall buildings at the bottom. No more insensitive buildings 

such as the new Environment Agency building should be permitted. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 




Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Central Area Context Studies are welcome as an essential reference in initial design proposals ‐ there role in the design process should be spelt out 

in para 8.2. There's needs to be a "how to" user guide here. Maps could be better annotated to indicate critical skylines, frontages etc. It is essential 

that a comprehensive urban design glossary is provided here. 

Overlaps with Neighbourhood Plans / Conservation Area Character Appraisals ‐ applicants should be advised how to deal with the relationship 

between these documents. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 



Comment Summary: Pg37 Para 8.3 ‐ Legible City ‐ Will signage be designed with simple language and where possible Braille? 

Pg38 Para 8.10/8.11 ‐ Pedestrian routes ‐ should have awareness that these will be used by wheelchairs and mobility scooters. 

Pg39 Para 8.13 ‐ Will active frontages be easily accessible by wheelchairs and mobility scooters? 


Comment Type: 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Steve Woods 

Chapter: 9. City Centre Places and Neighbourhoods 

Comment Summary: Welcomes the fact wishes of the communities in Old Market and Redcliffe are taking precedence in proposals for those areas ‐ however 

opportunities should have been given to other communities in the Plan area. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 143 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 


Chapter: 9.12 St. Paul's & Stokes Croft 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Pg60 para 9.12.1 ‐ A major route…for walkers, cyclists, cars and public transport ‐ also bear in mind major route for wheelchair and mobility scooter 

users. 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 


Chapter: 9.13 Old Market & The Dings 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Pg62 Para 9.13.5 ‐ Primary pedestrian route ‐ also bear in mind major route for wheelchair and mobility scooter users. Consideration needs to be 

given to ensure wheelchairs, mobility scooters, those with visual impairments can easily and safely navigate Old Market roundabout. 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 9.14 Redcliffe 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Pg63. Para 9.14.3 ‐ Improving pedestrian route ‐ Consideration needs to be given to ensure wheelchairs, mobility scooters & those with visual 

impairments can easily and safely use the same routes. 

Improving links… secondary pedestrian routes and links ‐ Consideration needs to be given to ensure wheelchairs, mobility scooters, those with 

visual impairments can easily and safely use the same routes. 

PG64 Para 9.14.5 ‐ Pedestrian and cycle routes ‐ Consideration needs to be given to ensure wheelchairs, mobility scooters, those with visual 

impairments can easily and safely use the same routes. 

Narrowing of streets ‐ If streets are narrowed will there still be sufficient space for simultaneous use by varied users (I.e. wheelchairs, bikes, 

pedestrians?) 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 


Chapter: 9.2 Retail Growth ‐ Bristol Shopping Quarter 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Pg45 ‐ Para 9.2.5 ‐ Pedestrian friendly ‐ should also be friendly for wheelchair, mobility scooters, visual impairments, mental health or learning 

difficulties. 

Other 

Page 144 of 162


SA Ref: 

Chapter: 9.2 Retail Growth ‐ Bristol Shopping Quarter 

Comment Summary: No mention of Nelson St in the general policies. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation 

Chapter: 9.3 High Street, Wine Street and Castle Park 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Pg47. Para 9.3.2 ‐ The South Western Ambulance Service Trust welcomes the formal recognition for potential redevelopment of the ambulance site 

with "an opportunity to intensify the use of the site with buildings of greater height". 

Support 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 


Chapter: 9.3 High Street, Wine Street and Castle Park 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Pg 47 Para 9.3.5 ‐ Will the new pedestrian crossing have audio identification / Braille? 

Pg 50/51 ‐ Narrowing of High St & Wine St. If streets are narrowed will there still be sufficient space for simultaneous use by varied users (I.e. 

wheelchairs, bikes, pedestrians?) 

Removal of overhead pedestrian walkways ‐ Will safe alternative routes through the area be provided for all types of users (not just pedestrians)? 

Other 

Respondent: Matthew Wilkes 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: 9.4 Regeneration in Nelson Street & Lewins Mead 

Comment Summary: St Augustine's Parade / The fountains ‐ Would like to see the Frome restored to above ground flow in this area. 


