Comment:- I wish to object most strongly to this application.

- This is an application which has been objected to by the neighboring properties, which haspreviously been refused on at least two occasions and which has been renewed yet again seekingto unfairly and un-democratically wear down the local neighborhood resistance.

- It is well known to the authority that this plan is opposed by the vast majority of local residents.

- I understand that this plan has been opposed such that it has been turned down on what Ibelieve to be three previous occasions.

- The proposal contravenes the restriction on development on the downs and would infringe theopen green space, and the local byelaws.

- There is no need or requirement for the additional proposed development of a cafe as onealready exists on the downs.

- There is already a substantial parking problem in this area of the downs causing congestion anda dangerous mix of traffic and recreational users at a dangerous hair pin corner of the road.Additionally there is a problem at night on most weekends at night when youngsters with cars ormotorcycles race up and down the road and over the grass. This problem would only be expectedto be made worse by the additional proposed development.

- This has already lead to traffic accidents at this location. There is inadequate parking and theroads are restricted and insufficient to accommodate the additional development.

- The development (other than renewal of toilets) is not as described in the title limited to the toiletsand therefore is misrepresented to the public.

Yours sincerelyDavid P Johnson

Comment:- I wish to object most strongly to this application.

- This is an application which has been objected to by the neighboring properties, which haspreviously been refused on at least two occasions and which has been renewed yet again seekingto unfairly and un-democratically wear down the local neighborhood resistance.

- It is well known to the authority that this plan is opposed by the vast majority of local residents.

- I understand that this plan has been opposed such that it has been turned down on what Ibelieve to be three previous occasions.

- The proposal contravenes the restriction on development on the downs and would infringe theopen green space, and the local byelaws.

- There is no need or requirement for the additional proposed development of a cafe as onealready exists on the downs.

- There is already a substantial parking problem in this area of the downs causing congestion anda dangerous mix of traffic and recreational users at a dangerous hair pin corner of the road.Additionally there is a problem at night on most weekends at night when youngsters with cars ormotorcycles race up and down the road and over the grass. This problem would only be expectedto be made worse by the additional proposed development.

- This has already lead to traffic accidents at this location. There is inadequate parking and theroads are restricted and insufficient to accommodate the additional development.

- The development (other than renewal of toilets) is not as described in the title limited to the toiletsand therefore is misrepresented to the public.

Yours sincerelyDavid P Johnson

2

3. Drawing 21_06762_F-SITE_PLAN_AS_PROPOSED-3215016 showing the ‘indicative’ offsite habitat still expunges the nearby tree and bench that are located here. The ‘indicative’ area also extends into the small strip of Other neutral grassland habitat (part of the larger Other neutral grassland habitat which extends beyond the northern boundary). It is also placed under the branches of the nearby TPO tree which sweep down to the ground.

4. If this new habitat is to be placed on some other part of the Downs, then this proposed site needs to be identified and its baseline habitat surveyed before the BNG calculation can be completed.

5. We have explained in our previous comments why we omitted the proposed 125 square metres of extensive green roof from our calculations; until now, the applicant had not included it in its calculations.

Even if we accept all the applicant’s latest BNG 3.1 analysis and correct only the designated Modified grassland habitat to a Lowland calcareous grassland habitat, the applicant’s proposals will still result in a biodiversity net loss of 9.12%. Without offsite habitat creation, the net loss will be 16.31%.

In the meantime, we stand by our recent further comments dated 30 April 2022.

Bristol Tree Forum 19 May 2022

I was very disappointed to see that yet another proposal is being put forward for the building of a café and toilets at Sea Walls, BS9.

In daytime it is a peaceful place from which you can view what is surely some of the most dramatic scenery in Europe, taking in the Suspension Bridge, the river and Leigh Woods. People come from far and wide to see it. To put a commercial enterprise in such a site of natural beauty seems an act of vandalism itself.

On a practical level - is there a fallback plan as to who will maintain the toilets if/when the café is a financial failure?

Also, have you considered the impact of vandalism on the new building which will surely attract it? On weekend evenings there is a lot of car racing around and over the Downs there, a lot of drug taking (the evidence is clear the next morning) and I think a building such as is projected will be a magnet for vandalism.

Parking is already at a premium round the Downs, particularly in summer, when cars are parked at random on the grass as well as on every available bit of the road. Quantities of rubbish are already picked up by local volunteers to ensure the area is clean for the next lot of visitors - a café can only add to this problem.

I would remind you of the opinion of the planning inspectorate in 2019, which stated:

"The consent for the works applied for should not be granted because of the potential harm to the local neighbourhood and the landscape and because its alleged benefits have not been adequately demonstrated."

This decision was surely the right one then, and surely holds good now.

I doubt whether any of the proposers of this scheme live anywhere near this part of the Downs.

Yours faithfully,Elizabeth Balmer,

- I wish to object most strongly to this application.

- It is well known to the authority that this plan is opposed by the vast majority of local residents.

- I understand that this plan has been opposed such that it has been turned down on what Ibelieve to be three previous occasions.

- The proposal contravenes the restriction on development on the downs and would infringe theopen green space, and the local byelaws.

- There is no need or requirement for the additional proposed development of a cafe as onealready exists on the downs.

- There is already a substantial parking problem in this area of the downs causing congestion anda dangerous mix of traffic and recreational users at a dangerous hair pin corner of the road.Additionally there is a problem at night on most weekends at night when youngsters with cars ormotorcycles race up and down the road and over the grass. This problem would only be expectedto be made worse by the additional proposed development.

Yours sincerely

David P Johnson

I would like to add my name to the numerous objectors to the development of the Caféon The Downs.I agree with most of the comments made by neighbours regarding the litter, traffic, noise,aesthetics and environmental impact of the building.These issues have been discussed in some considerable detail by others and so all I can add atthis stage is a plea not to go ahead with the proposed plans.

I stand by my previous comments and all those submitted by the Chairman of the SneydPark Residents Association (SPRA). This application is there for purely opportunistic, commercialreasons which is not in keeping with the intention of the Downs and is in no way sympathetic tothe people who actually live in the area. There is already a cafe and toilets available.

As this application is virtually unchanged from the previous application 18/04727/F, theobjections that I have already tabled on 29 January 2022 apply and these should be taken to besubmitted again. I also fully support the objection lodged on 30 May 2022 by Mr. Steven Small, thechairman of the Sneyd Park Residents' Association.

I do have two additional points -Firstly, as this is an identical application to the previous one which has been rejected both by thePlanning Inspectorate and the Bristol Council, why is this application being submitted yet again?Why does 'no' not mean 'no' - is the Downs Committee going to make successive applications untilit finally succeeds?Secondly, I understood that planning applications had to allow 6 weeks for public comment, yet forthis application notification was received letter dated 17 May 2022 - received 21 May 2022 -leaving just 10 days until the closing date of 31 May for public comment. Is this legal?

The reapplication does not seem to address concerns previously expressed by localresidents.

It remains the wrong location for a development of this kind. For every visitor who benefits fromthe café, there will be others for whom the attractions of the location are diminished.

Insufficient consideration has been given to the effect on traffic and parking. Changes to localparking arrangements have already impacted our road, Rockleaze, negatively. 24 hour parkinghas been allowed on our stretch, damaging and eroding the grass verges and banks. Commutersand overnight camper vans take advantage of the stretch, leaving less space for residents. Thecafe can only exacerbate these difficulties as parking backs up from the Circular Road toRockleaze and Ivywell Road. The cafe is likely, also, to encourage visitors to park on the grass ofthe Downs, as some already do, especially in summer - a further degradation.

I wish to object to this proposal as I believe that the building of a cafe in this quiet cornerof the Downs will damage its environment, because of increased noise and traffic.

If the existing public toilets are considered to be unsightly/unsafe, they should be refurbished andredecorated so that the 'footprint' of the building is unchanged.

I am amazed to see this application back again - I had believed it to have been finallyrejected.I wish to object as strongly as possible to this commercialisation of the Downs. This part of theDowns is a beauty spot with its magnificent views from the Sea Walls - it is peaceful, open andbeautiful and should be allowed to remain so.There may well be a need to upgrade the toilet block which is the only building there currently. Weare used to having to pay for using a toilet nowadays so why not here. We do not need a muchlarger building with other commercial purposes as well there in its place.It will bring additional litter and more people will start to park illegally on the grass areas - thisencourages bad driving behaviour, is dangerous for families and a further encroachment on ourgreen spaces.Let us keep our ice-cream van offering sufficient interest for the visitors but not squander thisConservation Area, this special place, this area of Scientific Interest by giving in to greed. Findsome other way.

I am amazed to see this application back again - I had believed it to have been finallyrejected.I wish to object as strongly as possible to this commercialisation of the Downs. This part of theDowns is a beauty spot with its magnificent views from the Sea Walls - it is peaceful, open andbeautiful and should be allowed to remain so.There may well be a need to upgrade the toilet block which is the only building there currently. Weare used to having to pay for using a toilet nowadays so why not here. We do not need a muchlarger building with other commercial purposes as well there in its place.It will bring additional litter and more people will start to park illegally on the grass areas - thisencourages bad driving behaviour, is dangerous for families and a further encroachment on ourgreen spaces.Let us keep our ice-cream van offering sufficient interest for the visitors but not squander thisConservation Area, this special place, this area of Scientific Interest by giving in to greed. Findsome other way.

I have lived in Bristol since 1979. always living close to The Downs. I now reside at 11Woodland Court Knoll Hill. BS9 1NR. I frequently go for walks or cycle round the Downs. I knowthe proposed development site very well.At times there is congestion owing to the high number of car drivers who park adjacent to theviewpoint. There are many walkers some with young children who have to cross the circular roadto access the viewpoint. The proposed development will intensify the use of roadside parking andcreate a traffic hazard.I am also very concerned that the peaceful nature of the viewpoint will be transformed .Commercial activity must be minimised. There is no need for a café. People visit to enjoy the viewin quiet surroundings.The proposed development will destroy the natural environment and create traffic problems. Theapplication should be rejected.

