Application Details

Council BCC
Reference 21/05580/F
Address Waterfront Square Millennium Square Bristol  
Street View
Ward Hotwells and Harbourside
Proposal Redevelopment to provide a mixed-use development comprising office (Class E) with ground floor food and beverage uses, retail, non-residential institutions (Class E) and public house, wine bar, drinking establishment, hot food takeaway (Sui Generis), hard and soft landscaping, cycle parking and associated works. (Major).
Validated 15-10-21
Type Full Planning
Status Pending consideration
Neighbour Consultation Expiry 18-11-21
Standard Consultation Expiry 02-05-22
Determination Deadline 14-01-22
BCC Planning Portal on Planning Portal
Public Comments Supporters: 31 Objectors: 92  Unstated: 1  Total: 124
No. of Page Views 0
Comment analysis   Date of Submission
Nearby Trees Within 200m

BTF response: OBJECT

Recommendation submitted 14-02-22

Here are our comments:

Public Comments



into new development.’ Instead, the applicant has moved straight on to the provisions of

DM17: Development Involving Existing Green Infrastructure, which allow for

replacement trees to be provided ‘where tree loss or damage is essential to allow for

appropriate development’, even though they have not shown that the removal of trees is

indeed ‘essential’.

6. There is little evidence that DM15: Green Infrastructure Provision has been considered

or applied.

7. Even if the removal of trees were shown to be ‘essential’ and Compensate was the only

option left after the previous requirements of the Mitigation Hierarchy have been

exhausted, there is no realistic prospect that any of the trees lost will ever be replaced

offsite. As a result, these proposals fail because they do not comply with planning policies,

in particular with DM17: Development Involving Existing Green Infrastructure.


This 0.27 hectare site is in Hotwells & Harbourside ward and falls within the City Docks

Conservation Area. It is registered on the Council’s asset register. The 13 trees on the site are

also listed on the Council’s asset register.1 We estimate that they were planted sometime

around 2000.

We calculate that they provide tree canopy cover of almost 29%.2. Hotwells & Harbourside has

just 9.7% tree canopy cover3, one of the lowest levels of canopy cover in the city which is 18.4%.

As well as providing ‘a high level of amenity to the area’4, these trees also provide important

ecoservices: they provide nearly 64 square metres of canopy cover to shade us, mitigate

rainwater runoff and absorb pollution. Since being planted they have also sequestered the

equivalent of over 16 tonnes of carbon. If these trees are saved, they will continue to do so,

even as our city grows hotter and suffers more and more extreme weather events. If they are

lost, we estimate that at least 96 new trees5 will need to be planted to replace their lost

ecoservices, which will take at least 28 years. Sadly, there is little realistic hope that this

replacement tree planting can happen.

The planning context

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), the Mitigation Hierarchy and Bristol’s

core planning policies, BCS9 – Green Infrastructure, DM15: Green Infrastructure Provision and

DM17 Development Involving Existing Green Infrastructure - the local policies upon which the

1 & 2 3 4 21_05580_F-TREE_SURVEY_AND_CONSTRAINTS_PLAN-3063264 – see the Arboricultural Consultant’s Comments 5 The calculation is based on the average DBH (35 cm) of the 12 trees being removed and replaced by Prunus avium street trees which will replace the CO2e lost after 28 years -


goals of the Framework may be achieved – are set out below. This is the case whether or not

the relevant sections of the Environment Act 2021 have been enabled by the time this

application is decided.

1. The National Planning Policy Framework

This Framework seeks to ensure that new development is sustainable. It stresses the importance

of green Infrastructure as one of three overarching, interdependent objectives – economic,

social and environmental. This means that sustainable environmental development is no less

important than the economic and social development objectives.

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

imperative with the publication of the latest version of the Framework last July. It now reads:

an environmental objective – to protect and enhance our natural, built and historic

environment, including making effective use of land, 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-lined, 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.

Paragraph 174 states:

Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local

environment by:

a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value

and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in

the development plan); …

d) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by

establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future


e) preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at

unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air,


water or noise pollution or land instability. Development should, wherever possible, help

to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality, taking into

account relevant information such as river basin management plans …

Paragraph 180 states:

When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the

following principles:

if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided

(through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately

mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be


a) development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and which

is likely to have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other

developments), should not normally be permitted. The only exception is where the

benefits of the development in the location proposed clearly outweigh both its likely

impact on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest, and any

broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest;

b) development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as

ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are

wholly exceptional reasons5863 and a suitable compensation strategy exists; and

c) development whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should

be supported; while opportunities to improve biodiversity in and around developments

should be 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.

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

now makes it clear that:

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

supported; while opportunities to improve biodiversity in and around developments

should be 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.

2. Biodiversity Net Gain

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

for biodiversity losses and gains resulting from development or land management change has

been adopted. Net Gain is defined 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.

3. The Mitigation Hierarchy

Ideally, development should always be planned around existing trees whatever their size or

quality. 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.

4. Local planning policies

Local planning authorities have a duty to consider both the protection and planting of trees (an

important part of Green Infrastructure) when considering planning applications. The potential

impact of development on all trees is therefore a material consideration. The following key

planning policies relate to this application:6

a. BCS9: Green infrastructure

BCS9 states that ‘Individual green assets should be retained wherever possible and integrated

into new development.’

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



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.

b. 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.

c. DM17: Development involving existing green infrastructure

Trees DM17 also recognises the important status of trees.

All new development should integrate important existing trees. Development which would

result in the loss of Ancient Woodland, Aged trees or Veteran trees will not be permitted.

Where tree loss or damage is essential to allow for appropriate development, replacement

trees of an appropriate species should be provided…

Due to their characteristics and value, Aged and Veteran trees are considered to be of

relatively greater importance than other trees and even trees of a similar species. Aged

trees, by definition, have developed characteristics associated with great age and often

have particular landscape and townscape value. Veteran trees are considered to have

particularly important nature conservation value. Both will often have significant visual

amenity, and potentially historic and cultural importance. As such their loss or harm will

not be permitted, and the design and layout of development will be expected to integrate

them into development.

Trees are considered valuable multifunctional green infrastructure assets. The policy

seeks to protect the most valuable trees and in line with the Core Strategy approach to

green infrastructure assets, mitigate for the loss of other important trees by securing

replacement trees on-site or in the public realm. The tree compensation standard set out

in this policy provides a suitable mechanism to determine the appropriate level of

mitigation where loss of trees is proposed as part of development.


The council’s Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document sets out the

circumstances when off-site tree provision will be necessary. Where trees are to be

provided off-site, planning obligations will be sought to provide the appropriate number

of replacement trees, utilising the approach set out in the Supplementary Planning


Where trees are present on a development site a British Standard 5837 Tree Survey ‘Trees

in relation to Construction survey’ and related survey information should be submitted

along with an application for planning permission.

Tree survey analysis

The applicant has produced a Tree Survey and Constraints Plan Summary (AIA) dated 6 October

2021. It is based on a survey undertaken in accordance with BS 5837:2012 on 23 March 2020, so

uses evidence that is now nearly two years old. It will need to be updated and be amended to

meet the requirements for Arboricultural Impact Assessments.

There are 12 Tulip trees on the site. Each is enclosed within its own Leylandii hedge nine metres

square.7 Nine of the trees have been classified under BS 5837:2012 as Category B2 (see Figure

1 below). Two others are classified as C2 and one is category U. One further tree died and has

been removed.

Figure 1 BS5837:2012 Tree quality categories (extracted from Appendix E in the AIA)

As the applicant’s arboriculturist notes, they provide a high level of amenity to the area. It is

proposed that all the trees and the hedges will be removed.

We understand from the applicant that it is exploring the possibility of transplanting the B2

trees to other locations. If this is the only option left because there is no possibility that the

7 The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, 21_05580_F-PRELIMINARY_ECOLOGICAL_APPRIASAL-3063396, identifies the species as red cedar, Thuja plicata


trees can be retained, then we would support this, albeit that transplanting is both expensive

and not always successful. We are also concerned that there are unlikely to be any suitable

sites available in the vicinity. Should this happen, provision will need to be made to ensure that

any transplanted trees that fail will be replaced in accordance with DM17.

The potential application of BTRS

DM17: Development Involving Existing Green Infrastructure states that ‘Where tree loss or

damage is essential to allow for appropriate development, replacement trees of an appropriate

species should be provided’. The mechanism for achieving this is called the Bristol Tree

Replacement Standard (BTRS).8

We calculate that 33 replacement trees will be needed to replace the trees being lost. Given

that there are unlikely to be any suitable new open ground tree-planting locations available

within one mile of the site, we calculate that (if suitable sites can be found), tree pits will need

to be installed. It would cost £140,834.99 to plant the 33 replacement trees needed to comply

with BTRS. This figure has been indexed to December 2021.9

In our view, the obligation imposed by DM17 to provide ‘replacement trees of an appropriate

species’ falls wholly on the applicant. This obligation cannot be considered discharged unless

the applicant has identified suitable new planting sites. Merely entering into a S106 agreement

to pay for the trees to be planted does not discharge the applicant’s obligations under DM17.

We estimate that there are only three tree planting sites currently available within a mile of

the site.10 All are sites where a tree once grew. This means that planting in these sites would

not replace what will be lost as a result of this proposal; there will be no net increase in tree

cover overall, even if all the other outstanding S106 agreements also ‘competing’ for these

sites are ignored. The developer’s proposal to mitigate the loss of these trees by planting new

trees offsite is therefore unviable and unrealistic because there are insufficient alternative new

sites nearby. This application should be refused because it fails to comply with planning policies

BCS9 & DM17.

The Biodiversity Net Gain analysis

No Biodiversity Survey, Report or biodiversity metric calculation has been produced. We have

asked if one has been prepared but we suspect it has not because the Local Planning Authority

(LPA) does not, as yet, require this because the site is not in or adjacent to any of the sites

listed in Part 1, section 3 of the Planning Application Requirements Local List 1st December

8 - p20. 9 (£3,301.88 x 33) x (317.7/245.8) = £140,834.99. 245.8 is the RPI index in January 2013 and 317.7 is the RPI index in December 2021. 10 Tree planting locations within one mile of the site (14 February 2022)


2017.11 However, when Part Six of the Environment Act 202112 takes effect, sites such as this

will be expected to show at least a 10% biodiversity net gain in any event. We urge the LPA to

require this report to be prepared now, in advance of the legal obligation to do so.

Notwithstanding this, we have undertaken our own calculation using Biodiversity Metric 3.0.13

This is based on the following baseline Urban habitats, all of which have the highest strategic

significance - Within area formally identified in local strategy:

1. Developed land; sealed surface 0.258 ha Condition N/A 0 Habitat Units

2. Urban Tree (the 12 trees) 0.0561 ha Condition Good 0.77 Habitat Units

3. Introduced shrub (the hedging) 0.012 ha Condition Poor 0.03 Habitat Units

Total 0.80 Habitat Units

We have also allowed for new habitat by the creation of new Urban Tree habitat comprising

the 33 Small-sized trees required under BTRS to be planted offsite. This will create 0.05 new

Habitat Units if and when these trees are planted – we have allowed for a notional three-year

delay in our calculation. These are the headline results – a loss of 94.38% of existing habitat:

Figure 2 Headline biodiversity net gain results

11 12 13


The application should be rejected because it fails to achieve even the neutral net gain

currently required by the LPA, let alone the 10% which will be required when the Environment

Act 2021 takes effect.

A copy of our BNG 3.0 calculation can be made available on request.

Bristol Tree Forum

14 February 2022


70 Cowcross Street London EC1M 6EJ T: 020 7253 3500 E: Registered Charity 269129

Bristol Cathedral is one of England's great medieval churches, originally founded as an Augustinian Abbey in 1140. Its wide-reaching setting on higher ground is an integral component of its historic and architectural significance, allowing it to be seen at long distance as one of Bristol’s defining landmarks. The site is situated within the City Docks Conservation Area (CDCA), designated in 1979 to preserve or enhance the area of low lying, formerly industrial land adjacent to the Floating Harbour that once formed the working heart of Bristol’s dock and commercial activities. The adopted conservation area appraisal for the CDCA states that a key characteristic of the conservation area is “its intimate relationship to the city” which “has been critical in shaping Bristol’s sense of place as a great maritime city.” Views to and from the city centre from the harbour are key attributes to the overall significance of the CDCA, and in turn, more widely to Bristol’s unique and historic cityscape. Proposed scheme The proposal seeks permission to construct a 7-storey office building at Waterfront Square in the historic docks area of Bristol, with the upper floor being a double height glass pavilion. Our Assessment We object to this application for the following reasons: Firstly, we object to the substantially harmful impact the scale, massing and location of the building proposed would have on the special historic character of the designated City Docks Conservation Area (CDCA). The applicant’s townscape assessment includes numerous viewpoints which demonstrate how extensively the proposed block would affect views across the harbour towards the city centre and cathedral. The open character of the docks and waterways in the CDCA means the scale and design of the proposed office block sits uncomfortably in its context, dominating the quayside and failing to respond to the overwhelming scale and character of existing buildings within the CDCA. For these reasons, we therefore consider the impact of the proposals on the conservation area would be substantial in heritage terms, permanently diminishing its historic character and eroding the special historic relationship between the city centre and the harbour, through the loss of both short and long-distance views which connected the two. The City of Bristol Local Plan Policy DM26 sets out clear guidance designed to protect the city’s historic character. It advises that proposals will be expected “to contribute towards local character and distinctiveness by (i) Responding appropriately to and incorporating existing land forms, green infrastructure assets and historic assets and features; and (ii) by respecting, building upon or restoring the local pattern and grain of development, including the historical development of the area.” It is also advised that new development should “(iii) Respond appropriately to local patterns of movement and the scale, character and function of streets and public spaces; and (iv) Retain, enhance and create important views into, out of and through the site.” When assessed against this key development policy, we cannot see how the radically larger scale and deliberately modern character of the office building proposed will either contribute or respond appropriately to the underlying character and character of the harbour. Regarding the requirement to “Retain, enhance and create important views into, out of and through the site”, we concur with Historic England in their objection that the proposed building will do the opposite, breaking multiple protected views to and from this part of the city. Secondly, the proposed development substantially harm the setting of Bristol’s grade I listed cathedral, by blocking important views of it to and from the waterfront. Any building over two storeys in height on this site are liable to screen views of the cathedral, which is a designated heritage asset of the highest national heritage significance. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2021) paragraph 200 states that: “Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification.” When assessed under this policy, the proposal fails to provide clear and convincing justification for why the substantial harm they will cause to the cathedral is necessary or justifiable in such a sensitive historic location.