Comment Type: 

Other 

Page 145 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 


Chapter: 9.6 Transformation of Redcliffe Way 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Para 9.6 ‐ What is the status of this proposal (and to all 5 NDPs) if it is rejected at the neighbourhood referendum? Is it right that BCAP should have a 

potentially fragile option written in? 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 




Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Pg53 para 9.6.4 ‐ Transformation of existing traffic dominated road ‐ this needs to incorporate provision for wheelchair and mobility scooter usage. 

9.6.8 ‐ These changes will also need to be friendly for wheelchairs, mobility scooters, those with visual impairment, mental health or learning 

difficulties. 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Redcliffe Futures Group 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The reference to Chatterton House in para 9.6.6 should be changed to either Chatteron's House or Thomas Chatterton's House to avoid confusion 

with the high rise council building in Ship Lane in South Redcliffe. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 




Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Bristol Cycling Campaign asks for some potentially positive items to be strengthened. Para 9.6.4 ‐ "The new Redcliffe Way aims to be a new heart for 

the community of Redcliffe… it aims to transform the existing traffic dominated road" 

Objection 

Page 146 of 162



SA Ref: 


Chapter: 9.7 Harbourside 

Comment Summary: Para 9.7.3‐ Pleased to see a commitment to continued improvement and regeneration of the Cumberland Basin and its importance as a gateway. 


SA Ref: 

Chapter: Additional 

Comment Summary: Central Area Context Study ‐ Park St and College Green page 202. The description does not include Queens Rd. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 

Chapter: General 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Understood that a focused Conservation Strategy was to be prepared which would form a component of the BCAP and articulate the intended 

approach to addressing heritage assets at risk. The BCAP appears silent on this matter. 

Objection 

Respondent: Bristol Older People's Forum 


SA Ref: 



Comment Summary: No comments in relation to the policies of BCAP. Comments relate to accessibility of the document to the elderly by non digital means. 

Respondent: South Gloucestershire Council 


SA Ref: 



Comment Summary: No comment on the policies of the BCAP. Response relates to the Duty to Cooperate in relation to the Bristol City Centre Retail Study. 

Page 147 of 162

Respondent: English Heritage 


SA Ref: 



Comment Summary: It is important to ensure BCAP reflects local aspirations from community led plans and supports their delivery as part of a positive heritage strategy. 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 




Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: New trees are mentioned on just four occasions in the BCAP. Other trees references refer to threats of removal. This BCAP is considered a step 

backwards. Each relevant section should refer to the BCS9 policy of enhancing green infrastructure. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 




Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The Bristol Cycling Campaign supports the broad ambition of the Core Strategy and detailed vision set to 2026 ‐ also the extent it is in broad 

sympathy of the BCAP. 

Support 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 


Environment Agency 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Essentially satisfied in respect of the policy provisions in the plan which, together with the provisions of the CS and Strategic Allocations and DM 

Policies Plan are considered to adequately provide for the EA's interests. However, express a degree of concern regarding elements of the flood risk 

management provisions. 

Support 

Page 148 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 




Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Care must be taken with the language used in the Plan. Examples are given in respect of SA501, SA401 and BCAP41 where the specified wording 

implies that the policy ambitions are optional. Request that the plan is reviewed as a whole to check other potential examples to ensure necessary 

corrections/clarifications are made. 

Objection 


SA Ref: 


Comment Summary: There should be a specific section of the plan that reflects Portland, Brunswick Square and Stokes Croft. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 




Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Natural England is generally satisfied that the BCAP accords with the Core Strategy and conforms with the NPPF in so far as these relate to the 

natural environment. The plan appears to have identified the main relevant issues and should provide a generally positive and coordinated policy 

framework to guide the delivery of required development and secure a range of other social, economic and environmental benefits. 

Note and welcome references to Bristol's status as European Green Capital 2015. Welcome the recognition in the plan of the importance of the 

iconic landscape and townscape views and natural environment of the Bristol Central Area and the need to protect and enhance these assets. 

Support 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 


Sue Flint 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Heat Island Effect ‐ Air conditioning should be banned in the city centre (similarly there should be a ban on patio heating, and possibly barbeques). 