I have already made comments in support of the proposal for a cafe by the Sea Wallsand was disappointed when the council rejected it. I am fully in favour of any revised plans

Objection

As a past President of the Royal Western Academy I wish to object in the strongest terms to the renewed attempt to bulid this Café which was already rejected on appeal by the Inspector Helen Slade in September 2019.My principal reason is that far from what the Downs Committee claim, its erection will permanently ruin the view of the Avon Gorge and Towerhirst tower from Brunel's suspension bridge, a view which has been celebrated by artists for centuries. It will also, of course, ruin the wild beauty of the Gorge that is such a feature of Seawalls and which inspired a young J M W Turner who painted a watercolour from a cave positioned only about 20 metres below the proposed site.

Yours faithfullyDerek BalmerPast President of the Royal West of England Academy and Pro-Chancellor of the University of the West of England

Objection

There are strong reasons against allowing this new development at Seawalls. My objections are as follows;

1. The site of the proposed building is very close to the edge of a unique conservation area, SAC and SSSIIn my opinion this site needs protection.

2. There is a constant nuisance of anti-social behaviour around this site late at night which is well known to local residents. eg: evidence of laughing gas canisters, and food litter is already common. The caretaker of the toilet block confirmed to me that vandalism occurs regularly. At weekends motorbikes and cars race with impunity on Circular Road and across the grass.I believe that a new building would become a target for vandalism. This would be impossible to prevent without 24 hour security, at high cost.

3. The side effects of having a food outlet at Seawalls are obvious: litter, noise, smells, pollution and a big increase in traffic. Because of restricted parking on that corner of the Downs, cars would park on the surrounding grass-. This would be highly dangerous to pedestrians and children.In my opinion the new building would just cause more problems.

The outstanding argument against the proposed development is summed up in the

report from the Planning Inspectorate in 2019. The argument still stands. It is difficult to understand why so many resubmissions have been allowed in the light of this report.

Previous Planning Inspector's refusal of permission of previous application 18/04727/F The Planning Inspectorate Report dated 24th September 2019 Conclusion stated "Having regard to the criteria set out in paragraphs 12 to 14 above, and all the written representations, I conclude that consent for the works applied for should not be granted [my emphasis] because of the potential harm to the local neighbourhood and the landscape, and because the alleged benefits have not been adequately demonstrated."Helen Slade

I hope the Planning Committee will take my objections into account when making their final decision.

Janet Andrews

Objection

This proposal seeks to concrete over common land and introduce noise, litter, and will undoubtedly attract illegal parking on the grass and vandalism. It is only proposed because the Downs Committee lack the imagination to think of better sources of revenue.

Today I picked up 8 nitrous-oxide canisters within 100 yards of the site - used by young tearaway drivers to 'get high' - and the Downs Committee are planning a glass box - they should get real about the night crime on this corner of the Downs!

The planning officer has already listed 25 sound reasons why objections have been made to this horrible proposal.

Here are 12 of my objections.1. Conflict of interest. The Merchant Venturers, who propose this as an unelected 50% of the Downs Committee, have a duty to safeguard the Downs under the Downs Act 1861. Some Merchant Venturers are not even Bristol ratepayers.2. Building on a green, common land, conservation area - a dangerous precedent for The Downs. Compromising CSP BCS213. Commercialisation of the Downs - would you build a café in the middle of Stonehenge?4. It will seriously detract from the peaceful beauty and protected wildlife of the world-famous Seawalls - Contravening Policy DM26.

5. Increasing climate change. To construct a new building is far more carbon-intensive than refurbishing an old one.6. A magnet for vandalism. Both WCs and café are currently vandalised. The caretaker says night-time round-the clock security would be imperative - the cost of this year-round would negate the unsubstantiated claim that the Café would generate profit for the Downs. 7. A visual wart on the historic views of Towerhurst and the Gorge - celebrated by many artists. Compromising CSP BCS22.8. Light pollution in a rare 'dark sky' area near the city. Used by the Bristol Astronomical Society.9. Litter pollution. This will extend way beyond the environs of the café.10. A magnet for illegal parking on the Downs nearby on summer weekends as there are double yellow lines on this dangerous corner.11. Deleterious impact on wildlife of immediately adjoining SAC and SSSI.12. There is no need or demand for this café. In winter it will be a sad white elephant.Planning Inspector's refusal of permission of previous application 18/04727/F The Planning Inspectorate Report dated 24th September 2019 Conclusion stated "Having regard to the criteria set out in paragraphs 12 to 14 above, and all the written representations, I conclude that consent for the works applied for should not be granted [my emphasis] because of the potential harm to the local neighbourhood and the landscape, and because the alleged benefits have not been adequately demonstrated."Helen SladeTo ruin the Downs in order to conserve them would be an ultimate stupidity. Instead the Planning Committee, acting for the people of Bristol (many of whom would not be able to afford to buy a coffee at the café), must exercise proper stewardship and ensure that the viewpoint at Seawalls is preserved unspoilt for wildlife and for future generations.I object most strongly to this application, which must be rejected.I attach a photograph of a torched car to illustrate the lawlessness that occurs at Circular Road Seawalls at night.

I, once again, want to register my strong objection to the proposal for planning permission, application number 21/06762/F , to build a cafe at Seawalls, for excactly the same reasons as I put down in my previous objections. I sent a long list of these on Jan 29th, and my reasons have not changed.

Please Note: In places the application refers to our property being some 70 meters from the proposed structure. It is in fact some 40 meters away as they have corrected in one place. However, the area most used in our garden (our deck - see attached photo) is only some 13 meters away. This has implications for the position of the proposed structure, the extractor fan, ground heat source and siting of the rubbish bins. We wish to raise a number of objections to the proposed development. Our property is Towerhirst, Seawalls Rd. BS9 1PG which is Listed as Grade 2 and is less than 40 metres from the proposed development. In reading the architect's Design and Access Statement there are some comments that seem to imply that we are completely happy with the proposal. That is not so. The resubmission of the original planning application 18/04727/F now 21/06762/F, is by its nature 'the same/ similar to the original' hence my previous objections still stand and many of which have not been addressed in the resubmission. Therefore I wish my original objections to be taken into account again. In addition I would like to make the following comments: Design Access and Heritage statement 1. 'Passive supervision by staff.' How is this to be effected out of hours. Most of the anti social behaviour on the sea walls occurs out of hours. The police are too stretched to monitor this as has been found in the past. Therefore who and how is this to be effectively monitored given the plan is to now allow 24 hour access to the WC facilities.

There continues to be night time problems with boy racers throughout the year on The Seawalls which increases markedly in the summer months, any proposed structure will inevitably be targeted as has been found with the existing cafe on the Downs which is constantly passed by members of the public. Cars are regularly torched on the seawalls and circular road. If there is a building structure within reach this could be badly affected 2.

3.

4. 2. 5. 'minimising visual impact' the proposal is totally out of keeping with the buildings surrounding the Downs all of which are of stone construction. See section 12 of the Planning (listed buildings and Conservation Areas ) Act 1990 6. There has been no breakdown of proposed income versus cost of construction/maintenance/running costs. The footfall since the DEFRA application, 7. which could not be viewed due to covid, and therefore local residents were not able to comment on in the timescales required, has fallen to pre pandemic levels. 8. 9. 10. Policy DM26. We do not believe that this proposal contributes positively to an area's character and identity. Indeed we feel that the opposite is true. We feel that the proposal does not respond appropriately to the green infrastructure and historic assets (i). Does not respect the local pattern, grain and historical development of the area (ii). Does not retain, enhance or create important views (iv). Does not preserve or enhance existing landmarks (v). Does not respond to existing form of existing buildings (vi). Definitely does not reflect the predominant materials of the area (viii).

2.1 The scope and implementation of the 1861 Act is different to implementing changes without a legal Act of Parliament. Surely the first purpose built commercial project on the Downs since 1861 should be subject to a change in the 1861 Act not just an interpretation by the Downs Committee as it sets a completely new precedent. Conflict with the Clifton and Durdham Downs (Bristol) Act 1861 Our principal objection is that this development is a commercial enterprise and as such is in complete contrast to the aims and strictures of the original Clifton and Durdham Downs (Bristol) Act 1861. This is a proposal for a commercial building (A3). There have been no new commercial structures built on The Downs since that Act. To create a commercial retail outlet would set a very unfortunate precedent and would in our view run contrary to the ethos of The Downs and the 1861 Act governing its management. A number of local residents feel that this might create a precedent for the future. We cannot be sure that future members of the Downs Committee would not take advantage of the granting of this proposal as a precedent for future development and thus destroy over 150 years of protection.

In the Downs Management Plan for Clifton and Durdham 2012 -2017 (produced by The Downs Committee - the Applicant) they state that: "The second heavily used area is Sea Walls where there are views of The Gorge, interpretation signs and a second public toilet. It has also been decided to investigate if better facilities can be provided at that area in future. This would require the agreement of the Secretary of State due to the wording of the 1861 Downs Act" (point 4.3, second paragraph, page 28). In 1931 a Provisional Orders Confirmation (Bristol and Leicester Act 1931 was required to amend the 1861 Act to give the Downs Committee the power to appropriate land to build dressing rooms with washing facilities and sanitary conveniences . Those facilities were not for commercial use as is the bulk of the current proposal. In the Design and Access Statement (2.2) it is stated that "The scope and implementation of the act are interpreted by the Downs Committee". Surely, as the Downs Committee is the applicant in this proposal, the scope and implementation of the act should be interpreted by an independent authority such as the Secretary of State.

