Application Details

Reference 21/03020/F
Address St Mary-le-Port Wine Street Bristol BS1 2AN  
Street View
Proposal Demolition of existing buildings and structures including the office buildings (including basements and sub-structures) known as Bank of England House, Bank House and Norwich Union House, site clearance and erection of three new office buildings (Class E) with flexible basement and ground floor uses (Class E (commercial, business and service uses) and/or as a launderette, public house, wine bar, drinking establishment, drinking establishment with expanded food provision, hot food takeaway and/or cinema), alterations and repairs to St Mary le Port Church tower and ruins, alterations and repairs to High Street vaults, hard and soft landscaping and public realm improvements (including events space), infrastructure, means of access and all associated works (Major).
Validated 28-05-21
Type Full Planning
Status Pending decision
Neighbour Consultation Expiry 29-06-21
Standard Consultation Expiry 05-07-21
Determination Deadline 27-08-21
BCC Planning Portal BCC Planning Portal
Public Comments Supporters: 14 Objectors: 26  Unstated: 5  Total: 45
No. of Page Views 0
Comment analysis   Date of Submission
Nearby Trees Within 200m

BTF response: OBJECT

Recommendation submitted 06-08-21

We have submitted our objections to this application here -

Public Comments



important than the economic and social development objectives.

The whole emphasis of the environmental objective changed to become much more imperative

with the publication of the latest version of the Framework last July. It now reads (old wording

struck out, new wording in blue):

an environmental objective – to contribute to protecting protect and enhancing enhance

our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land,

helping to improve improving biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising

waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to

a low carbon economy.

Furthermore, with the introduction of a new paragraph 131, trees are made an integral part of


Trees make an important contribution to the character and quality of urban

environments, and can also help mitigate and adapt to climate change. Planning

policies and decisions should ensure that new streets are tree-lined50, that

opportunities are taken to incorporate trees elsewhere in developments (such as

parks and community orchards), that appropriate measures are in place to secure

the long-term maintenance of newly-planted trees, and that existing trees are

retained wherever possible. Applicants and local planning authorities should work

with highways officers and tree officers to ensure that the right trees are planted

in the right places, and solutions are found that are compatible with highways

standards and the needs of different users.

The status of habitat and biodiversity has also been given greater emphasis. Paragraph 181 c)

now makes it clear that (old wording struck out, new wording in blue):

development whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be

supported; while opportunities to incorporate improve biodiversity improvements in and

around developments should be encouraged integrated as part of their design, especially

where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity or enhance public access to

nature where this is appropriate.

With the publication of Biodiversity Metric 3.0,2 (BM3.0) in July, a new way of measuring and

accounting for biodiversity losses and gains resulting from development or land management

change has been adopted. The biodiversity metric defines Net Gain as an:

… approach to development that aims to leave the natural environment in a measurably

better state than beforehand. This means protecting existing habitats and ensuring that

lost or degraded environmental features are compensated for by restoring or creating

environmental features that are of greater value to wildlife and people. It does not



change the fact that losses should be avoided where possible, a key part of adhering to

a core environmental planning principle called the mitigation hierarchy.

The Mitigation Hierarchy

Ideally, development should always be planned around existing trees. This is because an

established tree that is retained offers far more benefits and ecoservices than newly planted

trees (no matter how many are planted), whose potential will take decades to be realised, if

indeed it ever is.

The mitigation hierarchy provides a cascading decision process: only if the preceding choice is

unavailable is the next one considered.

1. Avoid - Where possible, habitat damage should be avoided.

2. Minimise - Where possible, habitat damage and loss should be minimised.

3. Remediate - Where possible, any damage or lost habitat should be restored.

4. Compensate - As a last resort, damaged or lost habitat should be compensated for.

Local planning policies

Local Planning Authorities have a duty to consider both the protection and planting of trees

when considering planning applications. The potential impact of development on all trees is

therefore a material consideration.

BCS9 – Green Infrastructure

BCS9 of Bristol’s Core Strategy3 states that ‘Individual green assets should be retained wherever

possible and integrated into new development’. BCS9 is one of the Key Policies for the

development of the Bristol Centre Area Plan4.

Where habitat damage cannot be avoided (which we would dispute) BTRS and the Biodiversity

Metric are two tools which the planning authority can use to ensure that:

• the integrity and connectivity of the strategic green infrastructure network will be

maintained, protected and enhanced.

• opportunities to extend the coverage and connectivity of the existing strategic green

infrastructure network are taken.

• individual green assets are retained wherever possible and integrated into new


• appropriate mitigation of the lost green infrastructure assets is required.

• development should incorporate new and/or enhanced green infrastructure of an

3 4 9.7 Harbourside (including Hotwells) - page 72


appropriate type, standard and size.

• where on-site provision of green infrastructure is not possible, contributions will be sought

to make appropriate provision for green infrastructure off site.

DM15: Green Infrastructure Provision

The provision of additional and/or improved management of existing trees will be expected as

part of the landscape treatment of new development. The design, size, species and placement

of trees provided as part of the landscape treatment will be expected to take practicable

opportunities to:

• connect the development site to the Strategic Green Infrastructure Network, and/or

Bristol Wildlife Network

• assist in reducing or mitigating run-off and flood risk on the development site

• assist in providing shade and shelter to address urban cooling

• create a strong framework of street trees to enclose or mitigate the visual impact of a


We have set out Bristol’s planning policies as they relate to trees in more detail here - Planning

obligations in relation to trees in Bristol.

Site tree survey analysis

The applicant has produced an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) which is based

on a survey undertaken in accordance with BS 5837:2012 on 11 June 2020.

The AIA identifies 47 trees, 28 of which are growing on the development site. Of these

28 trees growing on site, it is proposed to remove 13. One other tree, T23, has already

been removed by the Council because it was said to be damaging a wall in the ruins of

St Mary le Port church. We have proposed to the developer that they agree to

compensate for the loss of this tree as part of their proposal.

We acknowledge that the applicant has, as a result of our earlier initial representations,

adjusted their original plans and moved the footprint of proposed building C back to

allow for the retention of three trees on Wine Street which were originally identified

for removal. In our view, the same can be done with building B so that the other five

trees growing along Wine Street can be retained.

The same is true for the tree, T26, which is growing to the south-east of building C.

The building’s footprint can be adjusted to allow this tree to be retained also.

If this is done then there will then be no reason to pollard T27 (also growing to the

south-east of proposed building C). As the council’s arboricultural planning officer


observed in response to the original Request for a Screening Opinion: 5

Pollard management should be undertaken on trees from a young age and not by heavy

reduction of mature trees …Heavy reduction/ pollarding of mature trees is poor practise.

Cutting through the main stem or major crown limbs exposes the whole tree to internal

decay and will significantly reduce the trees safe useful life expectancy. This form of

management is more acceptable within Mediterranean regions due to the hotter/ dryer

climates, however, within the UK, our climate promotes internal decaying. Pollarded

canopies also create a profusion of heavy growth from the pollard points which causes a

very dense canopy that affects the fenestration of adjacent buildings causing a higher

level of conflict with structures; this often leads to increased pressure to remove the

trees into the future.

The officer’s full comments are set out at Annex 1 below, but his comments, which we endorse,

about the overall impact of the proposals are worth highlighting:

The proposed seeks to remove 14 high quality trees and 3 low/ poor quality trees. 10 of

the 14 high quality London Plane trees located on the road frontages of High Street and

Wine street (T34-T42 & T47) are proposed for removal; this will have a significant

negative impact on the character and appearance of this part of the conservation area

and to the green infrastructure of a heavily used highway and pedestrian/ cycle routes.

Considering the stepped over hang of Block A, replacement planting of these street

frontage trees is unlikely.

The 28 trees growing on the site provide 5,925 square metres of tree canopy cover

(TCC) and 6,439 square metres of Root Protection Area (RPA) combined.

The 13 trees, plus the one already removed by the council, being proposed for removal

provide 2,653 square metres of tree canopy cover (TCC) and 2,793 square metres of

Root Protection Area (RPA).

Included in these 14 trees are three (T24, T25 & T47) that the applicant says need to

be removed because, it is alleged, that they are causing damage to the nearby ancient

remains of St Mary le Port church and a medieval cellar. We have seen no evidence to

support this. As no other reason has been advanced to say why these trees need to be

removed, we say they should be retained.

If this is accepted then only 11 trees will be removed. On this basis, our TCC & RPA

calculations for trees removed will need to be reduced to 1,830 square metres of TCC

and 2,304 square metres of RPA.

5 20/05329/SCO | Request for a Screening Opinion - Arb Comments – St Mary Le Port - 20/02722/PREAPP


The application of BTRS

Applying the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard (BTRS), the applicant calculates that

72 compensatory trees will be required. We are happy to agree with this. As the

applicant proposes planting 17 trees on site, the 55 remaining compensatory trees will

need to be planted elsewhere under a S106 agreement.

If only 11 trees are removed then the BTRS calculation will be 45 replacements leaving

28 trees to be planted elsewhere under a S106 agreement.

Biodiversity Net Gain

We do not take issue with the applicant’s biodiversity metric habitat creation plans.