70 Cowcross Street London EC1M 6EJ T: 020 7253 3500 E: Registered Charity 269129

The Local Planning Authority has a duty a under Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to protect and enhance both conservation area and listed buildings under its care. On the basis of the individual and cumulative harms identified above, we cannot see how this application conforms with these national policy duties. That the government’s heritage advisor Historic England and four other national amenity societies have all objected strongly to the proposals, we consider to be unequivocal proof that the heritage issues raised by this application are of serious and national significance, and therefore justify refusal of this application on heritage grounds alone. Finally, given the degree of policy conflict identified above and the significant scale of development proposed, we are concerned that if approved, these proposals would set a dangerous precedent, paving the way for further harmful development along Bristol’s waterfront, a concern we have also raised in objection to the recently approved office blocks proposed for nearby St Mary le Port (Ref: 21/03020/F). Conclusion For these reasons, we consider this planning application to be in contravention of national and local planning policy for the protection and enhancement of Bristol’s historic environment and we therefore call on the Local Planning Authority to refuse planning permission. I trust that these comments are useful to you, and I ask that you keep me informed of further decisions or consultations regarding this application. Yours sincerely,

Benedict Oakley

Conservation Officer, SAVE Britain’s Heritage

Miss Imogen Caterer  MILLENNIUM PROMENADE BRISTOL BS1 5SX  on 2022-03-18   SUPPORT

I live close by and commute through Millennium Square on the way to and from work. Ilike the plans and think they will add to the area.

Mr Stuart Campbell  45 MANOR ROAD KEYNSHAM BRISTOL  on 2022-03-07   SUPPORT

This development proposes a good mix of use in line with keeping what is needed inthis important space in central Bristol. Waterfront Square has proven its importance to the citycentre since its initial development many years ago and is now in need of further redevelopment toretain its appeal in the future.

Mr Ian Blenkinsop  13 MENDIP ROAD WINDMILL HILL BRISTOL  on 2022-02-09   OBJECT

This is the wrong building in the wrong place. The scale of this building is entirely wrongfor the context, sitting as it does in one of the most prominent locations in the whole city. As hasbeen noted elsewhere, this setting with its views, history, light and space, right in the heart ofBristol is unique and deserves better than this monolith.

A carefully considered convergence between the harbour itself and the land and amenities aroundit is needed. What we're presented with is something more like an airport terminal: an overly tall,indelicate form, that appears to take no account whatsoever of its surroundings.

The reduction in light alone, to what is arguably Bristol's greatest man-made asset - the floatingharbour - will have a negative affect on this vital, vibrant outdoor space for generations to come.Perhaps we'll gain 2 or 3 bland chain restaurants and some office space around the edges, but thenegative effects on the overall public realm, though real, will be incalculable and long-lasting.

I'd also echo the comments of the Bristol Civic Society around lack of proper consultation andsecrecy of process, both of which should be sufficient on their own to send this entire schemeback to the drawing board.

For a city noted for creativity and design to consider placing this enormous box at its centre seemslike madness, especially at a time when city-centre office space as an overall concept is up in theair. Will thousands of sq feet of office still be required in 10 years time?

This scheme should not be considered for approval.

Mr craig shaw  62 THE MALL CLIFTON BRISTOL  on 2022-02-09   SUPPORT

Great to see this site finally being developed. The information and thinking is very indepth and the final scheme looks fantastic.


I support this application because I want the city centre to thrive as a destination. Thisnew development will also bring to the city new jobs and with that people who will spend money inthe city supporting other local businesses. In summary the benefits this will bring include:

1. We need offices because Bristol is a focus for employment because we have 2 greatuniversities, supplying skilled people to the local business community etc.2. The development will provide sustainable space including no car parking and lots of bikesplanned, Breeam outstanding building.3. Under used site will provide active frontage and scope for new businesses to thrive on theground floor.4. Office workers spending in local shops, bars and restaurants etc.

Mr Matt Griffiths  32 MOUNT PLEASANT TERRACE BRISTOL  on 2022-02-04   SUPPORT

I support this development because:

it will be a sustainable space there is no car parking and lots of bikes planned it is an under used site - wasted asset. brings further business the the city

Mr Nick Lambert  7 THE FIRS BATH  on 2022-02-04   SUPPORT

I would like to voice my support for the redevelopment.

There are too many areas across the city that have been laid to waste because of loud voices of afew.

The city needs to embrace its brownfield sites to avoid further urban sprawl. There is a lack ofquality office space in the City, in particular in the emerging post covid world.

Miss Rebecca Nixon  FLAT 2, 15 BURLINGTON STREET BATH  on 2022-02-04   SUPPORT

There was a recent episode of Countryfile that featured the only remaining farm within aBristol post code. The farm is struggling to remain viable as their rented land is under threat fromdevelopment. We need to support well considered, inner city development with height, in order toreduce the low level sprawl engulfing the surrounding countryside which we enjoy. The site haslaid empty for 30 years and the proposal from the Architect at this level of detail seems to be wellconsidered - responding to flooding risk, is a car-free development and has a large cyclistprovision.

Mr Vlad Posmangiu Luchian  FLAT 2, 15 BURLINGTON STREET BATH  on 2022-02-04   SUPPORT

A sensible piece of architecture on a site dedicated for office use development.


I am writing in support of this proposal, in a site that has long been earmarked forredevelopment. In my opinion it's an opportunity for a highly sustainable building to be a flagshipfor Bristol's ambitions; to encourage business and much needed growth, while promoting asustainable future that avoids random sprawl into the surrounding areas and the creation of astagnant city centre.

Plenty of opportunity for enhancing the public realm and quality of spaces around. Supportregeneration!

Mr Geraint Hayes   17 UPPER TOWN LANE BRISTOL  on 2022-02-04   SUPPORT

I'm in support of this scheme. It's an attractive looking proposal that brings a mix of usesthat will activate a redundant site. Good to see generous cycle provision and high sustainabletargets.

Mr Kevin Hong  78 WOOLASTON AVE CARDIFF  on 2022-02-03   SUPPORT

This immediate area needs other uses to support the primary food & beverage use toenliven the area at different times of the day.

Scheme looks good as well.

Miss Kat Popowczak  PORTLAND SQUARE BRISTOL  on 2022-02-01   SUPPORT

Building designed in line with site commercial (business and leisure) designation andplanning policy. Well responding to existing ground level context, extending the activity along theharbour edge and improving ground floor uses. Undoubtedly, the design has improved a lot sinceits first proposal and now fits more gently within the existing context. Great environmentalperformance and sustainable approach, establishing new benchmarks for buildings in Bristol.

Mrs Jazmin Rogers  4 UPPER STATION RD STAPLE HILL BRISTOL  on 2022-01-29   SUPPORT

It's good to see this site finally being put to permanent use which brings in moreemployers to the area and completes the parade down to the amphitheatre area. The currenttemporary uses are generally an eye sore (welfare/WC area at gigs) and require it to be fenced offa lot of the year. The proposed height creates a fitting end to the waterfront parade and the designprovides activity to the corner facing the amphitheatre, which must be a good thing in addressingan otherwise empty pocket of land currently with limited overlooking buildings.

Mr Alistair Haimes  54 PARK STREET BRISTOL  on 2022-01-27   SUPPORT

I write to support this application.

This is just the kind of development Bristol needs, just where it needs it, and with the rightdevelopers to move the scheme forward with the quality required.

Mr Alistair Allison  16 QUEEN SQUARE BRISTOL  on 2022-01-27   SUPPORT

I support this scheme, which looks to be well considered and an exciting step forwardfor Bristol as a city. In my view this is an example of how we should be developing; creatingworkspace and amenities in wasted space at the heart of our city.

The sustainability aspirations and credentials are over and above what would be expected, whichdemonstrates a commitment to this being a stand-out building. It seems brave to develop ascheme of this size with little/no parking, but the site has great access to public transport, and willhave enhanced cycling facilities. This is what we need more of!


What a fantastic looking scheme. Bristol is a thriving City with 2 fantastic Universitiesand we should want to keep the talent that graduates here and provide them with workplaces thatthey want to work in.

We are the second most attractive City for the Technology sector outside of London so thereshould be a lot of tenant interest at this fantastic location.

The space where this development is proposed is a wasted asset so putting it to good use surelymakes sense.

There will be a bounce in the local economy due to the ground floor mixed use space, so a greatopportunity for new vendors in the food and beverage sector too.

The significant Bike hub also ticks the 'sustainability and green initiatives' box, along with theCouncil drive to reduce cars and increase pedestrian, cycling and public transport use within thecentre of Bristol.

Mr Eliot Haimes  20 GLOUCESTER STREET BRISTOL  on 2022-01-25   SUPPORT

I write to robustly SUPPORT this application. The developers have an excellent andenviable reputation, both locally and nationally, in delivering and curating excellent and successfuldevelopments. Once completed the development should attract many hundreds of good jobs toBristol and bring more life and vibrancy, during day and night, to this slightly neglected area of thecity. If Bristol is to continue to be successful and grow, and attract talented employees, it needsmore developments like this.

Mr Lee McGreevy  3 ST. MARYS GROVE NAILSEA BRISTOL  on 2022-01-25   OBJECT

I strongly support the proposed scheme which I believe will benefit this important part ofcentral Bristol. Such a scheme will attract much needed day and night time activity to a neglectedpart of the city centre together with the associated employment opportunities this brings. Positiveschemes such as this can only enhance the attractiveness of Bristol as a vibrant City to both liveand work.

Mr Lee McGreevy  3 ST MARYS GROVE NAILSEA BRISTOL  on 2022-01-25   SUPPORT

I strongly support the proposed scheme which I believe will benefit this important part ofcentral Bristol. Such a scheme will attract much needed day and night time activity to a neglectedpart of the city centre together with the associated employment opportunities this brings. Positiveschemes such as this can only enhance the attractiveness of Bristol as a vibrant City to both liveand work.

Ms Lucy Edwards  9 FAIRFIELD ROAD BRISTOL  on 2022-01-25   SUPPORT

This is an attractive design that fits in with the surrounding buildings. I personally feel itwill attract new businesses and create new jobs, as well as enhancing the existing harboursideatmosphere by increasing the number of bars and restaurants.

I know that a few Bristolians would prefer a building which had cultural and arts uses, however, Idoubt they truly understand this is not financially feasible in the current climate.I'm sure their suggestions as to what would be better suited don't have any consideration intofunding, or how to make it financially viable.

The current space is used mostly as a skateboard playground, or commandeered as part of afestival or temporary event.

I think this will be very well suited for the position, in an area which has been earmarked forredevelopment for leisure and business use.


Dear Sir/Madam,

I write as Director of Locked in a Room, a national escape room business, with a local branch onMillennium Square, near to the proposed Waterfront Place development.

We feel that a new development here would help reinvigorate the waterfront and MillenniumSquare area, creating new jobs and making a positive contribution to the local economy.

As a local business, we welcome the plans and would like to register our support.

Kind regards,

Oliver Pfaff

DirectorLocked in a Room (Bristol)

Mr Andrew Heath  101B THE LYNCH WINSCOMBE  on 2022-01-24   SUPPORT

There is a lack of office accommodation in the city currently and this will provide spacein a part of the city where very little is planned over the coming years. Given the other mixed usedevelopments/designs that are being looked at locally, where buildings will be much higher than iscurrently seen, the massing will not be out of proportion.

Mr Dennis atkins  12 RAYENS CROSS ROAD LONG ASHTON BRISTOL  on 2022-01-24   SUPPORT

This sounds great! I have loved locally all of my life and think that this redevelopment isa great idea! Fully supportive

Miss Helen Beasley  24 BRADLEY CRESCENT BRISTOL  on 2022-01-22   SUPPORT

I am generally supportive of the development; it brings into use a vacant area adjacentto Millennium Square and extends the active frontage along the harbourside.

Mr Derek Graham  46 OSBORNE ROAD SOUTHVILLE BRISTOL  on 2022-01-21   SUPPORT

I support this application. This site has been empty for a long time, and part of thereason is because previous proposals did not live up to the incredibly high expectations for such akey site within our city. Do we really want this site to sit unused for further decades rather than bebrave and commit to this scheme? The proposals are reasonable in terms of massing for thislocation, high quality materials are being used, it is a sustainable office with excellent provision forcyclists. This is what what a growing cite centre needs for a sustainable future; it will attract morepeople to the city and help maintain the vibrancy of our harbourside.

Mr Nick Rooth  SOUTHVILLE PLACE BRISTOL  on 2022-01-21   SUPPORT

I work in one of the local bars and wanted to say the plans look great, we welcomethem.

As a local business we welcome the investment in the area and the increased footfall this willbring, I understand there would be around 1,200 people working here.

I'm not clear what the plans are for the service area but it's currently unwelcoming and notpleasant, I hope the plans will address this. I'm assuming this will not affect events in the LloydsAmphitheatre?