Buildings should be cooled by green cladding on roofs/ walls and trees in the locality. 

Other 

Page 149 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 


Penny Germon 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Would like a stronger mention of neighbourhood or public art and the importance of distinctive areas where local people have ownership of the 

process. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 


Elizabeth Bunce 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Would be delighted to see derelict areas improved but concerned there are no proposals to improve shortage of green space in the city centre. Also 

concerned there is no provision to increase school places and doctors surgeries. 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 




Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: There is little recognition of the uncertainty surrounding development in the context of a gradual recovery from the recession. Creative strategies of 

adaptability / flexibility should be considered. The BCAP should include headline objectives ‐ where we want to go and how we are going to get 

there. Little recognition of the need for collaboration with other departments / agencies outside of planning and there buy‐in to the objectives. 

Objection 


SA Ref: 


Comment Summary: There is no reference to the timetable for ratification of the document and its position within the Local Plan. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 150 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 




Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Segregated cycle lanes should be incorporated in the entire plan. Main roads should include Dutch style segregation in all plans. No more shared 

use schemes as cause confusion for pedestrians and cyclists. 

Other 

Respondent: Dr Hugh Pratt 


SA Ref: 



Comment Summary: Submission of sites (Pump Lane, 2 Redcliffe Hill and Marchioness Building) previously submitted in response to Call for Sites for residential use. 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 


Highways Agency 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The key area of concern would be impact on the Strategic Road Network (SRN) specifically the M32, junction 19 of the M4 (outside of the BCAP and 

Bristol boundary) and potentially junction 19 of the M5 (also outside of the BCAP and Bristol boundary). Any subsequent development would be 

expected to be adequately and appropriately assessed and any potential on the SRN adequately mitigated via measures to encourage and increase 

sustainable transport. 

Other 

Respondent: The Coal Authority 

SA Ref: 


Comment Summary: Confirmation that the Coal Authority has no specific comments or observations to make at this stage. 


Comment Type: 

Other 

Page 151 of 162

Respondent: Highways Agency 


SA Ref: 



Comment Summary: The Agency broadly welcomes the draft proposals in terms of location and proposed land use in that they are legible and appropriate. 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 


Penny Germon 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Note that much of the plan reflects the views of the Ashley and Lawrence Hill communities and much of the discussion that has taken place over the 

years is reflected. 

Support 

Respondent: Ken Bartlett 

SA Ref: 


Comment Summary: The area should be completely redeveloped. Consider this is now more likely since the Police station has relocated. 


Comment Type: 

Other 

The restriction of cafes/takeaways in the area must be considered. 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 




Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: There are no policies regarding public art in the plan. A separate section should be included taking into consideration relevant policies not just the 

existing Public Art Strategy which is now considered to be out of date. 

Objection 

Page 152 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 


Bristol Ramblers 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: 1)Supports creation of a network of pedestrian routes and high quality waterfront setting in Harbourside. However concern over how this can be 

achieved without stronger policies and identifying funding sources other than developer contributions. 

2) There should be tougher measures to reduce traffic (support response on traffic management by Dr Steve Melia ‐ Living Heart ‐ (see response 

0297). 

3) We should reflect our 2015 Green Capital status, through extensive tree planting proposals and creation of pedestrian greenways. Concern that 

Green Capital proposals may be developed without taking into account the overall planning and strategic framework. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 




Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The BCAP has made several references to the Public Realm and Movement Framework, but this has not been updated since the original consultation 

in March 2012 ‐ When will a revised Framework be published? 

Other 



SA Ref: 



Comment Summary: The plan should reflect the proportion of affordable housing expected from new developments as set out in the Core Strategy. 

Page 153 of 162


SA Ref: 


Comment Summary: If the BCAP document had been produced in fewer varieties of text fonts / sizes it would make it much easier for the user. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Expects there will be an EIA as well as full Health and Safety Audit before implementation. The Council should demonstrate its at the forefront of 

best practice. 