However, we don’t accept their baseline calculation and the metric they have applied.

The applicant has adopted the now superseded version of BM3.0, version 2.0 (BM2.0).

which the Council accepts for all applications pending when the latest version of BM3.0

was published. We say that the latest version should be used, for the following reasons:

1. The recent changes to the Framework, together with emerging government policy and

recent publicity about the threats to biodiversity (for example, the Biodiversity in the UK:

bloom or bust report by the parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee6) make this an


2. Natural England states that BM3.0 ‘…will become the metric used to calculate and

evidence whether a project has achieved the biodiversity net gain requirements set out in

the Environment Bill … Metric 3.0 updates and replaces an earlier beta test version released

for consultation in 2019 … Metric 3.0 significantly updates and improves that earlier metric

… Condition assessment approaches have also been significantly updated and simplified for

Metric 3.0 and some key changes mad e… all habitats, from street trees to woodlands,

green roofs to grasslands are recorded, scored and valued for their importance for wildlife.

At the same time, it provides an evidence-based, transparent, consistent and easy to use

way of ensuring that nature is considered within the design of developments and in land

management practice, leaving nature in a better place than it was before, benefitting

wildlife, people and places.’.7

3. Biodiversity Metric 2.0 (BM2.0) was only ever issued as a beta test version to allow wider

public consultation before the final version was published. This has now happened with the

publication of BM3.0 on 7 July.

4. BM3.0 introduces a number of improvements and corrects some issues associated with

6 7 https:/



5. The BM2.0 Urban – Street Tree habitat has been abandoned with the publication of BM3.0.

A new, combined Urban Tree habitat replaces both it and the other previous urban tree


6. There is now a definition of an Urban Tree habitat in BM3.0. There was none for Urban

Street Tree habitats in BM2.0.

7. The Urban Tree habitat now gives proper weight to urban trees.

8. BM 3.0 will be the metric that underpins the Environment Bill’s provisions for mandatory

biodiversity net gain in England.

9. If BM2.0 is used instead of BM3.0 to avoid proper mitigation of habitat loss, this should be

rejected on principle, especially bearing in mind recent changes to the Framework, the

proposals set out in the Environment Bill, and the declarations made and goals set by Bristol

City Council.

Whichever version of the biodiversity metric is used, the method for calculating the

habitat area of urban trees is controversial. We say the current approach is unworkable

when valuing baseline urban tree habitats (see Annex 2) because it seriously

undervalues the habitat of the trees on the site by about 42% of the reported combined


In addition, the applicant has excluded seven trees growing on the southern side of the

site from its BM2.0 calculation. It has ignored these and simply treated the area as an

Amenity Grassland habitat of 0.13 hectares. We reject this approach because it is the

trees that provide the most important habitat, not the grass that happens to grow

beneath them. We have treated the trees here as a separate habitat from the amenity

grassland and included them in our urban tree habitat baseline calculation.

We have used the full combined RPA of 6,439 square metres (0.6439 hectares) in our

calculation and allowed for the retention of 3,646 square metres (0.3646 hectares) on

site. We have assigned this habitat a Moderate condition and used the same strategic

significance assignment the applicant has used - Location ecologically desirable but not

in local strategy.

We have allowed for 17 small trees to be included in the onsite habitat creation, which

will provide 0.0077 hectares of new tree habitat.

We have also added an offsite habitat creation element to allow for the 55 BTRS trees

that will need to be planted offsite. We have assumed that these will be Medium-sized

and provide 0.2338 hectares of new urban tree habitat.

All the other habitat areas used by the applicant remain unaltered and are as proposed.


On this basis we calculate that the overall net gain/loss will be as follows:

Our Biodiversity Metric 3.0 calculation is available here - BTF Proposed calculation.

The Council currently accepts zero net gain or better, although, when the Environment

Bill becomes law, a net gain of at least 10% will be required.

On the basis of our calculation, it is clear that the current proposals will fail to achieve

either of these goals when the true habitat value of urban trees is input.

Bristol Tree Forum

06 August 2021


Annex 1

Arb Comments – St Mary Le Port - 20/02722/PREAPP

From an arboricultural perspective it is difficult to support the level of tree removals

proposed; I do however, acknowledge there are significant factors that need to be

considered relating to the regeneration of this high profile site. Trees and green

infrastructure have not been considered during the concept & design processes and

therefore the proposed maximises the developable area to the detriment to green

infrastructure and the natural environment.

The proposed seeks to remove 14 high quality trees and 3 low/ poor quality trees. 10

of the 14 high quality London Plane trees located on the road frontages of High Street

and Wine street (T34-T42 & T47) are proposed for removal; this will have a significant

negative impact on the character and appearance of this part of the conservation area

and to the green infrastructure of a heavily used highway and pedestrian/ cycle routes.

Considering the stepped over hang of Block A, replacement planting of these street

frontage trees is unlikely.

The remaining mature London plane (T1,T2,T5,T9,T10,T27,T43,T44,T45&T46) are

recommended to be heavily pruned to form high pollards and maintained by cyclic

pruning. Pollard management should be undertaken on trees from a young age and not

by heavy reduction of mature trees.

Heavy reduction/ pollarding of mature trees is poor practise. Cutting through the main

stem or major crown limbs exposes the whole tree to internal decay and will

significantly reduce the trees safe useful life expectancy. This form of management is

more acceptable within Mediterranean regions due to the hotter/ dryer climates,

however, within the UK, our climate promotes internal decaying. Pollarded canopies

also create a profusion of heavy growth from the pollard points which causes a very

dense canopy that affects the fenestration of adjacent buildings causing a higher level

of conflict with structures; this often leads to increased pressure to remove the trees

into the future.

Further details relating to pollard height and maintenance regimes needs to be

provided. Who will maintain the newly formed pollards and accept the financial burden

for the inflated management costs. The one benefit to pollarding London plane is the

reduced risk of limb failure due to Massaria infection.

Trees 1,2,5,9 & 10 on the southern boundary of the site must be retained in as nature

a form as possible. Crown lifting operations would be considered acceptable to allow

light and development to occur beneath. Pollarding of these features along with the

removal of the trees on High Street & Wine Street is not acceptable.


The proposed removals require 84 replacement trees in accordance with DM17 and the

Planning Obligations SPD. This has the potential to increase at full application due to

my refusal to accept pollarding of mature trees as a suitable form of management

without further justification. A landscape/ tree planting plan has not been provided

at this stage to show how the mitigation requirements will be met. If the loss of all

major amenity trees on High Street and Wines street are considered acceptable on

balance through the planning process a high quality landscape plan needs to be

provided to demonstrate how the proposed will integrate into Castle park providing

arboricultural amenity feature and ecological green infrastructure benefits

commensurate with the loss.

Due to the high percentage of London plane on site the benefit to tree removal and

replacement would be to create a more diverse tree population that future proofs the

tree stock to climate change and increasing tree diseases that affect individual tree

species such as Massaria (London plane) or Ash dieback (Ash).

The pre-application presentation shows a number of images of Wine Street with trees

in large containers. This is not considered acceptable mitigation and any amenity tree

planting needs to be provided with sustainable tree planting in the ground using

modern tree planting techniques such as the Stockholm system that utilises SUDs

systems and rainwater discharge to aid establishment of new tree planting.

The pre-application presentation “Biodiversity & Trees” puts forward Bristol’s

aspiration to “Replant Bristol” and the “One City, Ecological Emergency Strategy”

logo. Unfortunately at this stage the significant loss of green infrastructure is contrary

to Bristol & the West of England’s aspiration to improve and increase green

infrastructure. No tree or biodiversity gain has been proposed.

At this stage the proposed fails to meet the criteria set out in BCS9, DM15, DM17 and

does not demonstrate any mitigation in accordance with the Planning obligations SPD,

Tree Replacement Standard.

Due to the contrasting objectives and requirements to regenerate the site I recognise

there will be tree loss to some degree, however, at this stage the balance is heavily

weighted on maximising developable space to the detriment of the natural

environment, green infrastructure and trees. These are key political issues that need

to be addressed at the full application stage.


Annex 2

Why calculating the habitat area of urban trees does not work

Under both of the Biodiversity Metrics (2.0 & 3.0), the way that trees are sized is based

on this table (this version is taken from the guidance to BM3.08, but it also applies to


In our view, this table is unworkable when valuing baseline urban tree habitats. It gives

neither guidance nor any logical method for interpreting it such that a given tree with

a given stem diameter can be assigned to one or other of the three tree-size categories.

We say that Root Protection Areas (RPAs) or, even better, tree canopy cover (TCC) offer

a far better approach than assigning trees to these three arbitrary categories. RPA and

TCC values are reported in the AIA, or can be calculated from the AIA, for each tree.

This approach better represents the actual habitat areas of urban trees and does not

run the risk of undervaluing urban tree habitat that this tables does. However, we

accept that we must make the best of what we have for the time being.

With this in mind, we have adopted a compromise methodology. This assumes that the

small, medium and large stem diameters given are the median points in three evenly

distributed tree populations, and will change from Small to Medium at 20 cm and from

Medium to Large at 40 cm.

Of course, large trees are effectively unbounded in their upper range so this population

is not really evenly distributed – the larger a tree is the more it will be undervalued.