Please hurry up and build.


I am writing in support of the proposal for Waterfront Square. This is a very well locatedsite with fantastic access to public transport and to my mind is a ideal place to create the newemployment opportunities which this scheme presents.

Whilst many people have been working from home during the pandemic there will be a need forhigh quality and healthy sustainable office spaces to draw workers back into the city long term andto complement the businesses already in the surrounding area.

The site has long been vacant and under-utilised and I believe that the proposal will form apositive addition to the area.


I am writing in support of Railpen's application 21/05580/F to develop Waterfront Place.I own a leisure business at Harbourside and rely on trade from local office workers. A new officebuilding will mean lots of new jobs which will mean the surrounding businesses will benefit and thisis really important given the news Lloyds Banking Group is selling their massive HQ. Who knowswhat that will end up being. The subject site is currently only used on a temporary basis and isempty for most of the year - what a waste. At a time our cash-strapped council needs money, alarge high quality office development will surely maximise returns for the council. Finally Iunderstand this is a sustainable office with no additional car parking being built and excellentprovision for cyclists - which is exactly what Bristol city centre needs for a sustainable future.

Mr Guy Barker  23 DRAGONFLY CLOSE BRISTOL  on 2022-01-17   SUPPORT

The ground floor restaurants and bars of the proposal will contribute to the vibrantnightlife of the Harbourside and extend this to a previously neglected corner of millennium square.The high quality design will also complement the existing views of the harbourside. Furthermorethe scheme appears to be very environmentally considered as a car free scheme with a plentifulprovision of cycle parking.


21/05580/F Redevelopment to provide a mixed-use development comprising office(Class E) with ground floor food and beverage uses, retail, non-residential institutions (Class E)and public house, wine bar, drinking establishment, hot food takeaway (Sui Generis), hard andsoft landscaping, cycle parking and associated works (Major). Waterfront Square MillenniumSquare Bristol

Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)

Bristol Civic Society notes that the developer's SCI summary states:

4.41 The Applicant has undertaken extensive pre-application consultation and engaged with thelocal community and will continue to engage with BCC, Statutory Consultees, Key Stakeholdersand the general public throughout the determination period of the planning application.

The developers CIS/SCI sets out the pre application involvement with BCC in detail and explainshow the design has reflected the input of BCC which it fails to do for involvement with the publicwhich was over a 3 week online process.

The developer has not carried out pre application community involvement with the relevantcommunity group, in this case Bristol Civic Society.

In the SCI, the developer is asked to carry out community involvement with the community in

accordance with the ground rules.

We suggest that the developer has failed to carry out CI in accordance with Bristol's SCI in thefollowing respects:

Engagement has not had continuity in line with 3a/b which sets out that should be a continuousprocess with adequate time for participants to effectively engage, in a series of meetings with thesame individuals that represent the community.

The involvement has not been early in line with 5 ie at the early ideas stage of the developmentprocess, before specific proposals are made, when significant options are still open and can beidentified and while there is still the potential to make a difference to the final option selected.

No options have been presented in line with 6.

The statement of community involvement does not comply with 9 transparent records which setsout that the statement will summarise- The community involvement undertaken,- the main issues raised by the community and- specifically in this case, how the proposal has been revised to take account of the issues raisedand, where the proposal has not been revised, the reasons why not.

In a development proposal of such significant impact it is regrettable that the communityinvolvement has fallen so far short of the standards adopted by Bristol City Council, particularly asBCC is the site owner and developer.

Under the terms of Bristol's SCI under 9d The Bristol Civic Society can submit a written statementof omissions and corrections which will be reported and considered by the council along with theCIS. We are making this submission as such a written statement and request that it be reported toPlanning Committee.

Bristol Civic Society15th January 2022

Mr Andrew Thomas  2 JOHN REPTON GARDENS BRISTOL  on 2022-01-14   SUPPORT

As someone who worked in the Lloyds Bank building for over 20 years I have watchedwith pleasure and amazement as to the way in which the Harbourside and surrounding areas havebeen developed. To go from disused railway sheds, and gravel based car parks to the transformedresidential, retail, commercial buildings and areas has completely regenerated the area andbrought much needed to focus to this part of Bristol.

I have often wondered what was going to fill the void (which has been empty for so long) betweenthe Lloyds building and the rest of the Harbourside and see the plans to develop a multi-usedevelopment as further advancing the area. It will undoubtedly bring more people on to theHarbourside both to work and to spend leisure time which can only benefit the existing businessesin the area. It also demonstrates that Bristol is a growing city and will attract more people to comeand work and live in our boundaries.

Looking at the plans for the building itself I see that it is looking to create a sustainable, modernand flexible workplace and that in itself may encourage companies who are currently reflecting ontheir future accommodation needs post pandemic to find something more appealing and of muchbetter quality than their old inflexible spaces.

Whilst I believe there will be many objections to this site I wholeheartedly believe that where weare brave and lead, others will follow. We must take this step to approve this application, completethe Canons Marsh redevelopment, and enable Bristol to move forwards creating a modern, brightcity that people are proud of.

Mr Joshua Wood  61, PARSONAGE LANE WINFORD  on 2022-01-14   OBJECT

This proposal must be refused; it is an abomination that would ruin the character ofBristol Harbourside.

As I am sure the Council are aware, this site is one of the most prominent and important locationsin the city. The planning authority, organisations and developers need to work together to thinkcreatively about how this site may be developed. This proposal screams developer greed notcommunity benefit. I have many reasons for objections; to name a few:

Ruining the City Centre skyline - as seen from the photomontages, the building eradicates theskyline of Bristol when viewed from multiple locations. Cabot tower and Brandon hill all lost behindthe imposing building.

Blocking sun spots - the bulk of the building would block the sun that brings people and activity tothe harbour

Harming the character of the harbour - The building pays little is insensitive to the scale, form andappearance of the buildings around it; completely dominating the site and context.

Destroying the public realm -The public realm is jeopardised, not only for the space on the site (towhich nothing is dedicated to public space) but also the space around it and across the water. Thea raised ground floor is out of keeping and separates the building unnecessarily from the street.

Perhaps the key point is that this site represents a rare opportunity to do something brilliant.Surely we can put our minds together to achieve something better? Something sustainable andpioneering with regards to climate change? A beacon for change. Could the site be purchased bya community interest company and proposal put forward through a design competition?

The proposal is not just uninspiring, but wholly inappropriate. It would significantly degrade thecity. I would be deeply saddened if this were ever built. I hope that the planning authorityrecommend this application for refusal.

Mr Alistair Crawford  LUCCOMBE HILL BRISTOL  on 2022-01-13   SUPPORT

I note some of the negative points being made about these plans but have to say Idisagree, I support this application.

I've always found the architecture around Millennium Square including the Lloyds buildingdisappointing, if they were to go through planning in the same form now, I think there would be apublic outcry. This is a site that is crying out to be developed and I think these proposals will adddefinition, colour and interest to an area that is loved but isn't quite there.

I have no issue with the height, the cathedral view from M Shed would be lost by anything builthere. I have no issue with the use, we have plenty of leisure close by and I don't think residentialwould work here. I'm would like to see something special on the ground floor and if the publicspace could be extended upwards so that the public can enjoy the wider views (and the proposedbalconies), I know this would be very popular.

I'm delighted to see the developers are taking climate change and ecology seriously. What willhappen to the boxed trees, can they be moved?

An area of concern is the empty space behind Bordeaux Quay, it's untidy and could be betterused. Is this being considered?


I find the comments regarding the suitability of this site for office use unfair. This sitewas always zoned for business/leisure use in the original Canons Marsh masterplan, and an officescheme was sanctioned by Bristol Council themselves. The building will provide a much neededanchor to complete the corner of Millennium square and fill out the harbourside frontage, whichhas been left with a gap used for little more than tents during events. Its size is on the large side,but it needs to be viable and attract the right kinds of the tenants to the city. Developments like thishave so many unseen benefits to the city people seldom appreciate. As for the design, I thinkpeople will be pleasantly surprised by the quality materials and detailing on show here, if they tooktime to look closely. If this scheme is rejected Bristol will yet again have a major site left barrenand wasted for years to come.

Mr P Collins  50 ST MATTHEW'S ROAD BRISTOL  on 2022-01-08   OBJECT

If permission is granted, the proposed office building, which has the look and characterof a multi-storey car park, would harm the area's historic and current character and identity. Itwould also further diminish the city's residents belonging, appreciation and enjoyment of the city.

Ms Juliet Collins  50 ST MATTHEWS ROAD BRISTOL  on 2022-01-06   OBJECT

One of the pleasures of Bristol, for residents and visitors alike, is walking by the side ofthe picturesque floating harbour. It's free and open to all. And one of the best parts of that walk ispausing by MShed and looking back at the beautiful skyline. If the proposed new building werebuilt, that would be lost.

The proposed building is strikingly ugly and oppressive. It's out of all proportion to the surroundingbuildings. There's no shortage of bars and restaurants on the harbourside. And with Lloydsvacating a huge neighbouring building, and a shift to more working from home, it's hard to believethat more offices are genuinely needed. Building on the proposed site would lose a welcome openspace in the waterside frontage.

The harbourside is special for Bristol residents and has huge appeal for visitors. Please don'twreck it by allowing this monstrosity to be built.

Mrs Karen Larwood  11 ROWNHAM MEAD HOTWELLS BRISTOL  on 2022-01-05   OBJECT

The proposed building is far too tall and not in keeping with surrounding buildings -including others along the watershed/ waterfront.The view of the cathedral and other rooftops behind the proposed building are lost to all visitors tothe area including on the opposite bank of the harbour.The view of the architecture and thus the history of Bristol are obliterated by this unnecessarilyhigh building. It may not be 8 floors high but anything at the harbours edge that is higher that theadjacent buildings of the watershed, blocks views and removes the sense of openness that peopleenjoy.

The space that this proposed building would occupy also results in the loss of an open publicspace that has significant regular events for the community and visitors so the development wouldresult in a loss of public amenity.

There are numerous office blocks that are no longer occupied so these buildings should be re-purposed to meet whatever housing or alternative purpose is required.

Stop building on open space and re-use what we already have.

I object to this proposal.

Mr James Savage  11 RALEIGH ROAD BRISTOL  on 2022-01-01   OBJECT

It is hard to believe that this application has been submitted because it is so embarrassingly bad.Fortunately it can be refused on many grounds. I object for the following reasons:1. Detrimental visual impact of the development.2. Poor quality design.3. Adverse effect on the character and appearance of the City Docks conservation area.

What a waste of time and money!


This prominent site deserves a flagship building. The proposal offers the opposite. It isvastly oversized and dominates the heritage buildings around it. The dominance is made worsebecause the design is mediocre and harks back to the mundane buildings of the 1970's. It is veryhard to believe that this is the best of the design entries available.

Mr Colin Hudson  19 MAYCLIFFE PARK BRISTOL  on 2021-12-22   OBJECT

I wish to register my objection to this planning application.

As a resident of Bristol for over 60 years I have seen many changes to the City, particularly aroundthe docks.This proposed development is one of the worst proposals yet, and especially as it is located insuch a prime and prominent position both in relation to the docks area and its close proximity tothe Centre.

It is ugly, unimaginative and would completely dominate this locality in the worst possible way - itis truly an ugly building completely out of scale to its surroundings.

It will ruin the amenity for myself, my family and for many other Bristolians (and indeed visitors tothis City).

I therefore object to this planning application in the strongest possible terms as, if granted, it willseverely negatively impact the amenity of its surrounding area and environment.

  NTR PLANNING LTD   on 2021-12-22   OBJECT

Page 2

will adversely affect the existing and future viability of the buildings’ frontages which are protected by Policy BCAP19. This letter sets out the development plan policies relevant to the above areas of concern and explains how the proposal is in conflict with them. Development Plan Context

Key applicable development plan policies comprise: Bristol Central Area Plan (2015)

• Policy BCAP SA1: Site Allocations in Harbourside – Site Allocation SA102 Waterfront Site, Millennium Square

• Policy BCAP19: Leisure use frontages in Bristol City Centre

Bristol Core Strategy (2011)

• Policy BCS22: Conservation and the Historic Environment Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (2014)

• Policy DM26: Local Character and Distinctiveness

• Policy DM27: Layout and Form

• Policy DM31: Heritage Assets I briefly summarise these policies below, with key areas highlighted in bold text. Site Allocation SA102 requires development at this site to ‘Be of a high quality design to reflect the site’s prominent position on the Floating Harbour’ and to ‘Take account of the City Docks Conservation Area.’ It is not considered that the proposed development satisfies these two prerequisites of the site’s allocation, as discussed shortly. Policy BCS22 requires proposed development to ‘safeguard or enhance heritage assets and the character and setting of areas of acknowledged importance […]’ Policy DM26 requires proposals to contribute towards local character and distinctiveness. The policy sets out 8 ways how this can be achieved, of which 2, 4 and 6 are most relevant to this objection and are set out below for ease of reference. It is noted that a proposal must satisfy all 8 of the requirements.

ii. Respecting, building upon or restoring the local pattern and grain of development, including the historical development of the area; and

iv. Retaining, enhancing and creating important views into, out of and through the site; and

Page 3

vi. Responding appropriately to the height, scale, massing, shape, form and proportion of existing buildings, building lines and set-backs from the street, skylines and roofscapes.