The plan includes numerous references to pedestrians / cyclists, but no recognition the former may be visually impaired. These routes will also be 

used by wheelchairs and mobility scooters ‐ therefore steps should be made to minimise risks (considering types of surface material). Buildings 

should incorporate full provision for those with disabilities (I.e. wide doors/ Braille signs etc.). Planners must liaise with shop mobility to ensure the 

dimensions of their vehicles can be easily accommodated through these areas. 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 




Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The plan area is approximately 200m from the Avon Gorge SAC. The Council should undertake an HRA screening exercise to determine the likely 

effects of the Plan on the European Site and records the reasons for its conclusions. 

Other 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 




Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: It is important to retain an element of flexibility within the allocations. A number of the sites could support an element of housing despite being 

identified for alternate suggested uses. It is important to consider alternate proposals upon their individual merits rather than their failure to meet 

the CAP's suggested use. 

Objection 

Page 154 of 162

Respondent: Western Power Distribution 

Comment No: 0378 

SA Ref: 



Comment Summary: Western Power Distribution may have a number of strategic electricity distribution circuits in some of the areas being considered for development. 


SA Ref: 


Comment Summary: Planning enforcement policies should be included in the plan. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 



SA Ref: 



Comment Summary: Urge that the earlier closing of licensed premises is considered in view of the reduction of Bristol's carbon footprint that could be achieved. 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 


Marine Management Organisation 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Reference should be included to the following to ensure that all relevant regulation is covered: Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009), Marine Policy 

Statement, Marine Plans and Marine Licensing. 

Objection 

Respondent: Garry Brandrick 

SA Ref: 


Comment Summary: There are more serious issues for Bristol to address ASAP, such as young people and binge drinking. 


Comment Type: 

Other 

Page 155 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 



Comment Summary: The locational and site specific policies also provide helpful guidance that appears to be underpinned by a reasonable understanding of the 

proposed development areas and allocated sites and to reflect the views of local communities and emerging Neighbourhood Plans. 


Comment Type: 

Support 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 




Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Bristol Central Area is still far short of what is needed in green infrastructure terms to keep the central area habitable for the vulnerable during 

extreme heat events. At least another 300 hectares of green infrastructure is needed. There are insufficient policies and standards in the document 

to enable planning decisions to be made to ensure this. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 




Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The Preferred Options BCAP document has watered down the community involvement input on the need for trees in the central area from the 

Options document Feb 2012. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 



Comment Summary: The BCAP should build on the high level policies for development set out in the CS and Site Allocations and DM Policies document. It should also 

include the city's aim of increasing the tree canopy and give it weight in planning decisions by including it in the Green Infrastructure policies. 

The vision should include the protection of existing green infrastructure assets as well as planting of trees and urban greening. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 156 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: 




Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: The draft BCAP was subject to a SA and SEA at options stage. It doesn't appear that changes proposed in the preferred options document have been 

assessed against sustainability objectives. An assessment should be undertaken to ensure and demonstrate these are the best options and this 

would help to ensure the requirements of the SEA regulations have been fully met. 

Other 



SA Ref: 


Chapter: Policies Map 

Comment Summary: We only know there are 12 maps from page 3. It would be good to have an index on page 4 to state which maps are covering which areas. 

Respondent: Mr O Roberts 


SA Ref: 



Comment Summary: The St Pauls Green Infrastructure route shown on policy map 3 does not appear to make any links with Brunswick Cemetery. 


SA Ref: 


Comment Summary: It is not easy to identify shopping centres by name so impossible to identify the boundaries. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Page 157 of 162


SA Ref: 


Comment Summary: There are no labels on each map so its difficult to know which map one is looking at. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 


SA Ref: 


Comment Summary: Should indicate car parks and coach parks. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 


SA Ref: 


Comment Summary: It would be good to indicate on the margins which map to go to. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 


SA Ref: SA101 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Important cycle link should be included alongside the pedestrian link to/from Gaol Ferry Bridge. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 



SA Ref: SA103 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: The existing cycle link along Harbourside is not referenced. Include a cobble free link alongside Lime Kiln Rd to facilitate north/south access. 