Most of the trees on the development site have been undervalued as a result. If (as we

have seen done elsewhere) the step changes are set at 30 cm – Small to Medium – and

50 cm – Medium to Large – then this undervaluation is even larger.

8 Biodiversity Metric 3.0 User Guide 9 Save that here the title of the second column is wrong. It should read ‘Girth [circumference] at Breast Height (cm)’.


Why should urban trees suffer such an arbitrary discount when no other habitat used by

BM3.0 does? It makes no sense.

However, using this compromise methodology, we calculate that the habitat area of

the trees is only 2,696 square metres. This is an undervaluation of some 42% of the

actual 6,439 square metres of RPA recorded.

This graph shows the impact of adopting even this compromise approach:































































Tree ID

SMlP Baseline Site Tree analysis

% Difference Biodiversity Metric RPA / Actual RPA


Additionally to our initial comment, the Christmas Steps Arts Quarter (Residents &Traders) agrees with those objectors who have pointed out that additional office space of thisscale is not needed in inner Bristol. Before the Covid pandemic, large numbers of offices werefalling empty and redundant and were being converted for the increasingly pressing need forresidential accommodation.We also agree with every word of the excellent and learned objection from the Georgian Groupthat identified all of the vicinity's historic listed buildings that would be harmed by have theircityscape overwhelmed and obscured by the proposed three incongruously tall modern buildings.

As stated on Page 43 of Mike Jenner's 'Bristol's 100 Best Buildings' - "The High Street, running upfrom the bridge, was . . . . Brigstow's earliest street. The town grew up around its junction withWine, Corn and Broad Streets". As such the High Street sghould be paid the highest historicalrespect, and should be mended and re-instated as the 2-sided, 4-storey High Street of traditionalcharacter..

There is plenty of room for modern high-rise buildings on the outskirts of Bristol, as recommendedin the City Plan.

We continue to object to the whole concept of this proposal.

Mr Richard Green  76 JERSEY AVENUE BROOMHILL BRISTOL  on 2021-08-23   OBJECT

The buildings are too tall and too bulky and sit heavy on the landscape, they lackfinesse and don't relate to the adjacent buildings. They take up far too many sightlines andswallow the view of the 5 church tops from the other side of castle park.

The sloping top floors of one building when viewed from Bristol bridge look terrible - why slopingfloors? This makes a mockery of the historic area and has no relation to the history of the site.

Why do these buildings have expanding middle floors beyond the the footprint of the groundfloors? The appearance is too novelty and fad and will soon look ridiculous over the years. Theyare blatant attempt to increase floorspace at the expense of the historic fabric and aesthetic of thecity. Why can't they just be regular upright facades?

Failure to take this one great opportunity to restore the narrower urban scale of High Street and itsvista from Bristol Bridge to Christchurch with St Ewen

Failure to provide any residential or mixed use to contribute to the vibrancy of the city apart fromthe ground floor retail

The landscape proposals are the one redeeming factor but even the references to the historicstreet pattern seem more determined by the wishes of the corporate developers than by thehistory.

The materials look no better than the current eye sore buildings, why can't these be clad in stoneto match the existing historic buildings, why can't they be in Bath stone? It wouldn't be pastiche butan actual attempt to blend in buildings for once in Bristol.

Bristol has so many historic buildings and although this redevelopment is needed, this is not theplace to put this type of building, these type of buildings are better suited to Temple Quarter. Ithink that the redevelopment would be more accepted if they were shorter, regular shaped, sleekerand had better materials.

Mr Jeffrey Lucas  LONG VIEW BELTON ROAD PORTISHEAD  on 2021-08-15   OBJECT

Renovation and reuse should always be the first consideration, to minimise carbonfootprint. The most sustainable building is the one you already have. The proposed replacement isnot of equivalent architectural quality - in either materials or design.This building is of historic interest because it is one of few post-war branches of the Bank ofEngland and one associated with an important 20th century architectural practice, and of value forits high quality materials and well-preserved interiors.

If renovated and refurbished it would be eminently suitable for a new use.

    on 2021-08-12  


Castle Park

The proposals include a diagonal path across Castle Park from Bridge Street to Union Street as a

segregated route for pedestrians and cyclists. This is strong desire line for pedestrians and we will

want to assess the Council’s detailed designs to check that they fairly take into account the interests

and needs of pedestrians.

Bristol Walking Alliance

12 August 2021

Mr Roger Ford  16 BRYNLAND AVENUE BRISTOL  on 2021-07-30   OBJECT

While it is good to see proposals for dealing with this long-blighted site, I really think thisparticular application should be refused.

Firstly, the application fails to respond to Bristol's changing needs:

1. The shift towards home working induced by the Coronavirus pandemic means that we no longerneed big office developments like this. Even before the pandemic, numerous vacant office blocksin Bristol were being converted one by one into student accommodation. Any new buildings wouldbe of much greater value to the city as housing (above the ground floor).2. Now that Bristol Bridge, High Street and Wine Street are, thankfully, largely emptied of traffic,we surely no longer need a dual carriageway sweeping round the corner where this developmentis sited. So the application misses a major opportunity to restore the crossroads at the historiccentre of the city to the scale it had prior to the 1960s. This would be of particular benefit to theapproach from Bristol Bridge.

Secondly, the proposed buildings are too high, bulky and overbearing for this location. They fail toprovide a respectful setting for the historic buildings nearby. They are particularly offensive in

relation to the ruin of St Mary-le-Port church. Before WW2 this church was of course alreadyhemmed in by buildings that were relatively tall, but these were generally of four storeys plusperhaps a mansard or gable. The top stage of the church tower still rose above them, as it indeedit still does above the surrounding post-war buildings. The buildings proposed by this applicationlargely hide and totally overwhelm the church.

The proposed new buildings also look much too big in more distant views - from Bristol Bridge,from Welsh Back and from Castle Park - you really would not think you were looking at the heart ofa medieval city.

Please do not allow this to happen.

Mr John Templer  452 PAINTWORKS ARNOS VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-07-29   SUPPORT

This is by far the best proposed scheme for this area and a vast improvement onprevious developers' applications. It removes eyesore buildings, constructs thoughtfully designedbuildings, restores a pedestrianized shopping street, preserves and improves a corner of the parkaround the ruined church and improves access to the park from the St Nicholas Market Arcade. Istrongly support the application.

Mrs Caroline Templer  452 PAINTWORKS ARNOS VALE BRISTOL  on 2021-07-29   SUPPORT

This is a great plan and an improvement to this area.This seem to be be the best proposed scheme to improve what is an eyesore at the moment.This plan will constructs thoughtfully designed buildings, restores a pedestrianized shoppingstreet.I look forward to be able to see he area around the ruined church of St Mary Le Portreturned to back into the park and not lost behind of assortment of very ugly building of the formerBank of England & Norwich union.

Return the area around the ruined church into a lovely park areaand improves access to the park from the St Nicholas Market Arcade. I strongly support theapplication.

Mr Mark Taylor    on 2021-07-29   SUPPORT

Dear Sir

I very much support the Mary le Port Street renewal project.

It will make it a very nice area to be in, it will be a good safe place place to walk through, to the park, to meet people and friend, and family.

At this time it is a very dark dead end, where I have seen many people drinking, and squatting down,and camping,and Iv seen , very many scruffy intimidating individuals, group, and gangs, which makes it a place you dont wish to go to.

The renewal project should go a head to make this a pleasant and safe area for all people, visitors, and local people alike.

Yours Sincerely. Mark Taylor

Mr Stuart Frize  FLAT 32 33 WINE STREET BRISTOL  on 2021-07-28   OBJECT

Dear Sir / Madame,I object to the height of the buildings. These buildings are far too high.As a direct neighbour this will reduce my view of Bristol, reduce light to my building thus affectingmy happiness and enjoyment of of my home. lastly, the value of my property will be affected by areduced view / light.Regards,Stuart

Mr ian Cameron  4 GOLDNEY ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-07-27   OBJECT

I agree with the reinstatement of the 4 streets lost due to the Blitz: I also believe thatthat its essential that the ruins of the beautiful and historic church of St Mary le Port is rescuedfrom the entrapment of the current ugly buildings. However I believe that the the 3 buildings in thisproposal lend nothing to the ambiance of Castle Park and the City Centre. Their height aloneobscures the general skyline of the City and serves to further hide the tower of the church itself.The churches where, are still are, to an extent, the standout buildings in this and other historiccities and to allow the historic centre of Bristol to overpowered by these building would, in myopinion be criminal. We have a chance in a generation to restore Bristol's heritage. It would becriminal to throw that away on a plan with builds that not only denigrate the area, but already areobsolete in their proposed usage.To my mind this application has more to do with maximising revenue for the developer, and paysonly vague and facile lip service to what would best for the people of Bristol and the city itself.


Would just like to give my support to this exciting and worthwhile development. Thisarea has been an eyesore for so long and it's about time it was redeveloped with an attractivedevelopment such as this, it will have very little impact on Castle Park and if anything it willenhance it and give it yet another entrance area. The buildings look like a very good design andstandard with more than a nod to the important historical site that this is.