2.4 Fuel

Where is the source heat pump to be located and what proposals are there for keeping the noise 5db below the background noise levels given the peace of the surrounding area? 2.5 Towerhirst property is not located 70 m to the north of the site but, as noted in 9.5, less than 40 metres. In addition the area used by the residents of Towerhirst shown on the Location and Block plan is only 13 m from the proposed cafe and the potential extraction fan both of which will impact on Towerhirst. Policy BCS21 How does this proposal contribute positively to an areas character and identity when the whole point of the Downs is to keep it as an area of peace and tranquility for all visitors. Any need for refreshments can be found from the existing cafe a short walk away. Policy BCS22 how doe this development safeguard and enhance the setting and areas of acknowledged importance ie Towerhirst Policy DM26 How does this contribute positively to the area's character given that it fails to meet points ii, iii, iv, v, vi,vii, and viii? 2.6 Landscape context

see notes on arboriculture statement. The proposed site will not be set amongst trees in the near future and therefore not obscured from sight. 3.0 Heritage context The heritage value of Towerhirst will be negatively impacted by the build of a commercial development operating daily from 8am to 7pm (winter aside). How does the build improve the views of the bridge and the Gorge unless there is an intention to put a second storey build/terrace on the cafe? 4.0 The local residents have not been consulted on the resubmission of the plans. 7. Use 7.2 The existing footprint of the WC are stated as 39m2. The new internal/covered footprint totals 92m2 ( see 7.2) this is well over twice the current footprint. In addition, there is a terrace area of how large ? extending to the fountain I would estimate 25m2 from the drawings giving a total of 117m2 ie 4 times the size of the existing WC block. 7.3 The noise will impact on Towerhirst from 8am to 7pm 9. Building Design 9.1 There is still no income forecast to justify the cost of the build, running and maintenance. Also my previous ,valid concerns re the increase and change in the sewage and how this is to be addressed has not been answered. The existing sewage runs under Towerhirst and has been blocked several times in the past due to items being disposed of in the WC leading to sewage flooding Towerhirst and involving excavation works in the garden. We are very concerned that increased use of what is obviously an old sewer will overwhelm the existing sewer. 9.11 Increased Rubbish It is likely that customers of a proposed café would buy food and drink to eat on The Downs rather than in the café. At the moment people tend to bring their own picnic provisions and most tend to take their rubbish home with them. If they purchase food and drink from the café it is likely to increase the amount of litter left behind. Currently a number of local residents take it upon themselves to do a regular litter pick especially after the weekends when this service is not performed. The potential increase in litter may well deter this voluntary service. 9.15 Extraction fan is only located a few metres (13) from the area used for seating in the garden at Towerhirst so odours throughout the day are inevitable in this property. Appendix 1 Arboriculture Method Statement The potential view given on the plans to the west of the cafe of the river avon, can only be seen by standing on the seawalls not from sitting at the proposed cafe, unless there are plans to extend the seating area or move a viewing/seating

area onto the roof, given there is a recommendation to fell T2 on the report. Presumably the trees shown on Black rocks on the report fall inside Seawalls apartments. Trees T2,T3,T4 all fall within the C2 category with remaining life expectancy of 10 years. This report was written in 2018, therefore only 6 years remain meaning that any future roof development would overlook neighbouring properties. As stated by the Development Control Committee B 13.3.19 'no harmful loss of light, overshadowing , impact to the outlook or loss of privacy would result to any adjacent residential property.' Towerhirst is obviously impacted by this proposal. I am lucky enough to live in Towerhirst and see the enjoyment Bristol get from the Downs as an area of peace and tranquillity and a café is bound to significantly change this character of the seawalls area. It will inevitably produce noise, smells and increased traffic into this area of peace and tranquillity.

Policy DM26. We do not believe that this proposal contributes positively to an area's character and identity. Indeed we feel that the opposite is true. We feel that the proposal does not respond appropriately to the green infrastructure and historic assets (i). Does not respect the local pattern, grain and historical development of the area (ii). Does not retain, enhance or create important views (iv). Does not preserve or enhance existing landmarks (v). Does not respond to existing form of existing buildings (vi). Definitely does not reflect the predominant materials of the area (viii).

Obviously there is a need for toilets on the Downs and we appreciate the Downs Committee's decision to support the existing facilities despite funding from the council being withdrawn. Perhaps a better solution would be the provision of vandal proof toilets that include a charge for use this has indeed been deemed profitable by other councils. We question the need for a second café on the Downs. There is an existing café near the water tower which is well used by the public. It has parking nearby and is not in an area of natural beauty. It does not impinge on the tranquillity and peace of the Downs.

Yours Sincerely Kean Seager

Following my previous comments that I feel this type development is unsuitable in this area of outstanding interest I must add my fear that a larger so isolated building, as this application, is more likely to attract regular vandalism that would mean even the loss of the toilets while the repair work is carried out. Shall be grateful if you will consider this when deciding on the application .

Re the above. I have been informed that, after the outcome of the meeting of April 6th, an attempt has been/is being made to carry through the Downs Committe desire to build a cafe on the Seawalls. My response to this is as follows:I wish to object to the the application detailed above. I objected the last two times this came to planning, the second, being after the Planning Inspectorate Report concluded that 'consent for the works applies for should not be granted because of the potential harm to the local neighbourhood and the landscape, and because the alleged benefits have not been adequately demonstrated'. The second application increased the size of the area to be occupied by the building, and I can find no significant difference between that failed application and this new one. Neither can I find any evidence of 'benefits.' My objection therefore has not materially altered.The Downs form a unique benefit to all citizens and the1861 Act ensures free access to all parts. The Downs Committee would deny that free access in the case of the area of the proposed cafe and lavatory block presumably because they could not come up with any imaginative or viable solutions to the provision of public lavatories and raising funds to look after the Downs. In summary:The site that they have selected to build on is a famous beauty spot and enjoy the view is precisely what people do there. They look, admire, read the information boards, take photographs and then continue with their walk. To commercialise this site and cordon off a no go area is inappropriate and flies in the face of 'open and unenclosed'As the full letter from Michael Andrews in the spring points out, Planning Regulations Bcs21, BCS22, DM26, DM26v, DM16 vii and viii are not being met.

There is no evidence of a need for or public benefit from the services of a cafe at this site.There is no business plan to support the financial viability/income stream from the proposed cafeThe site is two metres from an SAC and SSS1 so scarcely suitable in terms of exercising guardianship over the local flora and fauna.I am gravely disappointed that the Downs Committee should apparently persist in their pursuit of this scheme when their time might have been better spent in coming up with some imaginative solutions to funding the upkeep of the Downs other than to get people to pay to 'feed their faces' when the current behaviour of visitors in this time of financial anxiety shows that the tradition of the home made picnic is now very much favoured. None of the above casts the Downs Committee in a very favourable light alas.

P Arnold

Further for-profit businesses being built on the downs erodes the 'public good' philosophy that the downs is established on, and sets precedent for additional businesses and buildings to be constructed on one of the few large, free, public spaces available to Bristol residents. The downs is an unspoiled area of natural beauty where you can get away and enjoy nature. I'm sure it has plenty of commercial value if you strip away that fundamental principle - so why not open a shopping mall on there in stead, if the goal is to make the Merchant Venturers group a profit.

ObjectionI strongly object to this proposal for the following reasons:This café would create an appalling precedent in terms of commercialisation of a public space which is supposed to be protected by the Downs Act of 1861.

It would be particularly wrong in Seawalls, a renowned beauty spot with unique wild life, where visitors come to enjoy the view and the peace.

Having a café there would increase traffic. It would also increase the litter problem, due to provision of fast food.

Being made of glass, the building would attract vandalism at night.

In any case, there is no need for another café when there is already one near the water tower.

Last, but not least, there is a blatant conflict of interest here. The Merchant Venturers are responsible for the application of the terms of the Downs Act, but they represent over 50% of the Downs Committee which is applying for this new café, and they are unelected.

Common sense clearly shows that this application must be rejected.

Dominique Crawford

This development is not necessary, there are already adequate toilet and a cafe on thedowns. The downs is supposed to be an open space without development, this proposal iscontrary to this. It will add to traffic and noise.

The revision to the design should be accepted as a good compromise. Many of theobjections to the application amount to not wanting The Downs to become more popular, but thiswonderful green space is supposed to be for everyone. That should include those who like to sit ata café table with a cup of tea for a break in their walk or other activity.

This plan represents a commercial development of one of our protected and preciousopen spaces. The building is too large and of an inappropriate design for such a prominent site atsuch a famous viewpoint. There may be increased traffic using this site, and if the business is notcommercially successful Bristol could have yet another derelict redundant building. Please keepthis beautiful site as simple as possible for all to enjoy as a wonderful amenity for our City and itsvisitors.There are two other cafes in easy reach on the downs.The present toilet block is a disgrace. It needs urgent refurbishment which could be paid for by asuitable charge for use.

From the 2 drawings resubmitted yet again to planning, for the proposed build of a cafe on the seawalls, they do not address any of my previous objections and therefore my view as to the proposed cafe still stands as it has from the outset. The fact that the Bristol Tree forum has also identified a potential tree with a TPO which would need to be taken down in fact adds to my comments regarding the aboricultural statement on the ownership and future of the surrounding trees. It will still greatly detract from the Downs and neighbouring listed properties. The application was rejected by both Planning committee B on April 6th and the original DEFRA inspector Helen Slade September 24th 2019 where again her grounds for refusal have not been addressed. We wish to raise a number of objections to the proposed development. Our property is Towerhirst, Seawalls Rd. BS9 1PG which is Listed as Grade 2 and is less than 40 metres from the proposed development. In reading the architect's Design and Access Statement there are some comments that seem to imply that we are completely happy with the proposal. That is not so. The resubmission of the original planning application 18/04727/F now 21/06762/F, is by its nature 'the same/ similar to the original' hence my previous objections still stand many of which have not been addressed in this resubmission or the previous. Therefore I wish my original objections to be taken into account again. In addition I would like to make the following comments in support of my objection: Design Access and Heritage statement 1. 'Passive supervision by staff.' How is this to be effected out of hours. Most of the anti social behaviour on the sea walls occurs out of hours. The police are too stretched