Page 158 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: SA105 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Ambitions for the Cumberland Basin are limited with inadequate joining up of A&B Bond, the redundant surface and overhead roadways and the 

desire for spatial creation and better access to the waterfront. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: SA105 

Chapter: 

Sustrans 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Improvements to the pedestrian and cycle environment along the riverside should be stipulated along this National Cycle Network route. Vehicle 

access should be restricted to service vehicles. Also include cycle access to Avon Crescent under Smeaton Rd. 

Objection 



SA Ref: SA201 

Chapter: 


Comment Summary: Why has the option for a school not been included? This would relieve pressure on adjacent, vital, community and heritage assets. 


SA Ref: SA202 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: This should be gathered in with adjacent sites to gain the benefits of a more comprehensive solution. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: SA202 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Supports the inclusion of the site although doubt a developer will be interested as it is a difficult site. The suggested uses should also include 

student accommodation. 

Support 

Page 159 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: SA301 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Housing is suggested as the appropriate use for the site. The site falls within the University precinct and is identified within SPD11 as a gap site. 

Within Strategic Move 5 of SPD11 it is allocated for educational purposes or residential development. This flexibility of use should be reflected 

within the site allocations. 

Objection 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: SA301 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Consider the University should put back what it destroyed to build the medical school. Suggest academic use and student accommodation would be 

acceptable uses given the difficulty of the site. 

Other 

Respondent: Mr O Roberts 

SA Ref: SA504 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: The development considerations should include: 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Provide a new pedestrian link into Brunswick Cemetery either from Portland Sq or Surrey St. 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: SA507 

Chapter: 

Chris Carley 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Site description "Area of vacant, hoarded land" ‐ this is not accurate ‐ Site has been converted into a working yard for the adjacent shop premises of 

PRSC (Peoples Republic of Stokes Croft). Used for material, tool, equipment storage. Examples of works produced in the yard include ‐ large bear 

sculpture at St James Barton roundabout & murals for ground floor opening at carriage works. Description of "hoarding" also incorrect ‐ enclosed 

wall functions as an outdoor gallery. The site as it is, positively contributes to the conservation area. 

Objection 

Page 160 of 162

Respondent: Savills 

SA Ref: SA601 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Suggested uses should be expanded to include student accommodation and hotel use. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Development considerations: 

Suggest the following text is added to the end of the 1st criteria "consistent with providing good residential amenity". 

Suggest delete "active" from the 2nd criteria and that the following text is added to the end of the 2nd criteria "Active uses should only be provided 

on key pedestrian routes where they are commercially viable to avoid dead hoardings. 

Suggest the following text is added to the end of the 5th criteria "Appropriate alterations to these buildings will be acceptable to achieve their 

reuse". 

Suggest amendment of the 9th criteria to read "Not prejudice the future delivery of a continuous quayside walkway around the harbour frontage of 

the site. 

Suggest amendment of the 10th criteria to read "where possible contribute more generally to enhanced connectivity and permeability in this part of 

Redcliffe, with reference to the historic publicly accessible street pattern of the area and the aspirations set out in SPD3 


SA Ref: SA601 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Supports the quayside route extensions and new bridge. 


Comment Type: 

Support 

Respondent: 

SA Ref: SA601 

Chapter: 



Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Supports regeneration plans, however they should include a better planning of roads. New buildings and streets are not connected well to existing 

streets. 

Objection 

Page 161 of 162

Respondent: 

SA Ref: SA603 

Chapter: 

Sustrans 


Comment Type: 

Comment Summary: Cycling facilities should be included alongside improved pedestrian environments if roads are narrowed. Development should seek to remove the 

Counterslip rat run. 

Objection 


SA Ref: SA606 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Supports the proposed extension to a pedestrian quayside route passing this site and proposed new pedestrian bridge. 


Comment Type: 

Support 


SA Ref: SA610 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Development should allow for pedestrian/cycle access to Redcliffe Tunnel for possible future link to Temple Meads. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Respondent: Dr Hugh Pratt 

SA Ref: SA610 

Chapter: 

Comment Summary: Site is known as Guinea St Car Park not railway cutting. 


Comment Type: 

Objection 

Suggest the site is identified for increased replacement long stay private car parking with limited active frontage or residential use etc. 

Page 162 of 162

report including detailed summaries (pdf, 0.7 MB) - Bristol City Council

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?