Mr Loui Efstathiou  1 LAWFORD ST BRISTOL  on 2021-07-26   SUPPORT

I wholeheartedly support this proposal. It has been derelict since I was a child. Thisscheme has been well thought and is also very unique. I fear that if these plans are thrown outthen the we will be left with something very safe and plain boring. I do not think the buildingmasses are too high as they were around this height before the war period. We have to maximisespace as much as possible as a city and therefore I feel this scheme is adequate for the area. Getit built !

Mr J Somers  8 MINEHEAD ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-07-26   SUPPORT

As a Bristolian Born and Bred I've always had interest in the infrastructure of Bristol andwhy Bristol which was once a mighty and beautiful city before the war had been rebuilt with awfularchitecture and design. Post war Bristol had an opportunity to raise from the ashes withopportunity to make it similar to pre war, but instead it was decided to move the shopping locationto Broadmead from Bridge Street and Mary Le Port etc, with poor design and erase parts of Bristolthat were essential. This is a fantastic opportunity to recreate a hidden part of the city and erasethe horrid building that has been hiding the glorious Mary Le Port church and bring back streetsforgotten. It's time to correct the mistakes made by post war council and make Bristol great againby reinstating forgotten streets and hidden buildings being centre of attention again. I really hopethe council make the right decision and allow this project to go ahead, but I would love to see itcreated with a Faux period design to give a flavour of what pre war central Bristol was like.

Mr George Field  18 CECIL AVENUE ST GEORGE BRISTOL  on 2021-07-26   SUPPORT

I feel this is a great plan to reinvent and rejuvenate this former city centre and long timederelict area. Why not let the plans be bold and exciting, how about Bristol be on the map for onceinstead of behind other major cities like Manchester or Liverpool. This was once a built up area ofcommerce and trade, too long it has been left as an eye sore, and with these plans it now looks asif it may once again be a thriving area of interest. I have grown up all my life in Bristol and workedin and around this area, too often wondered how many of those coming to our city have felt seeingthis site and wondered how neglected the city is. Re introducing Mary le port church to the newgeneration and once again creating an area of focus is a brilliant idea, the open space is also anadditional welcome. Looking at the plans it is not really en crouching on the wonderful Castle park,but utilising the footprint left by the wartime bombing and then in later years ruined by the starkand industrial architecture of the 60's. Lets not sit and ponder any longer and move on into the21st century

Mr Matthew Jeal  30 WALLSCOURT ROAD SOUTH BRISTOL  on 2021-07-23   OBJECT

As a resident of Bristol for 10 years ago the banking buildings found in the plans havealways been disused and derelict. As someone who moved here 10 years ago, Castle park is oneof the nicest places in Bristol and one of the first impressions when it comes to tourists and newpeople in the city. It's always perplexed me that the disused banking buildings have always beenan eyesore and attracted anti social behaviour in what is otherwise a lovely place in Bristol.

Whilst I wholeheartedly support the demolition of the building. I unquestionably object to the planssubmitted. The buildings proposed are too tall for the surrounding area and are not in keeping withthe surrounding buildings. The buildings surrounding St Mary-le-Port church were always out ofplace and distracting from a lovely piece of architecture.

My idea for the site would be opening up the space so the park spans from lower castle street toSt Nicholas market. Turn St Mary-le-Port church into a focal point for the park. Turn the Norwichunion building and bank of England sites into cafes.

In summary I object to the proposed plans, there is an opportunity to do something great with thespace here. Instead, these plans propose to replace derelict concrete monstrosities with new

concrete monstrosities which could meet the same fate in future.

Mr Stephen Knowlson  67 GARDEN SUBURB DURSLEY  on 2021-07-23   SUPPORT

I support this planning application. Although I am not a Bristol resident I am a born andbred Bristolian and I work in and therefore visit Bristol regularly.

This site has lain vacant for decades and is now an absolute eyesore in the heart of the city. Theproposed development is imaginative and reflects the site's history, with a nod to the Dutch Housein the design of the brown building.

I believe that the massing of the new blocks and their design is both appropriate andcomplimentary to this site and will act as a continuation of the Old City into Castle Park. Contraryto what some objectors have claimed, the size and height of the proposed blocks is not too large.They will visually anchor this side of Bristol Bridge in the same way that the taller ER RobinsonBuilding does to the other side.

In addition, these blocks will also visually anchor this end of Castle Park in the same way thatCastlemead and Castle Park View do to the other end of the Park. I believe that this scheme is ahigh-quality one and is well-overdue - I urge officers to approve it so that this long-neglectedcorner of Bristol can finally be transformed.

Mr Matthew Norris  FLAT 22 SOUTHEY HOUSE 33 WINE STREET BRISTOL  on 2021-07-17   SUPPORT

While we do widely support the development, please see these important comments tosupport the needs of local residents to maintain a harmonious balance between the developmentand protecting existing residents.

- Consistent with feedback from the May consultation, the building height is deemed to beexcessive for the location and plot. Reducing this will help keep a similar presence to the existingbuildings and also open up better views of important landmarks and be less invasive of air rights ina prominent area in the park.- Wine Street enjoys businesses that reflect the balance or operating hours reflective of mixedcommercial and residential and closure times suitable for this. Any new businesses shouldconsider local residents and noise impacts as a result. Areas such as Finzels Reach have stricterclosing times enforced to protect local residents quality of life and that should be followed at thisdevelopment to not attract late night venues that will increase noise and potentially attract loiteringat closure.


21/03020/F St Mary-le-Port Wine Street Bristol BS1 2AN


The Civic Society is keen to see an appropriate redevelopment of this important city centre sitewhich currently is an eyesore. However, we cannot support this proposal. Our strong view is thatthis is not an appropriate design response to this sensitive site located in Bristol's historic core.Although we have identified a number of commendable aspects of the scheme, the harmfulimpacts, particularly those flowing from the heights of the buildings, outweigh these.

The site's current condition, and the wish to see it redeveloped and brought into productive use,should not be to the detriment of the historic features and character of this sensitive part of thecity.

Ideally, the Society would like to see the application site and adjoining highway land consideredtogether in the redevelopment of the area. Not doing so potentially risks missing an opportunity to

deliver an outstanding piece of place making that Bristol would be proud of.

The negative aspects

The Society cannot support the proposed heights of the three office buildings because of:

(i) the substantial harm to the setting (and views) of medieval church spires;(ii) the substantial harm to the setting of a significant number of other listed buildings;(iii) the overall adverse effect on the City and Queen square Conservation Area; and,(iv) harm to views to the development when seen from many viewpoints.

In our initial submission to the public consultation on the draft proposals, we drew attention to theneed for the developer to justify the heights of the buildings because, on the basis of the materialwe had then seen, we had concerns about the proposed heights. This justification has not beenprovided and the fresh material supporting the application underlines that we were right to beconcerned about the appropriateness of the illustrated heights.

In particular, we would draw attention to:

- the views from the east, including from within Castle Park, many of which diminish theprominence of and/or obscure the towers of St Nicholas', All Saints and Christ Churches.

- the very jarring and overwhelming view of Block B from St Nicholas Street.

- the view of Block B from Bristol Bridge, where the building appears as excessively high andbulky. This is strongly exacerbated by its very conspicuous dark red colour, which makes itdominate many views, and makes Block B stand out discordantly from the buildings on the westside of High Street.

- the iconic view along Welsh Back from the Redcliffe Way swing bridge to the listed Bristol Bridge.Again, Block B's conspicuous dark red colour aggravates the damage done.

- the view of Block A from Broad Street.

- the effect of the proposed high-level terrace to Block B on the setting of St Mary le Port whenviewed from Castle Park. The terrace introduces a highly discordant note because of its horizontalemphasis, and the incongruous introduction of people (and movement) together with landscapingat 'rooftop' level immediately (as it would be seen) behind the scheduled ancient monument's

tower (see drawing SMLP-FCBS-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-02802).

Our concerns about the heights of the proposed buildings are amplified by the negativecontribution of rooftop plant (for building servicing). This adverse impact on views can be seenfrom many of the viewpoints in the townscape and visual impact assessment, including the longerdistance view from St Michael's Hill. This negative contribution in part arises from the stronghorizontal emphasis which is alien to the historic roofscape of Bristol.

In our opinion, the illustrated impacts speak for themselves and are significantly detrimental toestablished and important views, contrary to the written assessment offered by the developer'sconsultant.

Of the three blocks, Block B has the greatest negative impact as a consequence of its height, bulkand dark colour. We also have significant concerns about the height of Block A. Block C causes usleast concern but clearly cannot be viewed in isolation, because of the height reductions (in theorder of three stories) that we consider necessary on Blocks A and B.

The buildings' detailed design, including the jettying, divides public opinion. This in itself isdisappointing as, given the site's importance, we would have hoped to see compelling architecturethat received a more comprehensive welcome. As the government has said in its white paperPlanning for the Future we should "Ask for beauty and be far more ambitious for the places wecreate, expecting new development to be beautiful, and to create a 'net gain' not just 'no netharm'." And in saying this, we are not advocating a design solution that is a pastiche of some losthistoric past.