to monitor this as has been found in the past. Therefore who and how is this to be effectively monitored given the plan is to now allow 24 hour access to the WC facilities. There continues to be night time problems with boy racers throughout the year on The Seawalls which increases markedly in the summer months, any proposed structure will inevitably be targeted as has been found with the existing cafe on the Downs which is constantly passed by members of the public. Cars are regularly torched on the seawalls and circular road. If there is a building structure within reach this could be badly affected 2. 3. 4. 2. 5. 'minimising visual impact' the proposal is totally out of keeping with the buildings surrounding the Downs all of which are of stone construction. See section 12 of the Planning (listed buildings and Conservation Areas ) Act 1990 6. There has been no breakdown of proposed income versus cost of construction/maintenance/running costs. The footfall since the DEFRA application, 7. which could not be viewed due to covid, and therefore local residents were not able to comment on in the timescales required, has fallen to pre pandemic levels. 8. 9. 10. Policy DM26. We do not believe that this proposal contributes positively to an area's character and identity. Indeed we feel that the opposite is true. We feel that the proposal does not respond appropriately to the green infrastructure and historic assets (i). Does not respect the local pattern, grain and historical development of the area (ii). Does not retain, enhance or create important views (iv). Does not preserve or enhance existing landmarks (v). Does not respond to existing form of existing buildings (vi). Definitely does not reflect the predominant materials of the area (viii). 2.1 The scope and implementation of the 1861 Act is different to implementing changes without a legal Act of Parliament. Surely the first purpose built commercial project on the Downs since 1861 should be subject to a change in the 1861 Act not just an interpretation by the Downs Committee as it sets a completely new precedent. Conflict with the Clifton and Durdham Downs(Bristol) Act 1861 Our principal objection is that this development is a commercial enterprise and as such is in complete contrast to the aims and strictures of the original Clifton and Durdham Downs (Bristol) Act 1861. This is a proposal for a commercial building (A3). There have been no new commercial structures built on The Downs since that Act. To create a commercial retail outlet would set a very unfortunate precedent and would in our view run contrary to the ethos of The Downs and the 1861 Act governing its management. A number of local residents feel that this might create a precedent for the future. We cannot be sure that future members of the Downs Committee would not take advantage of the granting of this proposal as a precedent for future development and thus destroy over 150 years of protection. In the Downs Management Plan for Clifton and Durdham 2012 -2017 (produced by The Downs Committee - the Applicant) they state that: "The second heavily used area is Sea Walls where there are views of The Gorge, interpretation signs and a second public toilet. It has also been decided to investigate if

better facilities can be provided at that area in future. This would require the agreement of the Secretary of State due to the wording of the 1861 Downs Act" (point 4.3, second paragraph, page 28). In 1931 a Provisional Orders Confirmation (Bristol and Leicester Act 1931 was required to amend the 1861 Act to give the Downs Committee the power to appropriate land to build dressing rooms with washing facilities and sanitary conveniences . Those facilities were not for commercial use as is the bulk of the current proposal. In the Design and Access Statement (2.2) it is stated that "The scope and implementation of the act are interpreted by the Downs Committee". Surely, as the Downs Committee is the applicant in this proposal, the scope and implementation of the act should be interpreted by an independent authority such as the Secretary of State. 2.4 Fuel Where is the source heat pump to be located and what proposals are there for keeping the noise 5db below the background noise levels given the peace of the surrounding area? 2.5 Towerhirst property is not located 70 m to the north of the site but, as noted in 9.5, less than 40 metres. Please see attached plan. In addition the area used by the residents of Towerhirst shown on the Location and Block plan is only 13 m from the proposed cafe and the potential extraction fan both of which will impact on Towerhirst. Please see attached photo. Policy BCS21 How does this proposal contribute positively to an areas character and identity when the whole point of the Downs is to keep it as an area of peace and tranquility for all visitors. Any need for refreshments can be found from the existing cafe a short walk away. Policy BCS22 how doe this development safeguard and enhance the setting and areas of acknowledged importance ie Towerhirst and the Gorge Policy DM26 How does this contribute positively to the area's character given that it fails to meet points ii, iii, iv, v, vi,vii, and viii? 2.6 Landscape context see notes on arboriculture statement. The proposed site will not be set amongst trees in the near future and therefore not obscured from sight. 3.0 Heritage context The heritage value of Towerhirst will be negatively impacted by the build of a

commercial development operating daily from 8am to 7pm (winter aside). How does the build improve the views of the bridge and the Gorge unless there is an intention to put a second storey build/terrace on the cafe? 4.0 The local residents have not been consulted on the resubmission of the plans. 7. Use 7.2 There appears to be ongoing confusion as to the exact area proposed. The existing footprint of the WC were stated as 39m2 this now seems to have grown to 43m how has this changed?. The existing external footprint 188m2 The new internal/covered footprint totals now totals 314 m2 this is well over the current footprint. 7.3 The noise will impact on Towerhirst from 8am to 7pm 9. Building Design 9.1 There is still no income forecast to justify the cost of the build, running and maintenance. Also my previous ,valid concerns re the increase and change in the sewage and how this is to be addressed has not been answered. The existing sewage runs under Towerhirst and has been blocked several times in the past due to items being disposed of in the WC leading to sewage flooding Towerhirst and involving excavation works in the garden. We are very concerned that increased use of what is obviously an old sewer will overwhelm the existing sewer. 9.11 Increased Rubbish It is likely that customers of a proposed café would buy food and drink to eat on The Downs rather than in the café. At the moment people tend to bring their own picnic provisions and most tend to take their rubbish home with them. If they purchase food and drink from the café it is likely to increase the amount of litter left behind. Currently a number of local residents take it upon themselves to do a regular litter pick especially after the weekends when this service is not performed. The potential increase in litter may well deter this voluntary service. 9.15 Extraction fan is only located a few metres (13) from the area used for seating in the garden at Towerhirst so odours throughout the day are inevitable in this property. The applicants state that the residents can use other areas of the gaden. As this is the edge of the gorge the garden that would be adjacent to the cafe is over 75% of the useable area of the rear garden of towerhirst leaving a narrow strip of useable decking only in a lower area. Appendix 1 Arboriculture Method Statement The potential view given on the plans to the west of the cafe of the river avon, can only be seen by standing on the seawalls not from sitting at the proposed cafe, unless there are plans to extend the seating area or move a viewing/seating area onto the roof, given there is a recommendation to fell T2 on the report.

Presumably the trees shown on Black rocks on the report fall inside Seawalls apartments. Trees T2,T3,T4 all fall within the C2 category with remaining life expectancy of 10 years. This report was written in 2018, therefore only 6 years remain meaning that any future roof development would overlook neighbouring properties. As stated by the Development Control Committee B 13.3.19 'no harmful loss of light, overshadowing , impact to the outlook or loss of privacy would result to any adjacent residential property.' Towerhirst is obviously impacted by this proposal. As a born and bred Bristolian I am lucky enough to live in Towerhirst and see the enjoyment Bristol get from the Downs as an area of peace and tranquillity and a café is bound to significantly change this character of the seawalls area. It will inevitably produce noise, smells and increased traffic into this area of peace and tranquillity. Policy DM26. We do not believe that this proposal contributes positively to an area's character and identity. Indeed we feel that the opposite is true. We feel that the proposal does not respond appropriately to the green infrastructure and historic assets (i). Does not respect the local pattern, grain and historical development of the area (ii). Does not retain, enhance or create important views (iv). Does not preserve or enhance existing landmarks (v). Does not respond to existing form of existing buildings (vi). Definitely does not reflect the predominant materials of the area (viii). Obviously there is a need for toilets on the Downs and we appreciate the Downs Committee's decision to support the existing facilities despite funding from the council being withdrawn. Perhaps a better solution would be the provision of vandal proof toilets that include a charge for use this has indeed been deemed profitable by other councils. We question the need for a second café on the Downs. There is an existing café near the water tower which is well used by the public. It has parking nearby and is not in an area of natural beauty. It does not impinge on the tranquillity and peace of the Downs. Yours Sincerely

Public convenience, Circular Road, Sneyd Park, Bristol BS9 1ZZ

I am writing to object in the strongest possible terms, to the unwelcome resuscitation of the application to build a cafe at the famous viewpoint on the Downs. Main reasons for this objection:-

1. Commercialisation of an iconic area. We do not want or need a cafe to attract visitors to this beautiful spot.

2. The view of Towerhurst and Gorge would be spoilt, & wildlife jeopardised.

3. The proposed cafe would attract vandalism. It's difficult to see how the cafe could be secured against this (and theft) without 24/7 surveillance. This would prove very expensive.

4. Litter! Already a problem, a cafe would greatly exacerbate this.

5. Illegal parking would be highly likely to increase.

6. I fail to see any benefits whatsoever in this plan: there is already a very nice cafe by the water tower, and the ice cream van provides visitors with a treat!

PLEASE LEAVE OUR BEAUTY SPOT ALONE!!

Kathryn Hardman

Regarding the Public Conveniences on the Circular Road Sneyd Park, application number 18/04/72/F, I am very surprised that this has surfaced again in view of the fact that the planning committee recently itemised 25 good reasons for rejecting the proposal. I objected most strongly on environmental grounds to the original plans, and called it an 'unnecessary blot on the land scape', and I see no reason to change my view. Under the Downs Act of 1861, the Downs Committee on which The Merchant Venturers have a 50% representation, have a duty to protect this wonderful open space, and yet this proposal sets a precedent in opening the Downs to creeping commercialisation.

I urge the Planning Committee once and for all to reject this re-submitted proposal.

Dr John Sparks,

Dear Sirs

I am writing once again to object to the proposed cafe at Seawalls on the Downs which was positively turned down by the Planning Inspectorate. The Merchant Venturers should be protecting the valuable Downs area as in the Downs Act 1861 rather than allowing an eyesore to ruin the beautiful open space overlooking the Gorge as this cafe undoubtedly will. There will be more traffic inevitably bringing litter and congestion to a peaceful and historic site. Further commercialisation would be unavoidable and totally unnecessary. This cafe is not required and therefore I urge the Planning Committee to turn it down - once and for all.

Sally Sparks

Dear Sir / Madam,

I am writing to express my objections to the proposed building of a cafe at this address: Public Conveniences, Circular Road, Sneyd Park, BristolBS9 1ZZ.

I believe such a development would be harmful to the site.

Firstly, the Downs and Avon Gorge are very important for wildlife - plants, insects and birds. A cafe at Seawalls would mean increased traffic, pollution and noise, all of which would all threaten what is currently an important conservation area. Bristol aspires to be a green city, but can only achieve this if the correct decisions are made when this type of proposal is considered.

Secondly, the presence of a cafe would make the Seawalls area less peaceful and less beautiful for those of us who like to visit it to admire the view. The site would be degraded. This must surely run counter to the safeguarding of the Downs for the people of Bristol as defined in the Downs Act of 1861.

I would urge you to reject this application and protect one of Bristol's most beautiful places. There are plenty of cafes elsewhere in the city.