The first part of Policy DM27 requires development proposals to ‘Create or contribute towards a simple, well-defined and inter-connected network of streets and spaces that allows for convenient access to a choice of movement modes and routes’ and ‘Provide direct, clear, safe and attractive links to existing routes, local and wider services, amenities and facilities […]’ The third part of the policy requires the height, scale and massing of development proposals to be appropriate to, amongst other things, immediate context, character of adjoining streets and spaces. Finally, in respect of conservation areas, Policy DM31 requires development proposals to ‘[…] preserve or, where appropriate, enhance those elements which contribute to their special character or appearance […]’ The prominent characteristics of the conservation area in which the building is proposed are provided in Character Area 5 of the City Docks Character Appraisal (2011). This identifies that buildings range from 2.5 up to 4 storeys in height. The proposed building extends to seven storeys. Townscape Context

The local townscape context here is of relatively uniform building heights of up to circa 4 storeys, particularly in those areas closest to the quayside. A substantial proportion of the more modern buildings facing the harbour are smaller still, so to be in keeping with the more historic buildings such as the (Grade II listed) Transit Shed E and (Grade II listed) Transit Shed W. The adjoining V Shed is only two storeys in height. Both the V-Shed and M-Shed (two 20th Century buildings) have been designed to follow the roofline and architectural character of the listed transit sheds. There are a number of key views across the site. These are identified on page 25 of the applicant’s Design and Access Statement (‘DAS’). View 4 – that towards Brandon Hill from Prince’s Wharf – will be replaced by the view illustrated on page 51 of the DAS. The reverse view, from Millenium Square towards Prince’s Wharf and Narrow Quay, including the Grade II* listed Bush House (the Arnolfini), is also strategically important. It is highlighted that two of the ‘[…] most significant panoramic views from the Conservation Area […]’ within the City Docks Character Appraisal are (1) that from the (Grade II listed) Prince Street Bridge towards the (Grade II listed) Cabot Tower (View P11) and (2) from Prince’s Wharf towards Brandon Hill (View P25)1.

1 See pages 17 and 18 of the City Docks Character Appraisal.

Page 4

These key townscape areas are well populated by visitors to the harbourside, providing large open leisure areas close to key quayside tourist destinations2 including M-Shed, We are Curious, the Arnolfini, Millennium Square and those areas protected by the Leisure Uses Frontages. These areas have been well preserved through the historic and more recent town planning of Bristol’s harbourside. For example, the original master-planning of the area wherein Building 8 and 11 are located was designed to protect key views. For example, Cathedral Walk was planned to protect the important view from Wapping Wharf towards the Grade I listed Bristol Cathedral. As highlighted, old and new buildings in these key townscape areas have been delivered in a manner that reflects the historic urban grain of the locality by not being excessively taller than neighbouring development. The Lloyds Amphitheatre, for example, whilst large in terms of footprint, manages to be in-keeping with the height of its neighbours. The new Wapping Wharf residential developments (‘Anchorage’ and ‘Chandlers’) have also been designed to reflect the industrial architectural character of Wapping Wharf through their approximate scale, pallet of materials and the use of gabled roofs. Unfortunately the proposed building is at complete odds with its context, being twice as tall as the V-Shed. In this regard we share the view of Historic England in respect of how buildings have been successfully delivered over time:

‘Much of this has been achieved without compromising the maritime industrial character of this part of the city, rightly recognised and protected through the City Docks Conservation Area designation. The buildings remain, but so do historic surfaces, railway lines, cranes and capstans, and the harbour is home to a number of historic vessels.’

Impact upon the Conservation Areas’ Key Views

Millennium Square provides a key arrival zone into the harbourside development from a number of important quayside routes, including those from the other side of the harbour (Pero’s Bridge, The Arnolfini and Prince Street Bridge3) and the natural gap that the site provides between Bordeaux Quay and the Lloyds Amphitheatre. This arrival zone brings a constant pedestrian flow into Millennium Square from the quayside. The massing of the proposal will destroy this sense of arrival and will do the opposite of what is required by Policy DM27, namely:

‘[…] Create or contribute towards a simple well-defined and inter-connected network of streets and spaces […]’

2 See objection from Historic England: ‘The harbourside is regularly animated by a series of festivals and performance – it has become a focus point for the city centre’s cultural activities.’ 3 These heritage assets are located within the City and Queen Square Conservation Area.

Page 5

The proposal will also not retain or provide a direct, clear or attractive link to existing routes and local and wider amenities and facilities, as also is required by the policy. The proposal will reduce the sense of interconnection of amenities and attractions in this area (such as The Arnolfini, M-Shed, and on the other side of Pero’s Bridge, Millennium Square and those uses protected by Policy BCAP19). It is the form and scale of the proposed structure (being at least twice the height of the adjoining V-Shed4) that will adversely affect views in and across the City Docks Conservation Area and outwards towards City and Queen Square Conservation Area and have an overbearing impact on a number of heritage assets. This significant change in height will not safeguard the setting of the City Docks Conservation Area and the City and Queen Square Conservation Area, contrary to the requirements of Core Strategy Policy BCS22. Likewise, the proposal will not support the Leisure Uses Frontages, which benefit from the protected views identified within the two Conservation Character appraisals. The size of the proposed building will completely block a number of identified key views, both looking westwards from the other side of the harbour5 (such as the towards the Cathedral, Brandon Hill/Cabot Tower) and when viewed looking eastwards from Millennium Square towards the City and Queen Square Conservation Area (e.g. the Arnolfini, Prince Street Bridge and Bathurst Wharf). These buildings are all key heritage assets and are all located within conservation areas. The proposal will therefore be contrary to the requirements of Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Policy DM26, which requires proposals to retain and enhance important views into, out of and through sites. In addition, the proposal will erode the quality of vistas achieved from the Leisure Uses Frontages of Buildings 8 and 11, detrimental to their long-term viability. Conclusion

The proposal will have a significantly adverse effect on the character of the harbourside due to its massing and excessive height. It will erode the inter-relationship of key areas within the docks and the sense of arrival into Millennium Square and connectivity between wider amenities and facilities, including those protected by BCAP19. I trust therefore that the application will be refused based on its unfortunate conflict with the above policy framework.


4 See page 25 of the DAS. 5 See DAS page 45. This is one of the Long Views identified in the City and Queen Square Character Appraisal (towards Brandon Hill – see page 18).

Page 6

Yours sincerely

Mark Tombs MRTPI Director NTR Planning On behalf of Canada Life Asset Management


I object to this planning application for the following reasons:

1. The proposed building is not in keeping with the rest of the buildings on the Harbourside. It isugly and far too large for its proposed location.

2. Due to its size, it will block views of Bristol from several directions including views of Bristollandmarks such as Cabot Tower.

3. Does central Bristol really require more office space when it is likely many more people will workfrom home a lot more going forwards? There are several other (more tasteful) office buildings thatare currently being constructed in central Bristol on more appropriate sites.

4. The proposed location is currently used as a space for a diverse range of events throughout theyear. The proposed building will significantly reduce this event space meaning that such eventswill be unlikely to take place in such a central location in the future.

5. A company in the same group as the Applicant owns at least 9 blocks of flats throughout the UKwhich have been identified as having fire safety issues. The company (Grey GR LimitedPartnership) is seeking to pass all costs onto the leaseholders in these flats.

I set out the company links below:

- The Applicant (Railway Pension Nominees Ltd) is owned by Railways Pension Trustee CompanyLimited (RPTC).- RPTC has significant control of Grey GR Limited Partnership (a right to surplus assets - 75% ormore)

Grey GR Limited Partnership owns the block of flats that I live in. They are seeking to pass oncosts in the region of £7.6 million to the leaseholders to fix the issues found in the building. Theother buildings owned by Grey GR will also cost £millions to fix.

Grey GR has refused to meet with leaseholders or the builder of our building to discuss possibleways that these costs could be minimised or even eliminated by the sharing of information.

The Applicant should not be granted planning permission for this development when its groupcompany owns several buildings that are inherently dangerous with 100s of leaseholders living inthem. These leaseholders are also facing bankruptcy if Grey GR pass the costs on to them.

Ms Francesca Santilli  123 DEANERY ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-12-18   OBJECT

I strongly object to this design. I've lived in the harbourside area for over 10 years now,and it's an amazing place to live, work and socialise.The building is entirely out of character - the other buildings along the inlet towards pero's bridgeare all the same height and warehouse style, which is in keeping with the dockyard theme, andthis is much higher with a very bland and severe design. It's doesn't blend in at all, just blocks theview of the entire area. It will affect people enjoying the space in Millennium Square as it will blocksunlight.Bristol already has a lot of empty office spaces, so where is the justification for yet more floors ofoffices? Where will people park? The roads around the centre and Anchor Road are alreadyincredibly busy so how will they support a huge office block?I think having more entertainment venues would be great - but you're taking away such anamazing space and one of the best views of the harbour. Why not have an open roof terrace withspace for restaurants and bars so the general public can enjoy the views and the space?The development at Whapping Wharf has been done really well as it's in keeping with theaesthetic of the area, but this building is just a bland block of concrete and glass. They say itreferences Beacon Tower as a design inspiration, but I don't think Beacon Tower is a goodexample of sympathetic design, I've not heard anyone living in Bristol saying how much they likethat tower, so it's absolute rubbish to say that you want to build like it.The original plans for the site were for a public use building that had ambitious designs, not just aboring office block.


21/05580/F | Redevelopment to provide a mixed-use development comprising office(Class E) with ground floor food and beverage uses, retail, non-residential institutions (Class E)and public house, wine bar, drinking establishment, hot food takeaway (Sui Generis), hard andsoft landscaping, cycle parking and associated works (Major). | Waterfront Square MillenniumSquare Bristol

Bristol Civic Society OBJECTS to this planning application

This key site at the heart of Bristol's historic Harbourside requires both exceptional use and form.There is an overwhelming need for exceptional quality in nay development on this site. This viewis now supported by National Design Guidance. The Society considers that the current proposal atWaterfront Place does not meet any of the criteria listed in that Guidance. It cannot be consideredas a high quality, beautiful and sustainable building and for this reason the application should berefused.

The Civic Society has consistently voiced concerns

At the "preapp" stage we commented as follows and these comments are still valid, perhaps evenmore so:

The office building might be acceptable in another location but, this was the site on Millennium

Square chosen when Bristol was to have had its landmark Performing Arts Centre. It is the lastand most important site on Canons Marsh. The site dominates views in all directions andparticularly the focal Harbour/St. Augustine's Reach junction. A commercial building that isadequate in other locations is not acceptable on this site. The site demands a landmark building ofarchitectural significance. The cityscape around the site is as impressive and sensitive as thenatural setting. To the east there are a group of locally listed, converted and reused warehouses.The quay wall is Nationally listed Grade II as is RS Pope's architecturally ambitious BushWarehouse which was sensitively restored and converted in 1975. To the south, on Prince's Wharflies the locally listed M Shed City Museum and an assembly of historic ships. To the west there isthe broad columned crescent of Arup's Lloyds TSB offices designed in a Beaux Arts inspired style,faced in pale limestone.

A planning gain of this development is that it will close the fourth side of Millennium Square. FromPrince's Quay there are critical views towards the centre of the city. Layers of buildings climb theescarpment. To the west is the Cabot Tower the Cathedral, the University Wills Memorial Towerand Physics Building. This view is as crucial and important as any view in the city. Nowhere in thecity attracts so many residents and visitors as the area that surrounds and overlooks the site.

For the past generation, the Council has pursued policies to promote the social and economicattractions on both sides of St. Augustine's Reach Quays, Prince's Quay and Museum Square,and Millennium Square to create a place of public resort and pleasure for residents and visitors.The Council's investment around the harbour includes Pero's Bridge, M Shed Museum, the listedcranes, the collection of various historic industrial exhibits that form an outdoor extension to the MShed Museum, and Millennium Square itself. Photographs from Prince's Wharf of St. Augustine'sReach routinely appear in the city's publicity. The view from M Shed down the length of St.Augustine's Reach has opened local BBC news programmes. The view from M Shed and Prince'sWharf is enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of people every year. It is one of the views that makesthe Harbour so attractive on television.

The potential harm to the City

The preapp response describes in very clear terms the enormity of the potential loss of the iconicviews from Princes Wharf which include at varying points.... Brandon Hill, Wills Memorial Tower,the Bristol Cathedral, Wills Physics Laboratory, the university precinct escarpment and chimney atthe aquarium. These views, together with near views of the harbourside, form the backdrop of theworking exhibits at M Shed and are a much loved and appreciated part of the enjoyment of visitingthe Harbourside.

The proposed office is a bulky modern box out of scale with its surroundings. The height and massof the office building would dominate and cause substantial harm to the character of the area andcritically it will block important views across the city. The Millennium Square elevation falls farshort of the policy design standard.

The Society generally supports development - but only of a high standard - and has encouragedthe Council to develop this outstanding harbourside site. In the Society's view this site shouldaccommodate a building of the highest design quality to make a significant contribution to thecharacter of the location and contribute to the cultural and civic infrastructure of the city.The Society is disappointed that this is not a development which will be open to the general publicand it is not acceptable that there are absolutely no cultural activities included within the proposeduses. This is particularly unfortunate given the disappointment felt by the City that the Centre forPerforming Arts didn't happen.

An Inappropriate Design Solution

The Society recently held an open event for Members to discuss this planning application. Withrespect to design some of the comments were:"bland and slick, not gritty, dock edge vibe""very un nuanced building, great big block""an anywhere building with absolutely no reference to Harbourside location""no reference to neighbours - U shed, Lloyds or Arnolfini""alien form""airport terminal architecture"The design for the over prominent roof was singled out for particular criticism as being far too largeand too visible from all views.The general view was that this building is out of place. It may be a well designed building forspeculative office purposes in another context but is not at all suitable for the historic context ofBristol's Harbourside. The Society questions whether moulded precast concrete with no expressedhierarchy of structure sits well with the adjacent transit sheds. Both Watershed and the modern UShed are successful 'industrial' buildings because the structural design is legible.