The positive aspects

Redevelopment is long overdue and the existing buildings add little to the function andappearance of the city. The proposed scheme has the benefit that it does not extend thedeveloped area and there is no encroachment onto the green spaces of Castle Park. Also mosttrees in Castle Park are retained, as are those along Wine Street and High Street, although asmall number are unavoidably removed.

We also feel the proposed land uses - offices together with restaurants and independent shops atground level - are appropriate.

We commend the creation of excellent pedestrian routes through the proposed development,including the revival of historic streets, and the links to the old city, especially St Nicholas Market,would work well. Generally, the public realm proposals are well thought out and of an appropriatehigh quality in terms of materials and design.

Placemaking opportunities have been missed

The opportunity has, however, been missed to consider the spaces between the existing andproposed buildings on both High Street and Wine Street holistically and bring forward integratedplacemaking. Such consideration should address traffic issues, the widths between the buildingseither side of High Street and Wine Street and their relationship to each other and the quality ofthe public space provided. The Society in particular urges Bristol City Council and the developer towork together to jointly provide a welcoming and high-quality scheme for the open area boundedby Corn Street, Broad Street, Wine Street and High Street, the historic core of the medieval city.The redevelopment project surely provides the impetus for such a bold scheme working to apublicly-endorsed planning brief.

The proposed development does not push out the building line, and thus leaves High Street andWine Street as wide highways dominated by their movement function. A planning brief andscheme should also consider both the potential for using the space for activities and the aestheticcharacter of the street created by old buildings on one side of the street and the new buildings onthe other side of the street. If the proposals have to be revisited because the currently proposedbuildings are judged to be too high, the building line could be pushed out to narrow the highwaysto some degree. (Some of the street trees are in poor shape, so we would not disagree with somebeing sacrificed for a better street arrangement.)

The proposed building fails to reflect the city's ambition to be carbon neutral by 2030

The Society strongly supports the council's drive for a carbon neutral and sustainable city.Unfortunately, the current design does not achieve zero carbon by 2030 and therefore falls shortof the council's publicly stated ambition.

We welcome the steps taken by the developer to green the development through the use of airsource heat pumps for heating and hot water production. However, we are disappointed that astandard such as Passivhaus has not been deployed to full effect. Given the significance of the

site and the opportunity to deliver a flagship development, this seems a lost opportunity, includingfor positive publicity for the developer.

The supporting sustainability and energy strategy implies external fixed solar shading fins are tobe incorporated. However, it is not clear from the elevations that this will actually be the case. Wefeel more information on the proposed mechanical cooling is required to understand how often itwill need to be used to maintain comfortable indoor temperatures in a warming climate and howmuch energy will be consumed in doing so. The Society commends the fabric first approach beingtaken, and would recommend that this is followed through by way of openable windows to allowusers control over their thermal environment.

July 16th 2021


As a long-standing (15 years) campaigner to "Keep Castle Park Green" I would like toadd my support for the proposed development at St Mary-le-Port.

We have been waiting for a proposal for many years now that does not encroach on the park andthis proposal meets that criterion. In addition, it's design will enhance the park with the southeastside of the site plan being given over to landscaping and the planned design of the interface to thepark will enhance the west end of the park considerably. Other proposals for the area this centuryhave proposed building up to St Peters, down to the waterfront, pushing roads diagonally acrossthe area and cramming as much as possible into this small space.

The economics of the site will be highly unlikely to produce a better development proposal withoutsignificant public funding.

The loss of any tree is of course not welcome; however, they have managed to avoid wholesaledestruction of trees in the area. Many of the trees were poorly chosen and positioned in the firstplace. The repositioning of one of the buildings during the design and consultation stage waswelcome.

The creation of the vision for the whole of Castle Park will allow the optimum design to be createdbetween St Mary-le-Port and St Peter's. Section 106 funding must be secured from thisdevelopment to ensure that the work is specified and completed in this area before first occupancyof the buildings. The current engagement of the same landscape architects by both the developerand Bristol City Council should lead to a seamless design.

I would have preferred the heights of the buildings to be less, however the design seems from thevisualisations to negate the impact of their height. The setting of St Mary-le-Port in the squarebetween the buildings seems to cradle the ancient monument well, rather than cramming thebuildings next to it, as would have been the case before the area was bombed out during theBristol blitz.

Planning conditions should ensure that the retail area does not become another drinking streetwith licensed premises in every other unit.

A planning condition should be made that cycle lanes should be planned around High St and WineSt so that they are not required to cross Castle Park through the existing cherry tree avenue andpedestrian path. Creating such a path through the park would remove additional green space fromthe park.

A planning condition should be made that the hoarding that is positioned around the developmentsite should be designed and painted to discourage tagging. Any tagging should be removed within24 hours.

An addition should be made to the transport plan so that all traffic approaches the site down theM32 rather than through any residential areas in the city such as Bath Road, Wells Road, HotwellRoad.

This proposal will significantly help Castle Park become an exemplar park in our city centre.

Mr Russ Leith  33 WINE STREET BRISTOL  on 2021-07-12   SUPPORT

Application N° 21/03020/FApplication Address - St Mary le Port, Wine Street, Bristol, BS1 2AN

As co-founder of and lead for Friends of Castle Park (FoCP) FaceBook Group (FBG) - with over1,200 members - it is appropriate for me to comment on the aforementioned application.

I fully support the application. I am passionate about Castle Park, its history, importance as a citycentre green space and its proximity to the Floating Harbour and, as a local resident who hasretired to and invested financially in the area, I was always going to be more difficult to please thanmost. Notwithstanding, what I have seen so far is a refreshing and contemporary interpretationand rejuvenation of Old City. The proposal pays homage to the past by giving a rundown,neglected and unloved area a new lease of life and the character it deserves. This is a once in alifetime opportunity to create a lasting legacy for Bristol, which is crucially important to us andmomentous for Castle Park, Old City and beyond.

Currently there is nothing to draw visitors to the historic heart of Bristol, quite the contrary. What

the medieval core has become infamous for is tagging, litter and fly tipping, drunks, drug addictsand dealers and arson attacks on the existing buildings which led to them being flooded by the fireservice. Sadly all this has been tolerated for too long, by too many people and, is now, evenexpected by some. I believe Castle Park will become safer, more interesting and desirablefollowing this development.

The treatment of the relationship between building and park are being skilfully addressed and verypleasing and will certainly help with the evolution of Castle Park. This will help create a cohesivevision for Castle Park that can be turned into a space fit for the title "Bristol's Flagship Park". Thiswould not only enhance the park, Old City and the new development by regenerating the entirearea, but would also be a draw for tourists, locals, commuters, which in turn will boost the localeconomy.

No one yet knows exactly what will replace the current carbuncles on this site, but one thing is forsure, not only are the proposed buildings better looking, more functional and have a strongerrelationship with their surroundings than the existing buildings, but also the area surrounding themwill be safer, cleaner and far superior.

I think the site deserves far more consideration than previous planners, developers and proposalshave given it. It is not enough that Old City languishes as it has for the past c30 years as a slum,nor should it become a medieval museum but, I believe, Old City should be seen as the evolving,thriving city centre it once was. My feeling is that MEPC will deliver everything that is needed tocorrect the previous mistakes made on this site.

Earlier proposals for this site were incongruous, out of character and land-greedy; suggestions torebuild the Dutch House are fanciful, impractical and unrealistic, but all is not lost, I do believe thismost recent proposal at least goes some way towards acknowledging the historical significanceand will build soul back into Old City. Improvements in the area will be achieved by reinstating losthistorical access points and preserving St Mary le Port ruins, as well as restoring and opening upthe tower for public access .

If high-rise or skyscrapers are what a developer wants, then unless they create a Van Alenmasterpiece, whatever they do is bound to upset someone...even then, they will probably be on ahiding to nothing...that is the nature of architecture. I am in favour of these proposals because myinterest here is in the future of Castle Park and helping it to be as good as it can be, which is alsothe objective of FoCP FBG and, as can be seen below, the majority of its members.

The addition of a new development at the west end of the park could see welcome improvementsto what has become a no-go area. There are of course other troubled parts of the park, but thesetoo could be improved through judicious use of Section 106 funds from the St Mary le Portdevelopment. After 30 years of deterioration, it is time to revive the shamefully neglected historicheart of Old City.

It should be noted that the Construction Management Plan does not mention any means forsurveillance or security of the construction site. My feeling is that CCTV should be installed topermit surveillance of the entire perimeter of the site once hoardings have been erected.Additionally, there should be a policy which requires the removal of graffiti and tagging every 24hours, with CCTV reviewed whenever graffiti.tagging appears, with all relevant evidence submittedto BCC and the police.

I have presented quotes from FoCP members who have commented on four of the posts relatingto this application, in the FoCP FBG. I have also summarised the reactions to the posts showingratios in support of the application and those opposed.The relevant publication dates are alsoshown.

The following are the Comments and Reactions from FoCP members, from the four posts whichhave covered this proposal. The total number of Reactions were 149: of which 130 were Insupport; 13 opposed and 3 neutral.Therefore, those in support of this application outnumber those opposed by 10:1

1.16 June 2021 - FoCP FBGTitle of post - Developer shares update on 'long neglected' building at Castle ParkReactions 13: Support 12; Oppose 0; Neutral 1

Supporting comments:

"Don't assume we all oppose this development. I think it's great and I will be supporting it."