Yours faithfully,Bridget Wilberforce

I object to building on common land that is a site of Specialist Scientific Interest and aSpecial Area of Conservation.The Planning Inspectorate Report of September 2019 concluded that 'consent should not begranted because of the potential harm to the local neighbourhood and the landscape and becausethe alleged benefits have not been adequately demonstrated.'There is nothing in the revised application that would impact on that statement. The proposedbuilding is bigger than ever and no need has been established for a cafe in the area. The claims rethe biodiversity net gains have been challenged by the Bristol Tree Forum whose projections showa biodiversity net loss.The application would fall outside of The Local Plan which when formally adopted will reject anydevelopment in Bristol on green space. What more iconic green space can there be than theSeawalls.The existing toilet block needs refurbishment which can be achieved without destroying the localneighbourhood and landscape. To allow the potential for increased traffic, parking issues, litter andvandalism is unconscionable and is totally contrary to the stance adopted by BCC in its responseto the Climate Emergency.Once and for all this proposal must be rejected .

My previous letter of objection still stands and please consider it. The Downs Act doesNOT allow for commercial development and once you break this Act, it will be very difficult to turndown other applications for developments, such as bike shops, running gear shops, etc.This is in a Conservation Area, and this should be respected.It will harm the surrounding neighbourhood and landscape. There are no benefits to this as a cafealready exists on the Downs.

Dear Sir, I wish to register my objections YET AGAIN to the proposed building of a cafe and new public toilets at Seawalls. I was up there today and trying to visualise it all and the plans still fill me with horror. It would mean more traffic, litter and noise. We have so few lovely places left in Bristol with out spoiling this one. Yours sincerely Phyllida Scott

APPLICATION N0 21/06762/F

I write on behalf of the Friends of the Downs & Avon Gorge.We have a growing membership of citizens who use and value the Downs and Gorge and whowelcome the chance to learn more about this nationally and internationally important site.I write in support of the re-submitted plan from the Downs committee in relation to the proposedcafé development.In particular the Friends group welcomes the proposal to include a small education facility wheregroups/families/school parties can learn more about the Downs and Gorge. A covered area wherethe important work of the Avon Gorge and Downs Wildlife Project can be illustrated and explainedwill be of significant benefit.The facility could also be used by the Friends of the Downs to publicise our volunteer activities andrecruit new members. Volunteers to help with butterfly and goat monitoring, deep litter clearance,scrub management and maintaining dead hedges, which help to protect wildflower meadows fromtrampling, plus numerous special projects.It is easy to see that anything that encourages volunteering during increasingly difficult times isbecoming even more important.The proposed café will be a significant and popular asset to this rather remote part of the Downsand will provide welcome refreshments for the many visitors that visit this area. The Downs andGorge are for all our citizens and basic facilities are a must. It should also be factored in that acafé located at Sea walls will provide vital income to the beleaguered coffers of the Downscommittee and the City Council.Equally the café development would provide an even more significant advantage, the provision of

an essential toilet block. This will ensure that visitors both young and old would be able to visit incomfort. This is of vital importance for visiting school groups or citizens with particular medicalneeds. The current block dates back to the second world war and the condition is now far beyondwhat would be considered fit for purpose. Alternative facilities are not readily available.The application also includes the restoration of a nearby drinking fountain. This historicarchitectural feature has been long neglected and could be the start of restoring other drinkingfountains around the Downs.The Friends of the Downs & Avon Gorge take a considered and pragmatic view in that the benefitsof allowing the application far outweigh any negative impact on the Downs and Avon Gorge.Should the application be denied we face the very real prospect of the current dilapidated toiletblock closing for good as the provision continuing is dependent on income from the café.The committee of the Friends of the Downs and Avon Gorge would be grateful if you consideredthese points when you come to your decision.Robert WestlakeChairFriends of the Downs & Avon Gorge24/05/2022

Dear Sir/Madam

Despite the changes to the original specifications ,I remain strongly opposed to these latest proposals

My concerns relate to the future inevitability of increased traffic flow and consequent traffic hazards. Closely associated with this is the inevitability of ' mission creep 'and the loss of green space to create additional parking faciilities Underpinning all this is my dismay at the resultant despoliation of one of Bristol's most iconic beauty spots.

Yours Faithfully

Charles Martin

Concerning notification letter of revised details, planning application 21/06762/F on Circular Road, Sea Walls, The Downs, Bristol BS9 1ZZ

I have objected and made comments before on planning applications connected with replacing outdated loos with café/ education hub and toilets. Will my previous comments be considered? My views have not changed.

It is not clear what the revised details are. Online, there is only an outline plan of proposed development and some reports. The actual floor plans, elevations, appearance etc. date from last submission of plans which I commented on.

I received the letter last Friday 20 May and only have until 31 May to comment.

In summary, this notification has come out of the blue, it is not clear what the actual revised details are, whether previous objections/comments still stand. It is the thin end of the wedge allowing any development on this sensitive historical site. Yours sincerely

Elizabeth Bloomfield

The Sea Walls is a very attractive area and many people go there for a quick view over the gorge. The peace of the area and its visual amenity would be ruined by a commercial café building there. Cafes also need car parks for visitors and there are no car parks there so customers of the café will take parking spaces for those just stopping to see the view and for those coming to use the amenities of the open space. There is already a café at the Water Tour and the city is full of educational establishments so we don't need either. Toilets there are needed and that is all. Please forbid this unnecessary accretion.

I write this comment as both the Tree Forum Tree Champion for BS9 and a local resident. The comments on the democratic aspects of this further application, or rather, the lack of them, are mine as a local resident, and have not been considered by the BTF Committee. The comments about the Tree Screen, or rather, the lack of it, are comments of mine but well known to the BTF Committee.

How many bites of the cherry does one applicant get?

This application was rejected by the Development Control Committee, yet in fear of an Appeal which they might lose in a costly manner, the members of the Committee referred their "final final" decision looking for a form of words. Thus the Development Control Committee serves no function at all. It is 1984 in 2022. The opinions of elected representatives matter not - it just depends upon who you know.

This modified Application, presented again even though the Committee has rejected it, still contains misinformation. Those considering it must be aware of this. I am sure it is not deliberate. The Design, Access and Heritage Assessment (DAHS), in its fourth issue dated 7.12.21, relies upon the screening of the café by existing trees. This screening is being relied upon to counter any argument that might be put forward that the building would despoil the view of the Sea Mills part of the Downs from the Clifton Suspension Bridge and the Avon Gorge - these are views of world importance.

From the DAHS, para 2.6, page 4, "In this position the café will be obscured from within and across the gorge by the trees adjacent. It should just be possible to see the

suspension bridge from the roof of the pavilion and therefore to see the end of the pavilion from the suspension bridge. However, set amongst the trees and being just over a mile from the Bridge, the proposals have a minimal impact on the setting when viewed up the gorge."

But the new development, if it goes ahead, will never be screened, contrary to the assertion above, because although the current trees screen the current WC block, they, and any replacements, could never screen the new proposed development because the new proposed development occupies more than the plot of the current WC block - its' footprint is further towards the Circular Road, almost to the Fountain - projecting much further towards the Circular Road than any screen of trees.

See page 8 of the DAHS, Photos 1 and 2. It is clear in the evidence submitted in the DAHS that the current line of trees only just projects "forward" of the current WC block. I have been to look and check on this.

These are the trees perched on the cliff edge that are not owned by Bristol and controlled by the Downs Committee that some of which, according to an Arboricultural expert, are already diseased with Ash Die back, so are doomed. They may or may not be included in Group TPO No. 057. There is a bit of a space at the critical pointy in the map of this TPO - its accuracy would need testing to get the border of the Group TPO clearly defined. If they were found to be in the Group TPO they would need to be replaced if lost - but in the same place. This would only apply to the Field Maple (one tree) as the other trees listed in the TPO are not the ones by the WC block on the cliff top. If the trees are lost and not replaced then the entire building would be wholly visible from everywhere imaginable. If the trees are not lost then only the "back end" of the new building will be screened - as the current WC block is screened by them. The front part of the new development - the Café - will always project beyond the trees, and never be screened.

The Downs Committee, having suffered a rejection by the Secretary of State with the earlier Application for pretty much the same thing, managed to get that decision turned around following a further not publicised representation to the Secretary of State that no one even knew about, so could not contest. It all beggars belief. Then they proceeded into this current Application, now in its second iteration, relying upon that 2nd opinion from the Secretary of State - the one the citizenry knew nothing about.

A second Brexit referendum, although being such a slight margin in favour of Brexit, was not permitted. "That's not democracy" was the rationale for that rejection of a second referendum. This seems not to be the case when it comes to decisions adverse for Bristol's Downs Committee. Democracy or no, decision or no, they press on.

Please realise that this development is not screened by trees and never will be.

I object to this planned construction on the following grounds.Whatever the legal situation I consider it against the spirit of the 1861 Downs Act and don't believethose who drew it up wanted extra buildings on this green space for the sake of eating anddrinking.In a time where the need for green spaces to remain as unspoilt as possible so as to contribute topeople's physical and mental welfare is so clearly understood it is rather extraordinary that theDowns Committee should consider a project such as this as beneficial.This part of the Downs has some current issues with anti-social behaviour and there is a real riskthat the addition of further infrastructure will actually increase the problem rather than help in itselimination as some claim.Parking is already an issue with people parking on the Downs and no current enforcement toprevent this, and should café associated parking spill over into local roads this will cause problemsfor residents.

To Whom it may concern, Firstly, may I say that I entrust we will have an impartial decision from the Planning committee who have the final say over the proposed cafe on the sea walls. My concern is that the planning committee is composed of Bristol city councillors who are also the applicants which potentially presents a conflict of interest.

My objections to this proposal and the original one still stand.

The DEFRA decision given originally by Helen Slade was against the build. The reapplication to DEFRA was done under covid when it could not be viewed at the council offices as they were shut during lockdown and it was not available online. Also the local residents and other parties were unaware of the reapplication as it was made during lockdown and only one notice appeared briefly on the Downs. This led to a very skewed comments in favour whereas the overwhelming numbers of objectors still stand but could not comment as they were unaware of the application and closing date.