The impact of the height of the proposed development

The Society supports the objections raised by Historic England especially about harm to importantviews and harm to the appearance of the Conservation Area It considers that the proposedevelopment would be too tall, particularly as the bulk of adjoining buildings are only two storeys.

The potential harm to important views has been highlighted above. The Society is also concernedabout the loss of daylight to both the Square and to Narrow Quay. As a result of its height and bulkthe building has the potential tohave an extremely unwelcome over shadowing impact on popular hospitality areas along theharbourside, notably but not exclusively on the harbourside stetch by the Arnolfini. These potentialimpacts require further detailed assessment.

Addressing Millennium Square

The proposal brings absolutely no life or discernible planning benefit to Millennium Square. Thisaspect of the scheme requires a fundamental rethink as the proposal effectively turns its back onthe Square. It is simply not acceptable to replace the previous proposal for a hotel with a groundfloor cycle store and with the creation of an awkward piece of "leftover" land. It would bechallenging for the City Council to find a sensible use for this site. There needs to be much moreactivity at ground floor level facing the Square.

The secretive background to this planning application

The Civic Society is extremely concerned by the secretive process which has led to theemergence of this highly unsatisfactory planning application. The City Council has not followed itsown guidelines for development. The Council's "Statement of Community Involvement" sets outvery good stages for consideration of major projects with, amongst others, serious consideration ofoptions and the building of a consensus.Instead, we are faced with a total lack of transparency and accountability. Unfortunately, theCouncil appears to be acting as an insensitive developer and neglecting its role as a culturalleader and a representative of its citizens.

National Planning Policy has changed

Since the start of the long process which has preceded the submission of this planning applicationthe National Planning Policy landscape has evolved and changed very significantly. The Society isvery pleased to see that Policy is now very firmly in support of creating well designed andattractive buildings and places.In particular National Planning Policy (NPPF) - achieving well-designed places - makes it veryclear that:" The creation of high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental towhat the planning and development process should achieve. Good design is a key aspect ofsustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps makedevelopment acceptable to communities. Being clear about design expectations, and how thesewill be tested, is essential for achieving this. So too is effective engagement between applicants,communities, local planning authorities and other interests throughout the process.Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments:a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but overthe lifetime of the development;b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effectivelandscaping;c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment andlandscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such asincreased densities);d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces,

building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work andvisit;e) optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix ofdevelopment (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transportnetworks; andf) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being,with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users; and where crime and disorder, andthe fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.National policy also makes it explicit that" Development that is not well designed should be refused"

ConclusionsThe Society considers that the current proposal at Waterfront Place does not meet any of thecriteria listed above. The brief to developers was prepared before the National Planning Policychanged and there is therefore an irrefutable argument that there should be a fresh start to theplanning of this key Harbourside site with full community involvement and the preparation of aplanning brief. The current proposal cannot be considered as a high quality, beautiful andsustainable building and for this reason the application should be refused.

17th December 2021

The Roger Gimson  ELGIN PARK BRISTOL  on 2021-12-17   OBJECT

I object to this development because:- it does not respect its historical setting,- it is detrimental to the visual amenity of the area,- it obscures important views of the skyline including the Cathedral, Cabot Tower and the Willsbuilding,- it presents an inactive frontage to Millenium Square,- it is detrimental to the public amenity of the area,- it reduces the scope to hold public events in the Amphitheatre,- it is too tall for this site,- it is too ugly for this site,- it does not offer any significant benefit to City residents,- it does not offer any significant benefit to City visitors,- our City deserves better.

Mr Rod Dennis  2 WEST VIEW ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-12-17   OBJECT

I implore councillors to reject this proposal. This has to be one of - if not the - mostimportant waterside site in central Bristol that's not yet developed. It deserves a piece of world-class architecture. It can be something bold, it can be something brave, perhaps it can even besomething big. Something that generations to come will be proud of. I can't see how what'sproposed comes anywhere close to matching the ambition the city - and all our councillors -should have for this site. Please, please send it back to the drawing board. Castle Park is runninga design competition for a new building... what about something similar here?


This site is of pivotal importance in context of the Bristol's historic harbour and theproposed building falls woefully short of the design quality to which the city and its leaders shouldaspire.I do not object in principle to development of the site but the design solution should be much moreimaginative and reflective of the city's maritime heritage. It is too high, the form is too boxy and itsits very uncomfortably in this key position on the waterfront. It appears to be just anothermundane office building which has little or no relevance to its context. The architects have a goodreputation in the industry which makes this proposal all the more disappointing. In their Design andAccess Statement they maintain that the site merits a 'high quality signature building' - they arecorrect in that assertion but have manifestly failed to deliver.Do we really need another large office building in this key location, particularly in view of changesin working patterns that have stemmed from Covid and the decision taken by Lloyds to vacatetheir adjoining building. The earlier proposal for a mixed use scheme including a new hotel wouldbe far more appropriate for this site, which is a focus for tourism, and would become a keyattraction in the city. Surely there must be boutique hotel operators who would jump at the chanceto operate in this location.

Ms Valerie Steel  16 AVON CRESCENT BRISTOL  on 2021-12-15   OBJECT

This is so obviously the wrong building for such an important site that it is a wonder itwas even proposed, except for the confidence the architect must have derived from the number ofappalling buildings that have been allowed in recent years. It's too big, too tall, boring in design,blocks important views and is just another office block. This site should be reserved for a reallyunique building that all Bristol can be proud of.


P1, Elevations of former transit sheds

Currently tourist and residents of Bristol have excellent views of the

Cathedral from across the Floating Harbour and outside the M shed,

from just East of Wapping Wharf to Prince Street Bridge. See photos P2

to P4 inclusive.

photo P2

photo P3

photo P4

The site is currently occupied by a temporary Christmas entertainment

building as shown. A seven storey office block in its place would

completely obliterate these precious views. Once these views are lost

they are lost forever. It is a one way process not simply undone if

misjudged. Such views have long since been celebrated by artists as

this lithograph of c1900 demonstrates. See Ex1.

Ex 1.

The most critical elevation for the scheme is towards the East as this is

seen from across St. Augustine’s Reach and more distantly from the

main harbourside. It is also an extension of the many bars and retail

outlets fronting on to the Reach. The name of the development further

reinforces this understanding.

The repurposed transit sheds frame their frontages with a strong ‘portal-

like’ style aesthetic in concrete framing carried over 2 storeys. Looking

from the west end of Pero’s bridge the two existing sheds, respectively

housing Za Za Bazaar and Revolucion de Cuba, have a wide bay at

ground floor and a twin window bay at first floor. See photos P5 and P6.

The rhythm of this elevational treatment is continued northwards along

Bordeaux Quay. The new building’s elevation breaks this pattern, neither

end stopping the sequence, nor echoing the frontage, nor providing a

dramatic rethink. Instead it introduces an aesthetic of horizontal banding

which does very little to reflect the architectural context.

photo P5

photo P6

The overriding theme of the elevations of the Waterfront Place building

is of horizontal banding continued around the building on all faces. This

is very bland and is not ‘good neighbour’ architecture. It neither carefully

responds to existing surrounding buildings nor provides an unique and

exhilarating form as seen in the cancelled Behnisch and Behnisch arts


The main banding is described as ‘white terracotta’ on the four Façade

Bay studies. It is difficult to see this material choice as either appropriate

or sympathetic when looking at the buildings in close proximity and

fronting the near harbourside.

The need for a special type of Grade A, high-tech office building to suit

the needs of the awaited post-covid 'new normal' is not in dispute. Such

developments are well progressed typified by the EQ building in Victoria

Street. The concerns about Waterfront Place are about scale, massing,

heights and context in a local environment that is especially rich in

heritage value. I consider the proposed scheme fails to address these

issues in a suitable and nuanced way, and therefore I would strongly

urge you to reject this application

Mrs Celia Barton-Greenwood  38 ROWNHAM MEAD, HOTWELLS HOTWELLS BRISTOL  on 2021-12-14   OBJECT

This is an unattractive, oversized building on one of the few remaining open spaces onour precious harbourside. We do NOT need any more office blocks! Lloyds, next door, is selling offsome of its offices if more are required in the area. I can't imagine we need any more bars,restaurants, retail here either. There are plenty of unlet premises of that type nearby, if these arerequired. It is useful to have this area for seasonal facilities, as at present, but if there must be apermanent building at least make it low-rise and architecturally interesting.

Mr Andrew King  12B KINGSDOWN PARADE BRISTOL  on 2021-12-14   OBJECT

This proposal is too tall and too dull for this important site.

Mr Frank Gordon  5 KEMP RD LONDON  on 2021-12-10   OBJECT

I strongly object to this proposed development. As a visitor to Bristol I go for the historicenvironment and well preserved streetscapes - this development will severely damage that anddamage strategic views from across the harbour and wider city.

Please reject this application and safeguard the city's attractive heritage character in this location.

Thank you

Dr Charlotte Crofts  19 ALPHA ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-12-09   OBJECT

As the director of the Cary Grant Festival and member of the Bristol Festival Network Iobject to this planning as it will take a large waterfront area a way from the use of festivals (e.g.Harbrour Festival, Christmas Fair) and adversely affect Bristol's festival and outdoor provision;furthermore it is not in keeping with the historic fabric of the surrounding area, particularly uglyfrom across the river (I'm based in Southville), obscuring the view of Cabot Tower and the WillsMemorial Building from the MShed side.

Mr Ian Naden  4 PICTON MEWS BRISTOL  on 2021-12-08   OBJECT

I wish to echo Historic England's objections to this proposal, in particular:- it is of insufficient architectural quality for such an important site;- it fails to respond to and would harm the distinctive character of the City Docks ConservationArea;- it would block important views towards the Cathedral and other heritage assets;- it does not conform with national or local planning policy.

Miss Heather Marks  20 BEAUCHAMP ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-12-07   OBJECT

I agree with the comments made by Historic England in this article:

This new development will damage the City Docks conservation area, the setting of the cathedral,and the views of some of the city's most important buildings and spaces. What these developersare proposing is a humongous eyesore that will detract immeasurably from Bristol's scenic capitalas a tourism destination.


In no way should this be allowed for the rich while obliterating our historic city andskyline


This important site is highly visible to residents of and visitors to Bristol. Its setting areacontains historic assets which define the city's character. It follows that any proposed developmentmust be sensitive to this history and the cityscape. This development, if built, would detract fromthese assets in that its height and scale would dominate the area. It would also block the presentcherished views of the Cathedral, Cabot Tower and the Wills Building and fail to preserve andenhance the area's character and appearance.There are valid reasons for refusing this application which I hope officers will use.

Mr Alexander Boughton  8 GLOUCESTER STREET BRISTOL  on 2021-12-04   OBJECT

As a long-term Bristol resident, I welcome Historic England's objection to the proposeddevelopment of Waterfront Square. This is a prime piece of real estate and deserves a building thematches the location. The proposed office is building is genuinely staggering in its mediocrity andwill sit like a breeze block in the heart of the Harbourside. Surely, a dynamic, exciting city like ourscan do better than this - and learn from previous short-sighted development mistakes elsewhere inHarbourside. The developers literally need to go back to the drawing board and come up with aplan that adds to rather than detracts from the city.

Miss Patricia Ferguson  KINGSDOWN PARADE BRISTOL  on 2021-12-04   OBJECT

This overbearing oversized and boring building has no place in the historic centre ofBristol. It has no merits of its own and spoils many important viewpoints.

Mr Matt Nicholson  1 PRIORS CLOSE, MARLBOROUGH HILL, BRISTOL BS2 8ET  on 2021-12-04   OBJECT

As a Bristol resident I frequently walk around our historic harbour side. There are manynew developments there that, though modern, are tastefully designed and blend in to thesurroundings. This does not. Instead it overpowers its surroundings and looks totally out of place.In particular, it is far too high and so destroys the view. I hope the council does not bow topressure and prevents such an unsightly and domineering development from going ahead.

Mrs Glynthea Modood  KINGSDOWN PARADE, 101, 101 101 BRISTOL  on 2021-12-04   OBJECT

For an historic city this plan is a "carbuncle on the face" of ancient waterfront (to quotePrince Charles on a previously contested architectural disaster).It is truly depressing that architects cannot seem to take into account the history of the waterfrontand its surrounding built environment. To just put up a box, shows such a lack of imagination andtotal lack of recognition of Bristol's heritage.


I am writing to object to the proposed building. Its design and scale both make it entirelyinappropriate for this important site.- Its height and mass are excessive. No building nearby is as tall or as broad.- The building would block views of key buildings that give Bristol its character (the Cathedral, theWills Memorial Building, Cabot Tower).- Its design is entirely out of keeping with the surrounding architecture. The Docks have beensympathetically restored to celebrate Bristol's industrial past (e.g. Watershed, the Arnolfini). TheLloyds Building is a good example of modern architecture that blends in well with its setting, unlikethe proposed structure.The current proposals need to be entirely re-thought so that any new structure sits in harmony with- rather than dominates - existing architecture and the waterscape.

Mrs Valerie Aspin  48 ST MATTHEWS ROAD COTHAM BRISTOL  on 2021-12-04   OBJECT

HelloThe proposed building is not nice looking and would damage the view of Bristol from the other sideof the river.


Bristol Festivals is a membership organisation representing over 55 festival, live-event,arts and cultural organisations from across Bristol and the surrounding area, we use this collective,unified voice to advocate on behalf of the sector.

Bristol's arts and culture are renowned across the world and the wide variety of events andfestivals are forefront of this scene. The festival and events sector animate the many open spacesand public realm across our city and contribute to Bristol's vibrancy and popular status for visitors,businesses and as a desirable place to live. Attracting annual audiences of over 1.2 million andachieving an estimated economic impact of over £10 million a year.