"I won't be opposing it, and am amazed that anyone would want to keep the ruined eyesores onthe site for another few decades."

"I will be supporting this excellent opportunity to rebuild a wasted part of the central city, can'thappen soon enough""I'm not so sure about bringing back the past...How far back into the past? Who decides? On whatbasis is a decision made? Personally I like castles!"

Opposing comment:"REBUILD THE DUTCH HOUSE!"

2.26 April 2021 - FoCP FBGTitle of post - Take a look around the St Mary le Port development with the 360° virtualwalkthrough

Reactions 59: Support 53; Oppose 6

Supporting comments:

"I'm looking forward to seeing it finished."Excellent, can't wait to walk it in person, hopefully within a few years

"To the gain may not be the ideal for you, I and or many others BUT, it is a hugeimprovement on that which has existed for far too many years. Developers are not philanthropistsand BCC would only spend another fortune if it was left to them alone and the result would be afailure.....again! Double or triple the budget and years late."

"The area behind the NU building/around St Mary-le-Port church tower is one of the scariestplaces in central Bristol at night or in daytime.The sooner this... um... location (being polite) is opened up as a street/walkway/public space thebetter. And that is what these proposals do.I find it amazing that people who haven't visited St Mary-le-Port for decades, or maybe never...want to keep the current office ruins as they are, as ruins, a very visible blot on the heart of thecity.""Personally, I think the proposals are a improvement on the bulky, ugly, out-of-place, faux-TudorDutch House. It's time to either make some sensible alternative suggestions, or move on."

Opposing comments:"Well,I think it's ugly and too high."

"All I see is less green space and more concrete."

3.13 April 2021 - FoCP FBGTitle of post - Plans unveiled for area devastated by the BlitzReactions 25: Support 21; Opposed 3; Neutral 1

Supporting comments:

"What an improvement that would be."

"Having spent a fair bit of time going through their website, I think it's a really good set ofproposals.They've obviously thought hard about the design and materials used, as well as how to preserve,and integrate with, the park and Mary le Port."

"This is the best new development I've seen in Bristol for a LONG time, probably since @Bristol

was built all those years ago!"

"I'm glad to see that the historical relevance of the area has been at least considered in asympathetic design, rather than the brutalist imaginings of a dystopian Soviet block future."

"To me, this seems like a good compromise between retaining history and meeting moderndemands and design style.Personally I feel that building to match an architectural style several hundred years old, is slightlymocking. It's like the Victorians and their follies etc.New buildings should reflect the era of when they're built- that's what makes history."

Opposing comments:"I knew they would not rebuild The Dutch House, its a tragic shame, because it was a beautifulbuilding, and a lost cherished memory of Bristol's past?"

"Far too modern. Demolish the current eye sores and increase the park size. Does Bristol reallyneed more offices when there are empty ones everywhere and post pandemic many people arebeing told they will work from home permanently hereon and are more shops needed when TheGalleries is already like a ghost town?"

"A replica Dutch House would be a totally appropriate building to put there. Building A looks like aCold War watchtower and is set back about 35m from the location of the Dutch House." 4.

4.07 April 2021 - FoCP FBGTitle of post - MEPC's St Mary le Port proposalReactions 53: Support 42; Opposed 4; Neutral 7Supporting comments:

"It will be the most significant architectural development in the Old City for over 60 yearscomprising offices, independent shops, cafes and restaurants, and bringing life and vibrancy intothe Old City and the edge of Castle Park."

"After looking closely at all the pictures my faith has definitely been restored!I especially like the building that pays homage to the Dutch House and how SMLP and St Peter'swill once again be linked. Really like that SMLP which has been neglected so long, is finally beingbrought back into the history fold in Bristol."

"The pictures on the site really don't do the redevelopment any justice. The reinstatement ofstreets and nods to old structures have all been carefully thought out and reviewed over and over.These aren't buildings to replace the past, they are here to build on our future."

"Wow! Ok. I've had a good look through it all and it looks good! It's actually making me feel veryconfident and excited about the proposed work.I've got to say that the main picture in this post definitely doesn't provide a fair and full view ofeither of the buildings. I especially like the building that pays homage to the Dutch House. Faithrestored!"

"Looking forward to the opportunity to revitalise that end of Castle Park in keeping with the historicsetting and opening up the space that is currently blocked by the raised walkway / tunnel etc. Thepublic space around St. Mary-le-Port church looks promising and the fourth quadrant that doesn'thave a building in it is a welcome extension to the park."

"I really like the look of this. Glad the old streets will be reinstated."

"Looks great! Any idea of the timescale?"

Opposing comments:"Not very impressed.""I can't be the only person thinking that looks awful?!""Hideous lego rubbish, words fail me""It's all huge and heavy. Yuk."


The Christmas Steps Arts Quarter (Residents & Traders) objects to this application.This is the most central and important site within Bristol's Old City and Queen SquareConservation Area. A main reason for conservation areas is to conserve the traditional characterof the area in question. This application fails to do that.

MENDING THE HIGH STREET AND THE MISSING QUADRANT 15th & 16th Century Bristolmaps show the four quadrants (like a hot cross bun) with High Cross right in the centre.

ROAD LAYOUT We applaud the proposed retention of Mary Le Port Street and Bridge Street. Theformer gives a setting to St. Mary le Port Church and Bridge Street is understood to be the site ofthe very earliest "Brigstowe" settlement, so any remaining archaeology should not be built upon.However, we agree with those in the Civic Society who are unhappy about the proposed retentionof the post WW2 widening of the High Street. That widening broke with the intimate character ofthe Old City, and the original pre-war width needs to be reinstated.

HEIGHT AND MASSING We object to the proposed three huge blocks that appear to be trying tobe all things to all people and are far too tall for this historical heritage centre of Old Bristol. Nine

storeys would be grossly inappropriate and would overwhelm the historic High Street and itscharacter rather than enhancing it. St. Mary Le Port church would be dwarfed and Castle Parkwould be spoiled by the huge intimidating rear walls of the proposed buildings. The bombedquadrant of the Old City should be reinstated with buildings of the scale and character as thosedestroyed in WW2 and of the same height and traditional character as High Street's and WineStreet's surviving buildings opposite, four to six storeys tall (preferably less than six), as per BristolCity Council's guidelines. Anything taller would unacceptably block and harm the views andcharacter of the Old City, particularly its church towers and spires. Despite Mayor Rees'senthusiasm for tall buildings, this is the wrong place for them. The very heart of the mediaeval OldCity is surely historically too important to have its character undermined by incongruous massing,and we support BCC's guidelines that tall building should be kept to Bristol's outskirts.USE OF THE GROUND FLOORS . It would enhance the development and the character of theOld City if all of the retail outlets could be limited to small independents (as at Gaol Ferry Steps,near M Shed) rather than corporate "anywhere" chain-brands.

USE OF UPPER FLOORS The Central Area Plan says that the site is "Suitable for a mix of usesincluding retail, leisure and new homes". The proposed offices flout this policy, and are mostunlikely to be in demand in the post-Covid period. There was no pre-war history of offices on thissite, and Temple Way is the current area for new offices. The storeys from the first floor upwardsshould be designed for maximum future flexibility with a system of partitioning and plumbing etc.that is fully adaptable to allow for changing future demands.

PRESERVATION OF ST. MARY LE PORT CHURCH We applaud the proposed re-roofing of thetower, plus the sensitive arrest of further decay. However, the proposed modern vertical vanes atthe entrance appear to be out-of-keeping and an unnecessary expense.

BRISTOL'S HIGH CROSS The proposals made mention of installing some modern art on apavement corner of the crossroads reminiscent of the long-removed High Cross. But surely this isthe golden opportunity to satisfy what Bristolians have long been calling for - the reinstatement of"Bristol's Elgin Marbles" - the 1373 stone High Cross back to the middle of the crossroads. Ideally,retrieve the original High Cross from the gardens of Stourhead. Or more realistically, re-site thestone copy of the top half (currently insignificantly placed in a corner of Bristol's Berkeley Square)and raise it on a fenced stone plinth (as with Banbury Cross). Any proposed modern art piecewould not succeed as the focal point to revive the true spirit and historic character of the centre ofthe ancient city.

Mr Ian Apperley  33 SOUTHEY HOUSE WINE STREET BRISTOL  on 2021-07-06   OBJECT

I support the development of this derelict site in all but one aspect. I live on Wine Street(along with over 100 other residents) and I am continually plagued by late night noise. I thereforeobject to the provision of late night drinking establishments which will increase night time noise,and make trying to get a decent night's sleep even more difficult to achieve. When we moved in toWine Street it was a busy and noisy thoroughfare by day, but incredibly quiet at night. Please donot make life insufferable for residents by increasing night time noise.