My main objections are as follows:

1. Building on a green, common land, conservation area - a dangerous precedent for The Downs. Compromising CSP BCS21. It is in direct conflict with the aims of the 1861 Downs Act and would therefore require a change in the legislation.2. Commercialisation of the Downs , this would be the first purpose built commercial venue on the Downs which sets an unwelcome precedent. This proposed build is 4 times the footprint of the existing WC block.3. It is totally out of character with any other buildings surrounding the Downs

Contravening Policy DM26., section 12 of the Planning and listed conservation act 1990. It is not of the same material as surrounding buildings, does not contribute to the historic assets, does not retain, enhance or create important view.4. The positioning of the heat pump has not been specified nor its noise on the local residents and visitors.5. A magnet for vandalism. Both WCs and café are currently vandalised. The plan to make the WC accessible 24 hours will inevitably return it to the venue for nefarious activities The recent race track at 10pm on March 26th involving around 100 cars racing around the circular roads and then straight across the Downs to the ex zoo car park is not an isolated incident. It is a focal gathering point especially on summer nights which leaves the cafe vulnerable. The police are too thinly stretched to do continuous rounds especially over a weekend.6. A severe visual impact on Towerhirst property which is less than 40 metres away and the gorge Compromising CSP BCS22. AS stated by the Development Control Committee ' no loss of light, overshadowing or loss of privacy, impact to the outlook to neighbouring properties' Towerhirst is thus affected.7. Litter pollution. This is an ongoing problem.8. Illegal parking on the Downs nearby as there are double yellow lines on this dangerous corner. Currently cars park on the Downs itself and this is currently left unchallenged by the police despite the contravention of the byelaws.9. Deleterious impact on wildlife of immediately adjoining SAC and SSSI.10. The problem of the inadequate sewage disposal will increase due to the increased waste from the cafe. This has led to flooding and blocked drains on the Towerhirst property over the years having to be dealt with by the residents. The latest drain service was called out on April 4th 2022.11. The Planning Inspectorate Report dated 24th September 2019 Conclusion stated "Having regard to the criteria set out in paragraphs 12 to 14 above, and all the written representations, I conclude that consent for the works applied for should not be granted because of the potential harm to the local neighbourhood and the landscape, and because the alleged benefits have not been adequately demonstrated." Helen Slade The potential harm to the local neighbourhood and the landscape, has not changed. There are no viable financial projections to justify this project.12. The need for toilets on the Downs is obvious but they could be vandal proof ,paid for facilities as done by most other councils which would return a profit to the Downs.

If the Committee is minded to approve this application please can we ensure there is soft demolition and build with no intrusive radio noise for the benefit of the local residents and visitor.

My objections to this proposed application still stand.

Yours Faithfully,

Janet Seager

The Panel had objected to the 2018 application but recognised that this had beengranted consent.

The Panel was pleased that the viewing terrace has been omitted, but reiterates its view that itseems inevitable that secure, vandal resistant shutters would be required. These must be includedin the design as, if added as an afterthought, they would degrade the proposed building.

The relationship between the listed drinking fountain and its paving and the new terrace deckingmust be reconsidered to avoid harm to the setting of the drinking fountain.

I recognise the potential benefits of this project in updating existing facilities and providing amenities that increase attractiveness and potentially encourage the public to spend time outside.

I can relate to the concerns of other local residents in relation to the commercialisation of the Downs and believe measures should be taken to ensure that the development is in keeping with the area and protected from future commercialisation.

My principal concern relates to the increase in traffic. Increase in road traffic can result in noise, air pollution and hazards to pedestrians and cyclists. The Downs is principally a recreational area. This is something that we should be encouraging and it is therefore important to ensure that the area is safe for adults, children and animals and that air and noise pollution is minimised. The Downs already suffers from an unnecessary amount of traffic; this is particularly true of the Circular road, which provides no important route of access, other than for emergency vehicles, but sees a large number of cars using it and often parking with engines running. This is a significant problem in the summer months with cars parking on the grass and obstructing views of the road for pedestrians.

The local government should consider whether this section of road needs to be open to any form of motorised travel. The situation is likely to be made worse by the opening of a cafe and this would provide the ideal opportunity to demonstrate the local authority's commitment to improving green spaces and reducing air pollution in the city.

Thank you for your time.

Kind regards,Kate Barrowclough

1. As a regular walker on the Downs, I object to this application because of the visualand noise intrusion, of the café itself and of the traffic the cafe would attract. This would have animpact over a wide area. I also object to the Downs Committee promoting development whichappears to be unlawful. Far from raising revenue, they are risking another expensive High Courtchallenge.

Visual intrusion2. The Sea Walls are on two important walking routes on the Downs:

(i) from the Water Tower across the football pitches to the Sea Walls viewing point.The view on this walk stretches for many miles across the (invisible) gorge and Leigh Woods tohigher ground beyond. You have the illusion of being in countryside where you could walk for ever.The existing toilet block does not obtrude as it merges with the trees. There are big skies, and inthe evening you can walk towards the sunset. The only adverse visual impact is from cars movingon Circular Road around the Downs, and then from parked cars as you get close to the Sea Walls.(The Downs Committee should be taking steps to reduce this impact, especially from throughtraffic, not to increase it).

(ii) along the edge of the gorge from the peregrine watch and past the goat gully to the Sea Wallsviewing point. (This walk can be continued in various directions, along the gorge to Bishop's Knollwoods, back inland along the Downs....)Traffic on Circular Road and at Sea Walls is already intrusive.

3. The café building and its associated outdoor furniture would be visually intrusive. The cafe'sfootprint would be significantly larger than the existing toilet block. Its glass construction wouldreflect the sun and make it visible from far away when the lights were on. It might be illuminated allnight for security reasons.

4. The increased traffic attracted to the site (staff and visitors' cars, delivery vehicles...) wouldmake the viewing point much less attractive. The increase in moving vehicles would furtherdamage views over a wide area, destroying the illusion of open countryside.

Noise intrusion5. The Sea Walls viewing point is usually a peaceful place from which to admire the iconic viewsalong the gorge towards the Suspension Bridge and over the Bristol Channel to the Welsh hills.People congregating at a café and more parked vehicles and moving traffic would spoil this.

6. The noise of more traffic on Circular Road would make the popular walking and jogging routesalongside the road much less pleasant.

Risk of legal challenge7. The Open Spaces Society has explained in its objection to this application why it considers caféconstruction to be unlawful: the Downs Committee has no powers to build here. Insofar asfinancial considerations are relevant, there must be a real risk of another successful High Courtchallenge if the Committee goes ahead. Its unsuccessful defence of its decision on zoo parkingcost council tax payers an estimated £360,000.

I object to this proposal on the grounds that it will increase parking in the area of theproposed building, when already cars frequently park on the grass of the downs at busy times.There is already insufficient parking on the road to accommodate all the cars at weekends,particularly in good weather, and the building of this facility would only increase the number ofcars. It will increase the number of cars parking on the grass, ruining the Downs.It would also create a bottle-neck of traffic, making crossing the road more difficult for pedestrians.

Dear SirsI am writing to comment on application 21/06762/F. This concerns the demolition of the existing public toilet block and its replacement by a new toilet block, and a cafe, at Seawalls on the Downs. I write as a former member of the committee of the Sneyd Park Residents Association, and as Chairman of the Pitch and Pay Residents Society, many of whose c. 80 members regularly walk to and around the Downs, because the Downs are quiet and unspoilt.

I oppose the demolition of the existing toilet block, unless it has serious irrepairable problems. No cost figures are provided. I totally oppose the construction of a cafe, because:

1. There has been a long history of rejecting all development on the Downs, because the Downs are treaured and famous for their undeveloped condition, bringing the countryside into the city.

2. The cafe would attract very large numbers of cars to park in an area which is already over filled by parked cars, especially at weekends

3. It would attract large numbers of extra cars to drive around the Downs, many at speed (there appear to be no speed checks), bringing noise, pollution and visual damage.

4. Travelling by bus and by foot to the Downs would help users cut emissions and stay

fit

5. There is already a cafe near the Water Tower.

6. If built, the new cafe would be likely to be used as a precedent for building another cafe close to Ladies Mile

The proposal to add a visitor centre / education booth adds to the intrusion. It also fails to understand that visitor centres are now very much an extremely outdated concept. Much better, much lower cost, and more flexible heritage interpretation and information can be obtained using on line provision and smart phones. The Council already recognises this in its policy to reject further real time bus arrival indicators at bus stops, in favour of provision by smart phone .

It is also a worry that the major reasons put forward for this building are making money and improving security. It is strange that Bristol's famous Downs must lose their natural heritage to save relatively little money. Has the concept of using volunteers been looked at ? And many of the security problems refered to take place after dark, when the cafe would be closed. Do other cafes in the City have to act as police forces for their area. ? Are they successful ?

Yours faithfully

Bernard Lane

Comment:Totally inappropriate to have any further building at this location on theDowns, where natural scenic beauty and uninterrupted long views are paramount.Replacement of the public conveniences is however to be welcomed as they are old and decrepit,but any new facility should be on the same site as the old conveniences.There is already a café by the water-tower, which is near enough and popularly used.No 'educational facility' is required, which cannot be provided in another facility in the City.This proposed café would be let to a commercial operator and therefore susceptible to failure andabandonment in the near/medium/long term.It also brings pressure on the existing café by the watertower, which is popular, but needs regularand sustainable customer support, not further competition.The Downs is for the recreational use by everybody, and should not be threatened by commercialexploitation. The applicants have a conflicting interest, charged as they are with preserving TheDowns as open recreational land.

1. The nearby view of the Avon Gorge is one of Bristol's star attractions and a caféthere will be a valued amenity. It's a long way from any other café.2. The existing public toilet block is hideous, reminding one of a wartime air-raid shelter. Theproposed new building, judged by the drawing, is well designed to fit lightly into its setting and willenhance the appearance of that part of the Downs.

I wholeheartedly support this planning application. The existing toilet block is an eyesore & probably should've been demolished years ago. I think a modern café with the plannedfacilities would enhance the whole Downs experience.As well as this, I think having a café at the Sea Walls, could possibly help to deter potential'jumpers', an all too common occurrence in this area. Just having a 'presence' there might helppeople to think twice. I really do hope that this time the application will be successful.

I strongly object to the proposed café at the Sea Walls for the following reasons;-

1. It is likely to be a roaring success as a destination for car and van borne visitors. Currently, thedestination is the Sea Walls itself, with unrivalled views of the gorge and more distantly the BristolChannel and the Welsh Hills beyond. Those visitors will be crowded out of available parking andthe one disabled space. I also go there to enjoy fresh air, not available in Stoke Bishop in thewinter because of the prevalence of wood burners.