Many of the cities higher profile music events (Bristol Sounds, Bristol Beacon presents) rely on citycouncil owned spaces within the public realm that can accommodate large capacities.

These spaces are limited, and Waterfront Square and Lloyds Amphitheatre is the largest, mostpopular city centre space for these headline pulling events. For these events to continue it is vitalthat the ability to produce large scale events with capacity of no less than 5,000 is maintained orthey will be pushed to larger sites outside the city centre. The site is also key to many of the morecommunity focused events who bring audiences from across the city into the centre, breakingdown barriers and divides. This includes Bristol Pride who currently finish their 18,000 strongparade at Lloyds Amphitheatre and Bristol Festival of Nature who attract families and nature loversto the city for a week of events in June. Waterfront Square has been essential for the infrastructureof these events providing space for production units, traders, VIP hospitality and access.

Bristol Festivals are keen to maintain the cities varied and attractive open spaces. Without suchspaces the role our members can play in creating a creative and dynamic city for its citizens andvisitors to enjoy becomes more challenging.

However, we understand the need for a city to develop, grow and change. We also understand thecommercial pressures landowners, such as Bristol City Council, have and the need to utilise thefinancial benefit from developing the city. Effective planning and working in partnership is key tomaking sure Bristol's development is considerate and keeps our vibrant festival scene.

The development of Waterfront Square presents significant challenges for the festival and leventsector, both during construction and with the final build. In July 2020 Bristol Festivals reached outto the developers as part of an open consulation process as we felt a collaborative approachprovides the best outcome for all partners - Bristol City Council, the developers and our members.

We appreciated the opportunity to present our feedback on the current proposals for theWaterfront Place development prior to the planning stage and consulted with our members toprepare a list of considerations and potential outcomes for the developers;

Considerations;During construction -- Access to Lloyds Amphitheatre is maintained for event and festival use at full capacity- Adequate space for production infrastructure- Noise disturbance is eliminated with planning considerations to include a freeze to allconstruction for the get in, event and break of events- Protection against loss of power

Finished Build -- Maintained access routes, ensuring current capacity levels- Adequate sound proofing to mitigate the potential noise and vibration caused- Understanding from the hotel that is a primary event space and rooms need to be sold on thebasis of expected disruption on certain dates, therefore mitigating complaints

Possible Outcomes;- Providing a long-term supported lease on a unit within the ground floor of the development, to beused as a box office, production office for multiple organisations including Bristol Festivals andDestination Bristol, Tourist Information Centre- A provision of public toilets- Improving the fencing provision in the area- Improving the house power available and its distribution- Improving access to water/standpipes- Use of other spaces within the complex such as conference rooms and access to day rooms for

artists/production (similar to the covenant that applies to the Lloyds Building that provided 28 daysuse of the space through the year)- Sponsorship/financial contribution from the developer / hotel and office tenants towards thecultural offer in the amphitheatre to cover some of the infrastructure each year such as additionaltoilets

We saw this as the beginning of a conversation and asked that the developers consult with thesector widely to get a true understanding of the significant impact and the best solution to all.

This didn't happen and we didn't receive a response from the developers.

Mr Stefan Edwards  19 DUNKERRY ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-12-03   OBJECT

As a Bristol resident I strongly object to this development. As one of the last remainingspaces on the harbour side, Bristol deserves an inspirational building and should aspire to iconicbuildings such as Sydney Opera house. The building proposed is one of the least inspiring,architecturally bland designs I've ever seen. I also object to the proposed use of the building andwould prefer the ground floor to have community / arts / events use which can link up with theopen space next to it.

Bristol Festivals Network    on 2021-12-03  

Dear Development team,

Bristol Festivals is a membership organisation representing over 55 festival, live-event, arts and cultural organisations from across Bristol and the surrounding area, we use this collective, unified voice to advocate on behalf of the sector.

Bristol's arts and culture are renowned across the world and the wide variety of events and festivals are forefront of this scene. The festival and events sector animate the many open spaces and public realm across our city and contribute to Bristol's vibrancy and popular status for visitors, businesses and as a desirable place to live. Attracting annual audiences of over 1.2 million and achieving an estimated economic impact of over £10 million a year.

Many of the cities higher profile music events (Bristol Sounds, Bristol Beacon presents) rely on city council owned spaces within the public realm that can accommodate large capacities.

These spaces are limited, and Waterfront Square and Lloyds Amphitheatre is the largest, most popular city centre space for these headline pulling events. For these events to continue it is vital that the ability to produce large scale events with capacity of no less than 5,000 is maintained or they will be pushed to larger sites outside the city centre. The site is also key to many of the more community focused events who bring audiences from across the city into the centre, breaking down barriers and divides. This includes Bristol Pride who previously finished their 18,000 strong parade at Lloyds

Amphitheatre and Bristol Festival of Nature who attract families and nature lovers to the city for a week of events in June. Waterfront Square has been essential for the infrastructure of these events providing space for production units, traders, VIP hospitality and access. Bristol Festivals are keen to maintain the cities varied and attractive open spaces. Without such spaces the role our members can play in creating a creative and dynamic city for its citizens and visitors to enjoy becomes more challenging.

However, we understand the need for a city to develop, grow and change. We also understand the commercial pressures landowners, such as Bristol City Council, have and the need to utilise the financial benefit from developing the city. Effective planning and working in partnership is key to making sure Bristol's development is considerate and keeps our vibrant festival scene.

The development of Waterfront Square presents significant challenges for the festival and evant sector, both during construction and with the final build. In July 2020 Bristol Festivals reached out to the developers as part of an open consolation process as we felt a collaborative approach provides the best outcome for all partners - Bristol City Council, the developers and our members.

We appreciated the opportunity to present our feedback on the current proposals for the Waterfront Place development prior to the planning stage and consulted with our members to prepare a list of considerations and potential outcomes for the developers;

Considerations;During construction -o Access to Lloyds Amphitheatre is maintained for event and festival use at full capacityo Adequate space for production infrastructureo Noise disturbance is eliminated with planning considerations to include a freeze to all construction for the get in, event and break of eventso Protection against loss of power

Finished Build -o Maintained access routes, ensuring current capacity levelso Adequate sound proofing to mitigate the potential noise and vibration causedo Understanding from the hotel that is a primary event space and rooms need to be sold on the basis of expected disruption on certain dates, therefore mitigating complaints

Possible Outcomes;o Providing a long-term supported lease on a unit within the ground floor of the development, to be used as a box office, production office for multiple organisations including Bristol Festivals and Destination Bristol, Tourist Information Centreo A provision of public toiletso Improving the fencing provision in the areao Improving the house power available and its distribution

o Improving access to water/standpipeso Use of other spaces within the complex such as conference rooms and access to day rooms for artists/production (similar to the covenant that applies to the Lloyds Building that provided 28 days use of the space through the year)o Sponsorship/financial contribution from the developer / hotel and office tenants towards the cultural offer in the amphitheatre to cover some of the infrastructure each year such as additional toilets

We saw this as the beginning of a conversation and asked that the developers consult with the sector widely to get a true understanding of the significant impact and the best solution to all. We didn't receive a response from the developers.

Bristol Festivals would be interested in brokering a meeting between the developers and our members to discuss some practical outcomes that will continue to see the Waterfront animated by a wide variety of events and festivals.

With regards on behalf of the wider festival and events sector,

Liz Harkman

Mr Dennis Gornall  22 AMBROSE ROAD CLIFTONWOOD BRISTOL  on 2021-12-02   OBJECT

Comments on the application for Waterside Place (21/05580/F)

1. I question the rationale for an application for so much office space unless we know of the majorLondon or European company that wishes to relocate to Bristol. So much office space has alreadybeen turned into student accommodation pre Covid. We have seen, since then, the possibleresults of increasing home working. Can we really be sure there is a demand for such space?

2. The whole design of the building, including height, shape, style looks less than imaginative. Itdoes not fit with its neighbours. If something is to dominate here then it has to be exciting, boldand unique. This is none of those things.

3. I am not convinced that Community Involvement has in fact taken place. Consulting with BCC,Design West and Historic England can hardly count. They recognise in the Statement that"Interestingly only a few responses from those close to the site or potentially impacted". Perhapsthis is because they did not engage the local communities. They can speak from experience ofliving close to this area and how that impacts on the life of the community. More effort should bemade to do this while recognising that this site has a City wide (and beyond) interest.

For these reason this application should be turned down


This is an appalling waste of an iconic space on Bristol's waterfront. The design is toohigh, dwarfing nearby historic dockland sites, and of the worst off-the-shelf look. I can't believe thatthis could be allowed, when Bristol is looking to move towards more of a world city status.

Mr Neil Harvie  8 MANILLA ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-11-29   OBJECT

Looking at the press releases and CGIs would could be mistaken for thinking thisproject has no architect and designer. This proposal is bland, plain and just ugly.

To my surprise there is a reputable architect on the design scheme and on cursory glance of thedesign and access statement I see the design was a much more interesting form early on theprocess, doing something interesting with the top floor and roof form and accentuating the groundfloor and colonnade. Somehow this has gone through a design process and come out lookingworse and anything interesting being subtracted from it. Also, I see the statement doesn't reallyremark on how the design has evolved following consultation and conversation with stakeholders.I can't imagine the design team would have received comments to make their proposal boring andugly but that seems to be what has happened.

I don't particularly disagree with the height and massing, but remain unconvinced if views to thecathedral and setting of the harbour have really been appreciated and responded to appropriately.Indeed this corner of Millennium square, the far end of the reach and the amphitheatre could allbenefit from a bit more activity and coming of going of people. I'm not sure a large cycle storereally provides an 'active frontage' to millennium square however.

Architecturally, there is much to draw inspiration from in the area, such as the Post Modernism ofthe Lloyds Building or the Victorian Transit Sheds or further afield. Instead the design seems toemulate 'The Crescent & Villa' on Hanover Quay, one of Bristol's worst planning decisions andugliest eyesores of recent times.

I, like many residents and visitors, pass and look onto the site and area on a daily basis. Not tomentioned this is one of Bristol's 'postcard' images. This site deserves and more sympatheticresponse than the one offered. Is this really the image of our city we want to have?

I urge the case officer to recommend this application be refused based on appearance alone,unless this be revised. I urge the applicant and design team to make better light of consultationand listen to the councils City Design Group and a design review panel. I see there is anopportunity here that should be pursued, but this is not it.

Ms Lesley Lunn  22 ALFRED PLACE KINGSDOWN BRISTOL  on 2021-11-29   OBJECT

I strongly oppose this development. The scheme is overly large in scale, and seems todwarf neighbouring buildings, and appears out of character with its surroundings. This is such animportant site and this building would appear to detract rather than enhance its setting.

Councillor tim wye  109 YORK ROAD, MONTPELIER MONTPELIER BRISTOL  on 2021-11-28   OBJECT

Although not in my ward (Ashley) I view this site as being owned by many people andcommunities in the City. The docks are a resource and source of pleasure to all residents, not tomention the tourist and economic benefits.

From a planning point of view this proposal is unacceptable. A moribund design with noconcession to the architectural (listed) heritage of the area. The design lacks any imagination andneither adds to nor pleasingly contrasts to the area. Particularly in regards to planning, the scaleand height of the building is simply too much. It will dwarf other buildings and lead to a sense ofbeing overlooked in public spaces and will obscure important views of the cathedral andsurrounds.

Agreeing to this will blight Bristol for generations to come.

Mr Richard Boston  BELLEVUE CRESCENT BRISTOL  on 2021-11-27   OBJECT

While I totally appreciate the desire to build new amenities at that location, the sheerscale of the planned building seems grossly inappropriate. The harbourside is one of a few Bristolicons and the plans portray a building that will dwarf the existing constructions and impose on bothMillennium Square and the harbour itself, potentially forcing the square into shadow for at leasthalf of the day. The design is not in keeping with the existing skyline in that area. Neither does itoffer a creative aesthetic counterpoint to its surroundings, which might be more acceptable in thatarea, given the artistic focus of some of the existing buildings.

The need for such a building is also far from certain. A significant number of recent builds in thatarea have failed to maintain 100% occupancy. Several businesses have opened, failed and closedsince that area was last redeveloped, suggesting it's not a hugely viable location for manyorganisations. The scale of this proposed building will increase the supply of commercial spacewhen there clearly isn't sufficient demand.

Mr Roger Ford  16 BRYNLAND AVENUE BRISTOL  on 2021-11-26   OBJECT

Reasons for objecting:

1. This is one of the most prominent spots in the Floating Harbour, and if it is to be built on at all itdeserves something more interesting than this bland office block.

2. The proposed building is too high and bulky for its surroundings. All the other buildings aroundthis section of the Floating Harbour, from the Watershed round to the Lloyds buildings, are low(two tor three storeys) and wide, reflecting the proportions of the former dockside transit sheds. Afive-storey block like this looks quite inappropriate in this Conservation Area setting. As with somany major applications of the last few years, the height of the proposed development appears tobe driven by desire for profit rather than any considerations of aesthetics or respect for heritage.

3. With the precedent of Liverpool's docks in mind, I think this development would reduce theappeal of the City Docks as a tourist attraction. It would give the impression to visitors that the Cityreally does not care about one of its greatest assets.

4. Regarding the proposed uses of the building: surely central Bristol does not need more officesat this time, when existing office buildings are being converted into accommodation, others(including the neighbouring Lloyds building) are being vacated and work patterns are shifting muchmore towards home working? Bristol's biggest development need is for affordable homes, notoffices. And this part of the harbourside area already has an abundance - if not a surfeit - of theretail, food and drink offerings proposed for the ground floor.