Mr Thomas Dickson  FLAT 31 SOUTHEY HOUSE 33 WINE STREET BRISTOL  on 2021-07-06   OBJECT

The proposal includes for public houses and wine bars on the ground floor, whichgenerates a significant amount of noise and disruption. Wine street is currently a quiet street past10pm for residential occupiers at Southey House, Ayleward House and Broadmead, and theintroduction of licensed premises will have a negative impact on the existing amenities. This mustbe carefully considered in accordance with Bristol Council's Local Development Plan, to ensurethe locations of pubs and clubs does not extend out of Corn Street, negatively impacting the localarea. I am therefore against this proposal unless strict licensing restrictions are placed on tenantswho occupy units within the development.

The Kingsdown Conservation Group  C/O 9 SOMERSET STREET KINGSDOWN BRISTOL  on 2021-07-05   OBJECT

The Kingsdown Conservation Group (the Group) regrets that it cannot support thisapplication proposing redevelopment alongside St Mary le Port. While the Group welcomes theintention to restore what remains of the church and to reinstate streets, it finds the scheme overallfails to respect the historic context of the area and the many listed buildings in the vicinity. This isone of the most important development sites in the city and is of significant importance in terms ofthe history of Bristol. The site represents an opportunity to create a truly urban space fit for the21st century. As such it deserves a proposal of the highest quality both in terms of its architectureand its townscape. Sadly the Group considers this proposal fails on both counts

The problem lies principally in the scale, bulk and styling of the proposed buildings. Each in itsown way is challenging and assertive. There is no effort to defer to the historic importance of StMary le Port Church nor to the nearby St Nicholas's Church, Christ Church or St Peter's Church.The proposed new office buildings would completely dominate these buildings. There is noattempt in the design of the new buildings to break down their scale and bulk either visually orliterally; instead each would be a single monolithic block (with somewhat dubious claims of historicdesign precedents). Regardless of the imposed limits arising from some formula, the buildingswould still be too high.

In addition the Group regrets that the opportunity to reinstate the crossing between Corn Street,Broad Street, Wine Street and High Street has been missed. If the buildings were to be built closerto the roads they face, rather than being set back, and built to a scale more sympathetic to theheights of buildings opposite, they would truly start to recreate a sense of the streets that havebeen lost. This would, of course, entail alterations to the road configuration but the gains would besignificant.

That part of the problem lies with the brief. The current pandemic has indicated that, in the future,city life may be radically different from what we knew before. It seems likely that the demand forlarge offices will be significantly diminished, if not a thing of the past, providing an exciting newopportunity for cities to reinvent themselves as vibrant places to live, focussing more on peopleand their environment. Instead of three new office blocks a more creative brief for mixed usewould instill life into a moribund scheme and perhaps allow for more creative thinking in the designand placemaking.

The Group would urge the council to refuse this application. Bristol deserves better.

Mrs Lucille Leith  FLAT 5, SOUTHEY HOUSE 33 WINE STREET BRISTOL  on 2021-07-05   SUPPORT

I am a resident living in Southey House, Wine Street. I support this application. Iconsider the proposals are significantly better than previous submissions I have seen for this site.They will transform this derelict, sad and neglected area of the old city.

I agree that the design of the buildings and the materials used should be a contemporaryinterpretation of the history of the old city. I think this has been achieved - we should be lookingforward but reflecting back on the rich history. I particularly like Building A with its reference to theDutch House. The buildings are high compared to those on High Street but not as high as those atthe other end of Castle Park - one outcome of the pandemic will be that greater floor space isrequired per person when workers return to their offices so this may be a justification for havingslightly taller buildings on this site. Keeping the spires of churches in the skyline is important to meso I was pleased to see these feature in the views from the walkways in the park.

What is currently lost and unknown by many is the history of this area. Opening up the vaults onthe High Street , reinstating old streets, the focus on St Mary le Port Church ruins and a moderninterpretation of the Bristol High Cross are all great ideas. These will bring history alive forBristolians and visitors.

The inclusion of the retail, cafe and restaurant units will plug a gap in the market whilst bringingback some of the ambience of the shopping quarter which was a key feature of the area. Theintention that there is something for everyone's pocket means that this will be an inclusiveexperience, affordable to visitors from a range of socio-economic backgrounds and so make thisarea as vibrant and attractive as it once was.

It's great that there will be a green area in the fourth section of the development - this will aid thetransition from the buildings to the park as will the path leading from Mary le Port Street to StPeter's Square. Planting looks exciting; the rain gardens along High Street and Wine Street willenhance the area especially where the existing plane tree roots have made the walkwayinaccessible. The tree planting strategy to replace those trees that have to be removed with theplanned additions seems to be a more than fair exchange. Improvements to biodiversity andecology which will be achieved in this scheme are most welcome as this is an area which hasbeen neglected and is dominated by hard landscaping and cut grass areas. Retaining anddeveloping Castle Park as an important green space in the centre of the city is to my mind asimportant as getting the buildings right. Public toilets and play areas will make the park more of afamily park rather than just a relaxation space for office and retail workers. I am also really pleasedto see that there will be a proper disabled toilet with full changing and care facilities to cover allage groups.

Lighting and security are both issues which concern me at night in particular, so it is good to see inthe plans that this will be much improved on the SMLP site especially given the anti-socialbehaviour in the park and the recent concerns highlighted following the Sarah Everard campaign.

Lucille Leith

Mr Russ Leith  FLAT 5, SOUTHEY HOUSE, 33 WINE STREET, BRISTOL BS1 2BQ  on 2021-07-05   SUPPORT

Application N° 21/03020/FApplication Address - St Mary le Port, Wine Street, Bristol, BS1 2ANI am a resident of Wine Street, with a view of Castle Park and Bank of England buildings.The proposed development is important to help remove the following problems caused by theappalling condition of the buildings on the site:1. In their current state the buildings onsite are hazardous, dangerous and a health and safety risk.

2. The buildings hide a multitude of illegal activities such as class A drug dealing and use, aconsequence of which are sharps and drug paraphernalia frequently left out in the open.3. Other drugs are pedalled on a daily basis, which also attracts dangerous criminals.4. I have witnessed child exploitation by the drug dealers, who use the youngsters as 'runners' totransport drugs around the city.5. The buildings also provide cover, permitting the area to be used as a toilet, as well assomewhere for taggers to spread their offensive messages which have made St Mary le Portunsafe, neglected and unloved.6. The area around St Mary le Port has suffered from criminal activity ranging from antisocialbehaviour to serious sexual assault and knife crime.

The importance of this proposal as a means of improving safety and security of the area isevident, but equally important is what will replace the derelict eyesores. The history around the sitewill be considerably enhanced by this development, making the entire area, including Castle Park,a more welcoming, desirable and a safer place to visit.

As well as improving the visible history onsite and beyond the development will highlight theimportance of the surviving history and will also signpost the significance of the historic heart ofOld City at the medieval cross roads of Bristol. This will be achieved through interpretation,lighting, conservation, restoration and a maintenance regime that has been sadly lacking in thearea for far too long. Local history will be brought to the attention of residents, visitors, and thelocal workforce by connecting them physically and spiritually to it.

Old City has to earn its keep, something it has not done since the war and I think the site deservesfar more consideration than previous planners gave it. Old City should not become a medievalmuseum but an evolving, thriving city centre as it once was. MEPC has my support because Ibelieve they will deliver an outstanding development, that is fitting for Old City, relevant tocontemporary use and will make a meaningful contribution to the local economy.

Mr Julian Ellacott  3 THE LODGE GUINEA STREET BRISTOL  on 2021-07-04   OBJECT

Fundamentally the buildings are too bulky and tall. Where they abut the High Street andWine Street they should be no taller, or only slightly taller, than the existing buildings on theopposite sides of those road, and there should then be a transition of height towards the park. Thecurrent scale proposed for the buildings jars with the surroundings on all sides.

Far from giving St Mary le Port back its identity, the proposal keeps the tower hidden away. Inparticular the existing view of the top of the tower from Redcliffe Bridge will be removed.

The replacement of the fourth building with green space is not to be welcomed, if the consequenceis to increase the size/height of the remaining three buildings, which appears to be the case here.Castle Park is already a large green space, therefore the release of a small extra green space is ofrelatively minor benefit, compared to the detriment of the bulky buildings.

I do not have an objection to the design of Building A, which I think is acceptable, although Iquestion whether it is exceptional enough for what is such a significant site on the corner of thehistoric junction. I find that Buildings B and C lack coherence and need to be fundamentallyredesigned. I see nothing of the purported relationship of Building B to the Bristol Byzantine style.

Mr Thomas Spokes  16, THE KEG STORE BATH STREET BRISTOL  on 2021-06-24   SUPPORT

My wife and I live on the top floor of the Keg Store immediately across the Harbour. Wewill look directly at the new buildings. We are both in favour of what promises to be an attractiveand well thought out development. Our only concern involves the height of the units proposed.They should not dominate the existing ones. From what is available to us it's difficult to judge if thisis the case. Despite this, we approve of the imminent improvement of an area that has been a longstanding eyesore.

Mr Graham Wood  9 THE KEG STORE 1 BATH STREET BRISTOL  on 2021-06-22   OBJECT

I welcome the development to develop this area but the height of the buildings in thedevelopment plan are far too high.

The current height of the planned bdgs will obstruct the public view of the church tower and arenot sympathetic to the area and too high for what is a historical / heritage part of Bristol.