2. So it will make money, perhaps £20,000 for the Downs coffers, a drop in the ocean comparedwith the £half million p.a. running costs of the Downs. Is it worth selling the soul of a unique part ofthe Downs for this? Presumably the ice cream van produces a nice income and is a sufficient treatfor most visitors.

3. The 1861 Downs Act does not allow building on the Downs. A café would be an illegal structureopen to challenge in the courts at any time. The café adjoining the water tower is not affected bythe Downs Act because it is built on land sold to Bristol Water in the 1840s, therefore prior to theAct. That café is now a roaring success and is a positive benefit to the Downs without damaging it.

4. With this proposal, you get the feeling that members of the Downs Committee just don'tunderstand the Downs and its intrinsic value to the people of Bristol. For a start, should it not be arequirement that you don't get onto the Downs Committee unless you live in Bristol?

Richard Harris

1. The Open Spaces Society is Britain's oldest conservation body and a statutoryconsultee on applications made under section 38 of the Commons Act 2006 for consent to carryout restricted works on common land. The Society objected to the last s38 application for thisproposed development. I am writing to repeat and add to those objections in relation to thisplanning application.

Bristol's iconic Sea Walls are an inappropriate site for a café and education booth. It is ludicrous tojustify this significant development by the provision of four toilet cubicles. Not only is this proposalcontrary to the City Council's planning policies, construction would contravene the Clifton andDurdham Downs (Bristol) Act 1861. We cannot see that the Downs Committee has any powers tobuild here.

Earlier objections

2. We objected to this proposal earlier on the grounds of:

- Increased traffic and traffic congestion. The existing volumes of traffic on the circular road roundthe Downs are already intrusive and some cars go much too fast, when they can. (The roadshould be closed to traffic.) The café is certain to attract more cars: indeed the availability ofparking is cited as one of its advantages over the existing café. The Sea Walls are where manycars already stop so that their occupants can get out to admire the view. Café users are likely tolinger longer. This will cause congestion as parking is limited. The area will become much lesstranquil, and more dangerous and unpleasant for walkers and cyclists.

- Visual intrusion. The café will become an unwelcome and intrusive part of the view for manypeople walking or otherwise enjoying the Downs. It will spoil the sense of wildness in a way thatthe current toilet block does not. The toilet block is smaller and merges with the trees behind it.The café will be glass, with lighting which will make it visible from miles away. It is proposed thatthe café will close at dusk in winter, but lights are likely to be needed before that and at 8am whenthe café opens. Staff are likely to be working with lights on when it is closed. The report on securityimplies that the café may be lit all night.

- Better alternatives. Closure of Bristol Zoo's Clifton site means that an education centre will beprovided there as part of a conservation hub. There is therefore no need for an education booth atSea Walls. The conservation hub may have a café as well. If additional café facilities are wanted,expansion of the existing café by the Water Tower would be less obtrusive (though probably notlawful under the 1861 Downs Act (see below)).

- Financial risk. We share the doubts about viability expressed by the inspector who refusedconsent under section 38 of the Commons Act 2006 in 2019. Viability has become less certainsince 2019 because the Committee has exhausted its reserves (which we understood would payfor the café) by defending a High Court challenge. There is a risk that the proposed building wouldbecome derelict or would be converted to an even less appropriate use.

Relevant planning policies

3. This proposal is contrary to Bristol Core Strategy policy BCS 22 (further developed in policy DM31) that: 'Development proposals will safeguard or enhance heritage assets and the character andsetting of areas of acknowledged importance...'.

Contravention of the Clifton and Durdham Downs (Bristol) Act 1861.

4. The Open Spaces Society supported Downs for People in its successful High Court challengeagainst a Downs Committee decision to licence zoo parking. This court case cost the Committeean estimated £360,000, a bill paid by Bristol council tax payers. We understand that theCommittee has learned from this and has asked Defra if building this café is lawful under the Act.In our view it is not.

5. The Downs Act requires the Downs Committee to manage the Downs so that it is kept 'foreveropen and unenclosed'. As Gerry Nichols records on page 25 of his booklet 'To keep open andunenclosed': the Management of Durdham Down Since 1861, (seehttp://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/History/bristolrecordsociety/publications/bha116.pdf)this 'has always been interpreted as a ban on permanent buildings on the Downs'. He goes on toexplain that the land by the Water Tower owned by the Bristol Water Works Company hastherefore been used for buildings to avoid challenges. On page 40, he explains that the toilets

(rebuilt in 1963) are on the site of a World War II latrine block. This is the only WWII temporarybuilding that the then Downs Committee allowed to remain.

6. Apart from contravening the general provisions of the 1861 Act, the Downs Committee can onlyoperate using the specific powers it has been given. We have taken legal advice that confirms theCommittee has no powers to build, except in relation to dressing rooms on the Water WorksCompany land. For the latter there are specific powers in the Ministry of Health Provisional OrdersConfirmation (Bristol and Leicester) Act (1931), seehttps://archives.parliament.uk/collections/getrecord/GB61_HL_PO_PB_1_1931_21and22G5clxxxi.

Way ahead

7. The interpretation of any legislation is ultimately for the courts. We are not clear why the DownsCommittee considers Defra will be able to offer a more authoritative view of the 1861 Downs Actthan Bristol City Council lawyers. It is local legislation, not a statute for which Defra is responsible.Even if it were Defra's legislation, Defra lawyers would not be able to offer more than an informalview of its interpretation (though the absence of any powers to build is fairly obvious).

8. Given the doubts about the legitimacy of this proposal, this planning application is premature. Itshould most certainly be withdrawn. If the application is not withdrawn, it should be refused.

I object to the proposal for the following reasons:

- a) The viewpoint at the Downs is a very well loved and well used site of natural beauty, usedextensively by Bristolians and visitors. It is the naturalness of the setting which is precious andneeds to be preserved. A commercial development in this location is entirely out of place.

- b) The proposed development does not answer a NEED. There is no lack of cafes in reasonablewalking or driving distance. There is a lack of wild areas in Bristol.

- c) The proposed development destroys an essential public service (the toilets) and does notprovide an equal or improved service. A commercial cafe is not a suitable replacement for publictoilets. A cafe exists to make a profit from those fortunate enough to have money to spend. Publictoilets exist to (at no cost to the user) serve all levels of the community, and provide a publicservice 24hrs around. This application will replace a 24hr free public facility witha time limitedfacility, likely fee-taking, thus depriving the public of an important amenity.

- d) The proposed development would impinge upon the natural beauty of the area. The currentbuilding (although in need of repair) blends into the trees. The new building would be muchBIGGER, not blend into the trees. It would greatly detract from the view of the edge of the Downsboth locally and from far away, and spoils also the historic vista of Tower Hirst, currently alandmark of the region.

- e) The proposed development would result in sound and light pollution. If this development goes

through, the glow of the moon on the Downs would be replaced by the night-long glare of securitylights. The calming quietness of the Downs, where you currently can hear ravens, jackdaws andowls calling, would be transformed into the day and night hum of extractor fans, air conditioners,the fans of the air source heat pump, refrigeration, the beeping of delivery trucks, and piped music,and presumably the alarm system when it goes off. Note that bin collections are being scheduledfor every second day, and is due to use the parking for the view point as a parking for their trucks.This is a sacrilegious trashing of the environment of the Downs.

- f) The increased traffic would be hazardous to users of the Downs. Even currently, parking on theDowns loop road is extremely busy, often being a solid lines of cars, causing severe traffichazards for cyclists and pedestrians. Lack of parking already drives people to park illegally on thegrass, despite prominent signage. Increased traffic for the cafe (including deliveries), if in largeenough numbers to make the venture break even, would overwhelm the roads and parking,prevent access to those who just want to see the view. Quite simply, the region is not equippedwith sufficient roads to service a commercial operation.

- g) It is laughable that the applicant previously claimed the cafe is there to increase the health ofBristolians and would draw its custom from walkers and cyclists. Walkers are more healthykeeping walking or bringing their food with them. Cyclists would need additional safe bike parkingfacilities to leave their bikes while they visit the cafe - yet another encroachment on the preciousDowns. There are plenty of other cafes in Bristol. The health of Bristolians and visitors is far bettermaintained by keeping unspoilt one of the few wild regions within walking distance of the city.

- h) It is equally laughable to claim the cafe will reduce litter on the Downs as the cafe owners willtake care of their own shop front. This is not the case in the rest of the city - why should it bedifferent here? Provide people with a source of litter and unfortunately many will drop it nearby.The bins in the region are already frequently full to overflowing. An additional source of litter willmake an already bad situation much worse.

- i) The Ecofootprint of the cafe is too big. To be true to the nature of the Downs, any developmentshould be 100% green and carbon neutral in both construction and operation, with- zero noise impact outside the building- zero light impact outside the building- 100% renewal energyThe application makes the barest minimum of compliance to renewable energy. No-one who isserious about renewable energy would place only 3 meager solar panels on such a large roof.

- k) An environmental impact statement for the development, including its impact on the wildlife ofthe Downs, also needs to be made public and judged democratically.

Summary: At best, this application will significantly taint a precious rare public resource for privateprofit, and result in a white elephant of a building that will soon prove unprofitable or be

vandalized, and fall into disuse and disrepair in an unsightly manner, a modern eyesore on anhistoric area of natural beauty. At worst, the construction and operation of the facility willcompletely wreck the serenity of the region, replacing what is one of the few wild regions withinwalking distance of the main city with another example of crass commercialism, ruining the naturaldark and countryside peace of the region with sound and light pollution by day and night, withpressure for profitability driving further encroachments on the Downs for extra parking, traffic flowand facilities.

Is this the legacy the current authorities wish to leave to the future?

If the authorities care about the health of Bristolians, they should deny the application forconstruction of a cafe in one of the few accessible wild areas within walking distance of the city.