6. The existing site is frequently put to good use for supporting events in the adjacentamphitheatre, so its loss could well prejudice the viability of such popular events. At other times itis an agreeable open space, with a dozen mature trees. I believe these are good reasons forleaving the site as it is.

Since it was published this application has so far received forty-nine objections from the public,and not a single comment in support. Surely this suggests some sort of failure of the planningprocess? There should be earlier and wider engagement with the public for major applicationssuch as this, especially when they are in a conservation area. Relying on a neighbour consultationlist may be appropriate in suburban areas, but not in a key public space like this.

Mrs Shirley Stevenson  4 LANCASHIRE RD BISHOPSTON BRISTOL  on 2021-11-24   OBJECT

I am a resident of Bristol with great concerns about some of the buildings being allowedin Central Bristol and this particular site is of interest to all Bristolians.

Not much could be further from the imaginative design of the late 1990's "The ExplodingGreenhouse"It is a monolithic block, an eyesore totally out of sympathy with its site and the surroundingbuildings.It is unimaginative and more reflects the Developer's desire to make as much money as possibleas cheaply as possible rather than the possibilities of that particular corner.How embarrassing for our city would it be if this building were to be built.We look aghast at some of the buildings left from the 1960's and this will, in time, be relegated tothe same maw.

Mrs Susan Snowdon  84 NORTH ROAD ST. ANDREWS BRISTOL  on 2021-11-23   OBJECT

I strongly object to this proposal.

It is out of keeping with the historic design of the local 'shed' warehouses. It is much, much toohigh and will dwarf the historic buildings while cutting out views of the cathedral. The design issuitable for a commercial / industrial park.

It will make the area less attractive thus damaging income (tourism and local) amenity value. I canjust see comments in future press articles about Bristol squandering its physical assets by badplanning controls.

It will be a white elephant. we don't need more office space in the centre, especially not when itruins our prime leisure and tourism area. Lloyds is already moving out of office space and themove to home working means there will be empty office space all over the city. The building couldactually be unused and become run down.

The space on the ground floor could become another mega bar and we already have enough ofthose ( especially with Brew Dog coming around the corner).

The large footprint will affect the use of Millennium Square and the Amphitheatre for festivals andlarge events.

Please insist on a low-rise building in a style that blends with the warehouse style architecture.

Mr adaA Watson  60 NORTH ROAD ST. ANDREWS BRISTOL  on 2021-11-23   OBJECT

Whilst I have no objection to the scale and massing of the scheme which appearsacceptable, the rear elevation is a significant disappointment showing little architectural merit.

The copy and paste design and stacked boxes effect will become blight on the landscape whichpreviously held impressive views.

More needs to be done to improve the visual impact of this scheme on the rear elevation.

Mrs Kate Brooker  14 CLARE AVENUE BRISTOL  on 2021-11-22   OBJECT

I strongly object to this development. I'm surprised that this development has not beenput out for a public consultation as it is such a prominent and important historical communitylocation.This site is currently well used for festival and harbour events that serve the community of Bristoland more high profile events that draw tourists in from outside Bristol. Any development hereshould contribute to this, not close off the entire area and deprive the city of this great space andamenity.Whilst Bristol isn't UNESCO listed like Liverpool was, lessons should be learned from the overdevelopment of the historic waterfront there. The temptation to overdevelop a historic harbour canultimately be detrimental to the city.

The plans are not in keeping with the historical context of the area at all and any developments (ifthey must be allowed on this site) should have no higher frontage than the existing 2 storeyBordeaux Quay or Watersheds further up. To build any higher would be incongruous with thehistoric buildings on that side of the harbour and ruin the light, open aspects of this historic area.To describe (in the application) nearby buildings as 4 storeys is misleading as they are all setfurther back or on the opposite side of the water. This development would stand out like a sorethumb for it's size on the proposed site as no other building is this tall on that side of the water.

The aesthetics of the building are dull, generic, bog standard office block architecture with nointerest or landmark design merit for such a key central site.

The planning committee should reject this application outright and question the process by whichthis piece of land is being tendered / developed. The people of Bristol should have a say in the useand development of this land via a Public Consultation.

Ms Poppy Stephenson  CONFIDENTIAL BRISTOL  on 2021-11-20   OBJECT

I object due to the impact this development will have on Bristol as a destination city, thebusinesses and employees of all the events that take place in the amphitheatre and the due to thevisual impact on the Harbourside.

Waterfront square is a valuable amenity used by all of the events in the amphitheatre, and withoutthis space they cannot run. It often hosts the toilets, catering, bar and back office areas as well asentry gates in order to run the events safely whilst utilising the full capacity of the amphitheatre.Without this space many events will be commercially unviable and therefore Bristol will lose them.This will be a drastic loss of income for those employed in this industry, following covid it's anotherblow, but also a loss of tourism to the city that these events bring.

The design of the building is an eyesore and detracts from the skyline of the Harbourside, as it isnot in keeping with the area. It makes the space feel crowded and overshadowed which isuninviting.

As a suggestion, could the ground floor of the building not be raised so that it appears the buildingis on stilts? This would enable a covered park space to be retained on waterfront square, enablingthe events to continue using it. But also it could be a valuable asset to the area providing acovered market space to extend the craft and food markets that already take place along theharbour. Yoga and exercise classes could be held there year round for the office workers, withseating for lunches. There could be an opportunity here for a world leading solution and designmasterpiece that maintains the community feel of Bristol and brings additional value to all parties,

by building above Waterfront Square rather than on it. That would truly be a destination.

Please ask the designers to revisit their proposal to encompass the existing uses of the spacesuch as events.

Ms Heidi Samson  180 LUCKWELL ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-11-19   OBJECT

As a Bristolian who frequents the harbour every few days for leisure and exercise, i'mwriting to object to this building proposal as if built, i think it will be an eyesore on the harbourside.Its too big and the design is dull and uninteresting. Also there are many empty offices in the area,so why build more? Please consider using this space for something more community orientatedand less imposing.

Mr Ewan Gimson  66 RALEIGH RD BRISTOL  on 2021-11-19   OBJECT

This proposed design is a complete eyesore, an ugly box squatting on the watersidewith no hint of tribute to the maritime and industrial history of the area. The site itself is used formultiple events throughout the year, many of which I've attended having lived nearby for severalyears, and there's no suggestion in these plans that any facilities and space would be afforded tothe same events again. This building would certainly make big public events at the adjacent LloydsAmphitheatre more difficult to run and with a smaller capacity, at a time when the Bristolpopulation is growing quickly, and so in desperate need of the preservation of public eventsspaces. I wholeheartedly object to the plans, if this site had to be developed the design wouldneed to be far more sympathetic to its surroundings than this monstrosity.

Mr Jack Ashdown  26 STANLEY PARK BRISTOL  on 2021-11-19   OBJECT

This second revision is even worse than the original proposal in 2020. It is not onlygeneric, but an eyesore. The staggered building profile looking from the centre towers over itsneighbours. And the new reduced height and wider profile makes it feel large and stumpy.

I have no issue with modern architecture, but surely this should be a flash ship piece ofarchitecture. Whether office, hire or other use. This looks like it could have just been picked up ansdropped from any provincial town - it's not even to the standards you'd expect in London,Manchester etc.

Poor design and a real shame to leave this eyesore for future Bristolians

Miss Sasha Walton  19 THE BEECHES BRISTOL  on 2021-11-19   OBJECT

Ugly oversized building, and clearly just a developers' money making scheme for hollowsoulless offices. The renderings make it appear as though the building will eclipse the iconicbuildings in this area, and I am sure it will not be welcomed by neighbouring restaurants or theircustomers. Appreciate the use of that brownfield site, but better consideration needs to be givenas to how this is appropriately utilitised, especially as this is in the heart of the city.

Mr Robert Bailey  FLAT 158, THE CRESCENT, HANNOVER QUAY, BRISTOL BS1 5JQ  on 2021-11-19   OBJECT

Whilst I understand the need for progression and redevelopment I believe that thisproposal fails to deliver any benefit to the area and the community. Living very nearby and seeingthe already countless empty offices and retail outlets I feel that building more is very ill-conceived.This proposal offers nothing to the area and local community. The design is a terrible looking boxwhich seems like it has been designed to maximise the space for pure profit than offering anylandmark design quality or community worth all whilst removing any green space potential for whatis one of the most prominent positions on the Harbour.

Bristol is crying out for more cultural space please don't waste this location on another mundaneoffice box!


This building would clearly take away the beauty of the harbourside! Offices are nolonger in high demand since the pandemic, the Lloyds building is soon to be emptied anyway andthis would be a futile, eyesore for residents and visitors. Building would also disrupt bristol tourismand daily life!

Dr William Harris  29 WOODSTOCK ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-11-19   OBJECT

1. It is ugly with little architectural merit - more 'Soviet Butlins' ruining the harbourside

2. Its size is out of proportion with surrounding buildings

3. It will obscure views of Cabot tower and cathedral from m shed

4. Given the amount of empty office space in Bristol and advent of working from home in the postcovid world, I find it hard to believe the new office space would be filled

Dr Cherrie Ho  48 ALLINGTON ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-11-19   OBJECT

I enjoy the open space that currently is there. The increase amount of commuters andtraffic that would be brought in, and parking struggles in the area. Not to mention the design thatdoesn't fit with the overall aesthetics.

Miss Philippa Croxford  FLAT 5 2 WATERLOO ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-11-19   OBJECT

This building is a total eyesore that would completely ruin Bristol's beautiful iconicharbour sideI'm surprised you would even consider building something that tall on the harbour front let alonesomething so ugly as well!Bristol does not need more offices, especially in the harbour side district which should be morefocused on entertainment and atmospherePersonally I like having the plaza open to the harbour and bridge, and such a tall building wouldruin so much of the light in the surrounding area tooIf you must build here restrict it to 2 stories and make them fit the surrounding architecture, maybemake them use bath stone like so many other Bristol buildings, it's not worth it to cheapen ourbeautiful cities prime locations with these soulless corporate boxes!!

Mr Robin Hicks  232 THE CRESCENT HANNOVER QUAY BRISTOL  on 2021-11-19   OBJECT

The West Side of the Dock looks authentic, don't spoil it


The harbourside area is a favourite of both Bristolians and visitors to the city. It is one ofthe primary reasons why the city centre now feels like a pleasant place to be. I do not think thearea is well served by the proposed development. It is dull and overbearing. I am not opposed toall development of the site, but a 6 floor behemoth is completely out of proportion with thesurrounding buildings.

Mrs Julie Seary  1 THE VILLA HANNOVER QUAY BRISTOL  on 2021-11-19   OBJECT

This building is incongruous with the surroundings. It overshadows the historicalwatershed buildings. The building has no character for an area full of characterful buildings.

Dr Mark Wright  24 FRASER ST WINDMILL HILL BRISTOL  on 2021-11-19   OBJECT

These plans for this site dropped out of the blue sky nearly two years ago, essentiallyfully formed. There had been zero public consultation and zero public input to the plans. Thedeveloper was awarded the contract by the Mayor after one of the most secretive processes thatBristol Council has ever seen - duplicitously mis-framed as a "public competition" in the Mayor'sTrumpian publicity.

There were 22 applications to the bid for this most prestigious site remaining on Bristol'sHarbourside, and it is highly unusual that none of the 21 other entrants will ever be made public bythe Council. I have seen some of these secret entries and they are much better than this dreadfulattempt.

As a result of numerous formal questions to Council and Freedom of Information requests wehave learned that the only reference to actual architectural merit in the Council's request forinterest is within just 1/3 of the scoring - for "Description of Scheme Proposals, Land Use & AreaSchedule". This means that the visual appearance of the building may have counted for as little asa tenth of the total score. No wonder the winner is so dire looking.

In the two years since, public outrage at the awfulness of the plans has forced minimal changes -the overall design remains the same. The hotel element planned to front onto Millennium Squarehas been mothballed for the time-being, and the main building has been lowered by just over astorey. But the building still towers over the historic quayside buildings next to it, being over twicetheir height at 6 storeys high. In my opinion the plans are very slightly less terrible due to that

change, but I still absolutely oppose them vigorously.

I have never heard anyone (other than the developer, obviously) say that this is a good design forthis site. Literally no one in the last 2 years. That is unprecedented, and I never saw such a one-sided response in my 16 years as a councillor. This design has been panned universally byarchitects, planners, urban designers, politicians, the local community, and the Bristol media. Hereare a couple of examples from learned local architects:

I cannot emphasise enough that granting permission to this shockingly bad set of plans would be amonumental embarrassment for Bristol. This prestigious harbour-side site would be scarred for 50years by a grotesque carbuncle, and everyone would know who was responsible.

These plans cannot be saved by tweaking. They should simply be rejected outright.

Dr Mark Wright(Former councillor for this area 2005-2021)

Mrs Sophie Lawrence  66 RALEIGH ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-11-19   OBJECT

The design proposed could not be more out of sync for that location if it tried. It will havea negative impact on community events taking place in the surrounding area, especially in theLloyds amphitheatre. The area is already crowded with buildings and people and so adding thiswill tip the already delicate threshold over the edge. Locals and tourists alike enjoy the area andwalking around the harbourside and adding what is quite frankly an eyesore will have a negativeimpact on this. At a time when the population of bristol is increasing it is important that well-beingof locals is considered. The need for office space is also in decline with the rise of flexible andhybrid working. For where is is necessary, there are locations more suitable.

Mr Benjamin Elgar  3 KINGSTON ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-11-19   OBJECT

I support development of the space but this proposal replaces communal space on theharbourside with even more private office space. I would be in favour of development thatpreserved or increased the amount of communal space available, perhaps in the form of a park orshopping centre.