The Castle Park area was our 'Historical Centre' so I think the natural course is toreinstate buildings, destroyed in the war, as close to the original as possible, as has been done inmany European cities. Not knock down ugly buildings and replace them with more ugly buildings.

Mr Keith Beresford  10 THE PAVILIONS BRISTOL  on 2021-06-18   OBJECT

I welcome the proposals to redevelop the site and open up the views to, and access to,the remains of St Mary le Port. The overall designs have much to commend them.However, looking from Bristol Bridge, the proposed buildings look far too high and the design isnot in keeping with the area. It seems to stick out like a sore thumb.

Mr Ian Carter  FLAT 6, 32 TOYNBEE ROAD KNOWLE BRISTOL  on 2021-06-18   OBJECT

In the wake of Covid 19, do we really need more office space? I do not think so, buildhomes for people to live.

Mr Rafael d'Arce  REAR FLAT, 187 REDLAND ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-06-17   OBJECT

While I do agree that the St Mary-le-Port area desperately requires renovation, Istrongly object to the current development plans and I believe you will come to regret it if it goesahead. The proposed new buildings are far too tall and ugly, and will not fit in well with thesurrounding areas. In other words, it will stick out like a sore thumb. Moreover, they sheer sizecompletely negates one of the projects aims: to bring the church tower back into the spotlight. Istrongly believe that the proposed buildings should be redesigned more modestly.


I support this proposal. The area is so important to Bristol historically and has beenshamefully neglected over the last 30 years. I particularly support the reinstatement of old streetnames and a square around the ruins of St Mary Le-Port church. I appreciate the modern nod tothe Dutch House in the plans and it will wonderful to have the link restored between Broadmead,Castle Park and Corn Steet and St Nicks Market.

Ms Jen Smith  6 WADE COURT WADE STREET BRISTOL  on 2021-06-17   OBJECT

The Bristol Central Area Plan, states that the St. Mary-le-Port site would be 'suitable fora mix of uses including retail, leisure and new homes.'

Whilst office uses 'will also be encouraged as part of the mix' we have since had a globalpandemic. This has shaken the use of office space and placed greater priority and emphasis onthe importance of parks and open green spaces.

The development does not include new homes, something that Bristol is in urgent need of.

The application summary also proposes ground floor uses such as public house, wine bar,drinking establishment and/or cinema.

The three giant buildings will be home to office space. But, Bristol City Council is already investingin a £4.725m recovery package to help Bristol's high streets and city centre with its post-covidrecovery.

This tallies with findings from Fortune/Deloitte in October last year that 76 per cent of CEOs

expected to need less office space moving forward.

The fact is, we already have two significant cinemas in very close proximity. Bristol City Centre isalso at saturation point with licensed premises. Including more will increase the numbers of peoplegathering in problematic areas which results in increased crime and public nuisance.

The size and scale of the development swamps the Scheduled Ancient Monuments of High StreetVaults and St. Mary-le-Port Church tower. Both are important heritage assets and deserve better.

The tower should serve as a focal point to the design, in keeping with the historical context of theOld City.

Whilst this part of Bristol desperately needs redeveloping, ironically, the size and scale of thebuildings currently surrounding St Mary-le-Port are much better proportioned than the hugedevelopment in these plans. In fact, the post-war buildings are more a part of Bristol's history andheritage than the planned development.

Any development in this area is 'expected' to 'safeguard' and 'enhance' Castle Park and itsheritage assets. The buildings in these plans would dominate the Bristol skyline. They are toolarge, too tall, will impact on views to and from Central Bristol, especially around the docks andharbourside, obliterating the character of this important part of the city.

Yes, urgent development is needed in this area, but not so urgent that a series of inappropriatestructures will engulf an important heritage area of the city for the foreseeable future.

Mr Francesco Di Stefano  47 PENDENNIS PARK BRISTOL  on 2021-06-16   OBJECT

I'm in favour of the redevelopment of the area, but I strongly object this planningapplication because the proposed new buildings are too tall and in my opinion their size wouldclash with the urban texture of Bristol historical centre.

Mr Christopher Sharp  15 RANDALL ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-06-16   OBJECT

While this site urgently needs redevelopment, this design is not an appropriatereplacement given the setting of the heritage assets in the area and the important views thatshould be preserved. The design purports to meet these criteria but manifestly does not.The overall height is excessive for the site, rising to 62.9 m PLUS the plant zones on top of thebuildings. There is a significant increase in the shadow thrown and the reduction in sunlightaround the site.Building B is expressed (this is specifically referred to in the planning documents) to reflect thedesign of warehouse industrial buildings which are said to 'reside' in Bristol and indeed it does justthat. BUT an industrial warehouse is not an appropriate building for this City Centre in a mediaevalsetting adjacent to churches such as St Nicholas and St Mary le Port. The buildings are toomassive (that is, dense and of great mass) in contrast to the surroundings and St Mary's tower isdwarfed and swamped while the views of St Nicholas and its spire are obscured from Castle Park.The designs of the buildings themselves are unsympathetic, lacking in character and without anyarchitectural individuality (beyond a rather grim, overbearing and forbidding presence hangingover the surrounding streets).This site is central to Bristol, by the river and Bristol Bridge - the ancient entry to the Old City. Itdeserves a development of character and quality which reflects the heritage of the site, and the

scale of the surrounding buildings. This development does none of these things and gives theimpression of a maximisation of density with a view to profit.Buildings on a site of this sensitivity should have an eye on the future inheritance they willrepresent. Can we expect the future citizens of the city to be proud of these buildings in futureyears? I fear the inevitable answer is 'No'.Please think again.

Mr Christopher Martin  5 ST LUKES CRESCENT TOTTERDOWN BRISTOL  on 2021-06-16   OBJECT

When I heard that the area was due to be preserved I got a little excited. The wilfulneglect of what was once a beautiful small scale area has always seemed short-sighted to me.However, on balance I have to object to this proposal as it stands for the following reasons:1 - Bristol's future is partly based around tourism and this area should be picture postcard perfect,not simply an ok-ish office block environment. I want to see pedestrianised lanes cooling ourvisitors in the summer heat and giving more of a sense of what Bristol is.2 - This proposal will make the reinstatement of something more like the Dutch House less likely infuture.

I like the fact the businesses are looking to develop this neglected corner of Bristol at last.However, this proposal does not fit the place.


Firstly their is lots to like about this development.

1.Reinstating former streets in the form of traffic free streets - linking up the old city withBroadmead.2. increasing the park with hopefully wildlife friendly plants and design3. removing the horrid dated buildings4. Active street fronts

The 3 bits I object to are the 3 monster buildings.They totally ruin this overwise good development. They will dwarf St Mary Le port church, creatingan overbearing slab block canyons, in one of he cities most historic areas. I am also puzzled whythis is an office dominated schemes? all seems a bit pre-pandemic when a large amount of officeworkers now work from home and have no plans to return. It would be much better for the upperstories of the shops to be mostly housing, that's what the cites needs. But this should be on ascale of design of the buildings in the old city not some giant slab blocks. However I expect thecurrent Mayor will be very excited about the giant slabs as he is hell bent on ruining the city withthis type of naff building design. So I don't hold up much hope of getting 3 monster slabs

redesigned to have them fit in more with the adjoining cityscape.


Very much support this proposal. The current area opposite our office is not very lovely,and I would welcome demolition of the derelict buildings and redevelopment of the area.

It currently attracts unwelcome activity of all kinds!

Mr Bob Hopkins  18 WARDOUR ROAD KNOWLE BRISTOL  on 2021-06-15   OBJECT

Look at the images of the monstrosity.The most important object is the remains of the church.Squashed and minimised by the usual awful Bristol developments.Replacing bad by bad.You had the chance to extend Castle Park and include the ruins and have something that Bristolcould admire but as usual money and stupidity rules.The council has a history of destroying anything of historical value,if it is green build on it,if its oldknock it down.Dire idea scrap it.



I don't need to write much here as anyone can see these are bland overbearingbuildings that add nothing to the character of the area and in time will be despised by those thathave to look at them. Don't let these be built

Mr John Summerell  17 THE KEG STORE 1 BATH STREET REDCLIFFE  on 2021-06-15   OBJECT

Whilst the area is clearly in need of development, the dimensions of these buildings arecompletely disproportionate to the surrounding areas and environment. Their height will mean thatthey loom large over the neighbouring properties - particularly the historic tower of St Mary Le Portas well as the spires of St Nicholas, All Saints and Christchurch St Ewan churches. The proposalsshow a remarkable lack of sensitivity for this historic skyline which would be dominated andblighted by these behemoths.

Additionally, the claimed links in architectural design appear to be, at best, tenuous. I see little inbuilding A that evokes "the Warehouse industrial buildings that historically resided in Bristol"neither do I get a sense of "Byzantine architecture" in building B. As for the claim that building Ctakes inspiration from the Regency buildings on Corn Street - really? Which bits? I consider theclaims that all three buildings "respond to the settings of the Site...while appropriately respectingthe setting of heritage assets and important views" (3.4.17) to be wholly unsubstantiated.

In summary, my objection is based on the design, appearance and scale of the development andthe detrimental impact it will have on the historic skyline of this part of the city.