In addition, the proposed building is not in keeping with its surroundings. It towers over itsneighbours, dominating the harbourside.

Miss Karen Davies  1 EVE ROAD EASTON BRISTOL  on 2021-11-19   OBJECT

This building is not only an eyesore, but also a waste of space. In a time when retailerunits are shutting down, office buildings are closing or remain empty of tenants the proposal tobuild something offering both office and retail space is an absolute joke and an insult. The plot isalso a vital community space for various events, supporting ventures in the arts and the loss ofthat space would be highly felt. We need developments that bring vibrancy and life, bringcommunities together - not ugly eyesores that will bring death to an area. I severely oppose thisdevelopment

Mr Hugo Stanbury  FLAT 3, 121 ASHLEY ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-11-19   OBJECT

No. Just no.This space is essential for the events held in this area.

Also, the proposed building is seriously ugly and uninspiring in such a much loved, photographedand painted waterfront.

Ms Shani Ali  78 GREENWAY BUSH LANE BRISTOL  on 2021-11-19   OBJECT

The proposed building doesn't work - we need creative and imaginative thinking aboutwhat is needed for the city Not just another big building that doesn't say anything about Bristol, it'shistory or it's future. The city needs to think about the people, the future and being inspirational,making Bristol special! Sadly the new suggested building does none of this and feels very generic.

Mrs Samantha Wilks  40 BELLEVUE CRES BRISTOL  on 2021-11-19   OBJECT

The plans proposed are not going to enhance the vibrant docks.

Mr Marc Lyall  34 VICARAGE ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-11-18   OBJECT

I object to this plan on the basis that it looks like another corporate build. It is sounderwhelming to look at. Given the richness and diversity of the surrounding buildings (Arnolfini,Bordeaux quay, m shed & lloyds). To dump this in the middle seems like a travesty to me. Wehave suffered some very bland, money making buildings in the docks and Cumberland basin & I'dhope the council would not add to this by allowing this one.

Mr Charles Evans  3 ST ANNE'S TERRACE BRISTOL  on 2021-11-18   OBJECT

This development is nothing like sympathetic towards the characterful buildings itpurports to be influenced by in its immediate vicinity. It is a bland, monotonous eyesore that willdominate the surrounding area and degrade the visual landscape rather than enhance it. Unlessthe architects can come up with something that is more in keeping with the local style, orsomething that adds genuine architectural flair, then I think it should be rejected out of hand. Idon't want one of the main central areas to be shut down and all the inconvenience that a majorredevelopment causes, just to erect something that I could have thrown together on a doodle appin an hour.

This is one of the main parts of the city that people go to to enjoy a night out and to have thishulking monolith destroy the ability of people to bear witness to the multifaceted skyline that existsaround the harbour is in my mind a tragedy. It has not been thought through properly and needs amajor redesign.

Mrs Tanya Cownie  72 MORRIS ROAD LOCKLEAZE BRISTOL  on 2021-11-18   OBJECT

The proposed building it too large and adds no interest to the water front. It isunambitious in its proposed use and and seems to be another big square box to put people in.This needs to be rethought to provide a community asset that compliments the waterfront andbridges people's use of broad quay and the waterfront. A sensitive event space with greenery andcareful planning for ensuring active transport on land and water would be ideal. BCC stop thinkingwith your purse strings!

Mr Henry Baker  112 SOMERSET ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-11-18   OBJECT

The proposal is vastly out of scale for the buildings in the area, dwarfing even thelargest building in local proximity - this will dominate the harbour skyline without context orarchitectural merit to one of Bristol's best assets.

The volume of the building also means a vast waste of energy in construction methods usingunsustainable materials (any offset in tree planting doesn't excuse this) and construction fromscratch to create office space etc that could be provided in other locations by redevelopingbrownfield sites (BoE building etc)

BCC should reject this proposal on the grounds of sustainability and strive for a building that issympathetic to its surroundings, adding a building of merit that people can be proud of. Try harderwith your policies, so we don't end up with a city of ugly unwanted buildings.

The David Taylor  19 CHRISTMAS STEPS BRISTOL  on 2021-11-18   OBJECT

I have shown this to few people and all of them have said the same thing. They mustnot do this. It is an act of sabotage and aesthetic violence. The harbour is Bristol's best asset andthis is an insult to it. Please count this comment 10 times, as that's how many people are satround the table shouting about it. Thanks

Mrs Clare Pike  24 MASCOT ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-11-18   OBJECT

This is generic, ugly and lacking in ambition. Such a prominent site in our city shouldhave a landmark piece of architecture that offers more than yet more capitalist succour to thepeople of the city.

Ms Katie Denton  6 HEBRON ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-11-18   OBJECT

As a previous resident of The Crescent/Harbourside area, and a born and bredBristolian who loves the Harbourside area and city as a whole and wants to see it continue to growand improve, I wholeheartedly object to this planning application. In a post-covid world we do notneed more office space, especially not in the beautiful historic location proposed. The Lloydsbuilding right next to it is already being sold and is awaiting future occupants, which proves thispoint perfectly.

Views of Cabot Tower and the greenery of Brandon Hill will be obscured and it will be anunderused eyesore, taking up space that is currently used for Bristol's various and valued publicevents. Overall, the priorities of this project and the means proposed to achieve them are allwrong.

Mr Michael Tomsett  5 PYLLE HILL CRESCENT BRISTOL  on 2021-11-18   OBJECT

If the Bristol arc was cancelled for "harming" the surrounding historic buildings, whatbenefit does this unimaginative, huge cuboid have? Would dominate and ruin the skyline.

Mr Jack Miller  57 LANGTON PARK BRISTOL  on 2021-11-18   OBJECT

This building is completely out of character with the surrounding area and wouldcompletely overshadow the neighbouring building and to an extent the ampitheatre area. It wouldalso negatively impact the general views of harbourside area. The design is bland and ugly andthe building needs to be at least 2 stories shorter

Mr Ellis Chan  40 ABERDEEN ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-11-18   OBJECT

The current design proposal does not respond positively with its local context andvernacular.

In terms of the proposal's exterior design, it has already aged terribly from the renderedperspective. It looks like a building plugged from 1980s Miami's beachfront, and dropped in 2021'sBristol harbourfront.

In terms of the key views, from the M-shed, the Arnofini, or from the water cascade, the proposedwill in no doubt damage the atmosphere and views of Bristol's historical harbourfront. The buildingwill overshadow the importance Pero's Bridge.

Currently, the journey and experience for people walking along the waterfront, from theHarbourside towards the waterfront square will arrive to a multiuse open space, a space which isused for food markets, harbourside markets but also by likes of skateboarders, pedestrians andother users who make use of this public space when available. Unfortunately the current proposalnot only does not help extend ground level activities long the harbourfront, it will also presence anunpleasant, private space which will not benefit Bristol's harbourside in the long term.

If we are to assist the long term growth of local economy, independent business, allow visitors andlocal residence to make use of that space, and at the same time, create a timeless space, thecurrent proposal need to take into consideration of Jacob's idea of "bustling commercial or publicspaces on the ground floor" and residentials or offices above.

Overall, the design and building usage needs to be reconsidered, which will bring long termbenefits to all future users of that key space.

Mr John Wright  32 DOVE STREET BRISTOL  on 2021-11-18   OBJECT

This site is among the most important and sensitive in the city. The proposed design isnot in keeping with the port heritage buildings around it. It is unimaginative and ugly. It is of aridiculously large scale. The demand for office space in that location is doubtful and I understand alarge amount of premium office space is about to become available nearby. At weekends the areaalready attracts very high volumes of traffic to bars. The ability for the area to withstand additionalcapacity is unproved


The application is a contrived attempt to justify a large, dominant office block with noarchitectural merit based on 2 false comparisons:

1. Previous unsuccessful schemes for large-scale cultural buildings on the site.These schemes did not receive detailed approval and were not pursued.They do not form a precedent for a commercial office development which has no similar attributes.

2. The Sections and Elevations submitted by the applicant show distant buildings which create thefalse impression that the proposed development would correspond and harmonise with itsimmediate surroundings. Conversely it would be a prominent eyesore with adverse impacts onmassing and sight-lines around the Harbourside.

The applicant has submitted a Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment which states:

"7.2 There is an urgent need from a townscape character perspective, as noted in publishedassessments, to re-instate the townscape in the vicinity with a built form characteristic of the scaleand strength of robust large-scale buildings in this vicinity."

"7.4 Currently the Site represents an incoherent and utilitarian void in the townscape"

These statements are incorrect and absurd. The site is currently a tranquil open space surroundedby 12 established trees, all of which would be felled under the current proposal. There is no void in

the townscape and no need or urgency for change.

Please reject the application.

Mr Jakub Raspl  732 SKYPARK ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-11-18   OBJECT

It is evident that an extensive site analysis of the surrounding areas and the characterhas been undertaken, however; it is clear that it has not informed the final design of the proposalthat the site analysis was solely a tick exercise. The proposed building does not take into accountthe use of the surrounding area or lacks to address the fact that the site is clearly not meant for amediocre office city block. The appearance of the building is boring, bland and unimaginative, andone can clearly see that the project is driven by profit rather than enhancing the surrounding area,not talking about the apparent segregation of public and private realm at ground level, completelycontrasting with the rest of the 'Harbour Promenade' and Millenium Square.

Mr Marcus Smith  142 NORTH STREET FLAT 2 BRISTOL  on 2021-11-18   OBJECT

Absolutely no imagination.

It would be better to leave it as it is, rather than build this monstrosity.

Keep it for more pop up events and more.

Mr Tom Bosanquet  76 ST LUKES CRESCENT, BRISTOL BS3 4SA  on 2021-11-17   OBJECT

To call this hideous would be unkind to the word hideous.Do not plonk this vile lump next to the historic harbour!

Mr Lee Irwin  FLAT 7 FERNLEIGH COURT 153  on 2021-11-17   OBJECT

We have a CBD build it there, we don't need office space in areas like this. Thewaterfront is visited by people all over the world and most people love relaxing in this area, weshould be keeping more areas like this as open spaces not letting corporations screw up whatmakes Bristol Bristol.

Mr Darach McDougall  93 GARNET STREET BEDMINSTER BRISTOL  on 2021-11-17   OBJECT

Completely out of character scale, even compared to the new harboursidedevelopment.The design images are of a monolithic monstrosity, completely lacking in any feature of interest.Built on space that is currently used by markets and small festival areas that create Bristol'scharacter.When not in use the space provides a calm break for people love and use the area from analready commercially busy harbour side area.People don't tend to take the bus to a hotel, will lead to am increase in taxi traffic in the areafurther increasing traffic in the proposed CAZ.This is the joint worst design I have seen (paired with the student development that was approvedin Bedminster) for development in Bristol. Can we have an ounce of pride in our city and say no tosomething that is so obviously a bad idea, so clearly from a developer who just wants to make aprofit margin and couldn't care less about what they leave. The harbour is one of the jewels ofBristol's crown, don't let this simply be a commercial decision, let it be one we can be proud of.


The size of the proposal and style will dominate the area and ruin the character of theharbour.

Mr Matthew Shute  124 ROBERTSON ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-11-17   OBJECT

This application is for an extremely large and unattractive building in the historic, andhitherto, attractive part of the city.

I object to the size of the building, to the design, and to it's location.

Loss of amenity - the planned building takes the space currently used by various temporaryevents, which I and many other people enjoy.

Unattractive design and appearance - The building is not pleasant to look at, nor does itsappearance match its neighbours. This is exacerbated by its size - it dwarfs both Bordeaux Quayand Lloyds TSB and will dominate that section ofthe waterfront.

The docks are an attractive, popular, historic and important part of the city. Placing such a largeand unsympathetic construction in such a central, visible position, would considerably impair thevisual aspect and character of the docks.

I request that this application be turned down.

Ms D Laming   44 EDWARD ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-11-17   OBJECT

This is an absolute monstrosity.Too big and overbearing.No family housing which is what the city is crying out for.Not in keeping with anything that remotely resembles historic Bristol.It just looks like like a cheap, huge box that will ruin the docks landscape.

Crikey of this is the best their architect could come up with, they need sacking. It's a disgrace thatthey think Bristol City docks deserves something this hideous.

Mr Peter Clements  35 TRURO ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-11-17   OBJECT

Why? As if the Lloyds building is not enough of a travesty! This building does not fit intothe character of Bristol harbour at all and will remove what 'public realm' is left. The change inworking habits following the global pandemic should indicate to you that we don't need more officespace in this part of the city. Bristol needs affordable family homes! The design is not in keepingwith what surrounds it, to be frank the design is lifeless, dull and unattractive, and the risk ofgranting planning permission is that this will lead to the loss of what is an area currently underthreat. Bristol and the people of Bristol deserve better.

Ms Holly Meechan  35 TRURO ROAD BRISTOL  on 2021-11-17   OBJECT

A soulless monstrosity for commercial purpose is not what the people of Bristol and thehistoric harbouriside need or want.

Mr Richard Granville  13 WESTON ROAD LONG ASHTON BRISTOL  on 2021-11-17   OBJECT

For such a prime location to build a building that truly be a focal point of beauty this failson all counts. This is s once in a generation opportunity to build something amazing and thisdoesn't tick any of the boxes.

Mr Alec Johnson  29 CHEWTON CLOSE FISHPONDS BRISTOL  on 2021-11-03   OBJECT

A couple of objections:

Firstly, this space is important and is used for a variety of things very regularly, and could be usedto generate income more often if that's the council's motivation for this.

Secondly, that building will look over everything around it, it doesn't look good there. Part of thecharm of the harbourside is the ability to see across it and all of the older, restored buildings alongthe entire dock edge. There are large newer buildings the other side of Lloyds, but this side, itwould not be in keeping with its surroundings.