Dear Sir, Regarding the proposed development for changes to the café and toilets at Sea Walls, we urge the Planning Committee to reject the proposal on the grounds of despoliation of one of Bristol's finest locations and which may well increase the chances of creeping commercialisation of the Downs, themselves protected by The Downs Act of 1861. A Former Mayor referred to The Downs as one of Bristol's greatest assets, and no wonder with the iconic view of Brunel's suspension bridge spanning The Avon Gorge, itself an impressive feature in which Peregrine Falcons, Kestrels and Ravens nest as well as a. bevy of rare and protected plants. Sea Walls is worthy of no further development least of all a café when there is another one by the water tower and no shortage of places in Whiteladies Road. The extra traffic and proposed Car Park (and attendant rubbish) would be an eye-sore on this glorious panoramic view which should be enojoyed as a treasured landscape in perpetuity for the people of Bristol.This plan should be rejected

Dr. JHS & SL Sparks

I wish to object to this proposal for the following reasons.

This proposal is in contravention of Bristol Planning Policies:Policy BCS9:"Loss of green infrastructure will only be acceptable where it is allowed for as part of an adoptedDevelopment Plan Document or is necessary, on balance, to achieve the policy aims of the CoreStrategy"- The proposal is not part of an adopted Development Plan Document nor does it achieve thepolicy aims of the Core Strategy.- The impact of construction on local biodiversity and the adjacent SSSI could be profound andirreparable."Biological and Geological ConservationInternationally important nature conservation sites are subject to statutory protection.National and local sites of biological and geological conservation importance will be protectedhaving regard to the hierarchy of designations and the potential for appropriate mitigation."- The site, within the Avon Gorge corridor to Severn Estuary SSSI / SPA / Ramsar site, is of criticalinternational importance. It should be conserved to the greatest extent possible, includingprohibiting extensive localised construction activity, such as the proposed development. For thisreason alone, any proposal for any new development should be rejected.

Policy BCS21:- It will not contribute to the area's open and unspoilt character and identity.

Policy BCS22:- It will not safeguard heritage assets. It will severely compromise views of the famous Towerhirstoctagonal tower on this listed building c.40 metres north of the site. The open view of this towerhas been celebrated by painters of the Clifton Gorge for centuries.

Policy DM26:- It will not contribute positively to the area's character and identity.

Policy DM26.v:- It will not preserve or enhance the setting of existing landmarks and local features.

Policy DM26.vii and viii:- It does not reflect locally characteristic architectural styles nor materials but instead carriesmodernistic "reference to iconic design precedent" (Design & Access Statement, Introduction).

Furthermore, the Design and Access Statement states, in relation to the existing lavatories, "toprevent closure, a way is sought for the cost to be managed" (even though the application formstates reason for toilets' demolition as "redundant". Slight inconsistency here?). If the rationale forthe development is to cover the costs of maintaining lavatories, this rationale seems flawed. Thecapital costs of construction, along with ongoing maintenance and security, will be high. Whilst itmay be a nice idea to have the café, it is unlikely that the selling of café items would recoup thecosts any time soon.

For the reasons above, I request that this application is refused.

I heartily support this application. This area is crying out for a good café and the publictoilets are disgusting and well past their sell-by date. Worse is the fact that they attract gangs ofjoy riders and drug dealers.This café would enhance the area and would be much appreciated by locals and visitors alike. Themoney generated would be a real boon to the upkeep of our beloved Downs.

I wish to object to the the application detailed above. I objected the last time this cameto planning when the Planning Inspectorate Report concluded that 'consent for the works appliesfor should not be granted because of the potential harm to the local neighbourhood and thelandscape, and because the alleged benefits have not been adequately demonstrated'. Apart fromincreasing the size of the area to be occupied by the building, I can find no significant differencebetween that failed application and this new one. Neither can I find any evidence of 'benefits.' Myobjection therefore has not materially altered.The Downs form a unique benefit to all citizens and the1861 Act ensures free access to all parts.The Downs Committee would deny that free access in the case of the area of the proposed cafeand lavatory block presumably because they could not come up with any imaginative or viablesolutions to the provision of public lavatories and the raisingof funds to look after the Downs.In summary:The site that they have selected to build on is a famous beauty spot and enjoy the view isprecisely what people do there. They look, admire, read the information boards, take photographsand then continue with their walk. To commercialise this site and cordon off a no go area isinappropriate and flies in the face of 'open and unenclosed'As the full letter from Michael Andrews points out, Planning Regulations Bcs21, BCS22, DM26,DM26v, DM16 vii and viii are not being met.There is no evidence provided of a need for, or public benefit from, the services of a cafe at thissite.There is no business plan to support the financial viability/income stream from the proposed cafe.The site is two metres from an SAC and SSS1 so scarcely suitable in terms of exercisingguardianship over the local flora and fauna.

Dear Mr Macfadyen,

I most strongly object to the proposal for planning permission, application number 21/06762/F to build a cafe at Seawalls. I don't understand why a reapplication for planning permission would be considered. There is absolutely no valid reason to build a cafe at Seawalls, there is a perfectly good and adequate cafe-restaurant by the watertower, which is very popular and only just over 5 minutes walk.I objected to the proposals when they came up some years ago, and nothing has changed since. The same reasons and objections still stand. It is completely unnecessary, an unsightly blot on the landscape, increase of traffic, fumes, smells and noise. The Downs, and especially this part, is one of the most beautiful and attractive places in Bristol, why on earth would anybody want to spoil that, not even to mention the inconvenience for the local residents, ie.the increase in litter, lights shining till very late, so that we cannot go out and observe the night sky anymore, and last, but not least, an open invitation to vandalism, which would cause great anxiety to the local residents, quite a lot are elderly, like me.So, for all these reasons I strongly object to this proposal !

Good idea. Local NIMBYs should not be allowed to prevail! Toilet must be available forall, not just customers.

I object very strongly to this application to build a cafe at Seawalls. This is Bristol's famous No 1 beauty spot where visitors come to admire the view and to enjoy the natural environment. The idea of erecting a building at this spot is not only insensitive but indefensible. It would be completely out of place within this area of outstanding natural beauty. There is no argument to introduce a commercial business which would destroy the whole character of the place. A place which has remained unspoiled in Bristol's long history. And which is appreciated for that exact reason by local people and by visitors from far and wide. We do not want to see it changed into yet another fast food outlet!

If this application is allowed there must be a provision for parking. This would mean intrusion into the grass surrounding the building and an extended area of concrete. The existing parking spaces permitted on the road will obviously be inadequate to cope with the inevitable increase in parking demand.

The size of the proposed building exceeds that of the original plans from four years ago. It is more than twice the size of the existing WC building and the new internal footprint comes out at approximately 92 metres. In addition there is a terrace for outside seating which would add considerably to this area by approximately 25 metres. So we are looking at a big area of development. (4 times the size of the original WC building). Presumably the solar panels on the roof would have to be set at an angle and this would add extra unsightly visual height to the roof.

This is a big building! It is not the right place for it. And neither should it be allowed only 40 metres from Towerhirst, which is a Grade 2 listed building.

There would also be considerable nuisance to that part of the Downs and especially to Towerhirst and Seawalls garden, immediately below. ie: Increased traffic, increased noise, increased litter, increased footfall, and cooking smells/noise from the cafe's air extractors and air-source heat pump etc.

My house lies just behind Towerhirst on Seawalls Road and we are well aware of the lack of capacity in the old sewage pipes. What proposal is there in the plans for addressing this important issue? There is hard limestone rock beneath the surface grass and this would hinder the installing of new sewage pipes. For this reason alone the application should be refused.

The design of the proposed new building is questionable. While a minimal glass structure is much in vogue at the moment, it is not appropriate in this location as it does not reflect the architectural styles or materials of the locality.

The main problem with the proposed building is that it is made mostly of glass and it would be an obvious target for vandalism. I had a conversation today with somebody who has the contract for cleaning and care-taking the public lavatories at Seawalls and also the ones by the water tower. He was of the opinion that it was a stupid proposition because it would have to be manned 24/7 to stop vandalism. Apparently the Seawalls WC block is regularly targeted out of hours and the ones by the water tower even more so. He also told me that it takes a lot of work to keep the toilets clean as they are heavily used by walkers with muddy boots. And he wondered who would be prepared to do that throughout the day. It has been suggested that vandal proof toilets would be a solution to this problem if the toilets are going to be replaced. I think that is a much more practical idea.

My final objection is that a new building of this type of construction will cause a heavy carbon footprint from both embodied and continuing energy use. I would like to remind you that the City of Bristol is aiming to be carbon zero by 2030. As is widely recognised, refurbishing old buildings is far less carbon intensive. Surely the Planning department has responsibilities for sustainability when applications are submitted for new constructions? The plans for the cafe show 4 token solar panels on the roof. This would hardly out- weigh the enormous carbon impact of erecting an entirely new and unnecessary building. Not to mention the heavy increase in traffic and the additional carbon emissions involved in heating and running a glass-walled cafe. For this reason alone the application should be refused.

Please give due consideration to the above objections.

Our gardens lie directly below the proposed building. We already receive some litterfrom people using the toilets, but with the proposed cafe, etc., we undoubtedly will receive morerubbish thrown over the Cliff, we will lose privacy when down our garden as well as the noisefactor with considerably more people enticed to that corner of the Downs. Additionally I feel thatwith more people drawn to that area there will be a significant volume of rubbish scattered about.

I object to this proposed development for the following reasons -

It is clear from the wording of both the 'Planning Application' and the 'Design and AccessStatement and Heritage Assessment' that the applicant is far from confident that the proposedcafe will consistently yield a net annual profit, nor even break even financially. There seems to bea culture of optimism that is not supported by any evidence, whether by calculation or analogy.There is therefore a significant risk that the development might actually make the DownsCommittee's financial problems worse, with no exit strategy. 'Bristol Energy' should serve as asalutary warning.

In the Planning Application Section 6 the applicant states that 'the existing WCs are redundant'.They should therefore be demolished and the footprint grassed over, not used as an excuse tocommoditise an exceptional beauty spot, supposedly protected by an Act of Parliament.

The selling of hot drinks and snacks will inevitably make the facility attractive as a starting /finishing point for walking groups. They will seek to park cars in an area of the Downs whereparking is already regularly in high demand. Ivywell Road, The Avenue and Seawalls Road willsuffer the overspill and become choked, risking obstruction of emergency and service vehicles.Grass verges will be further eroded.

The applicant claims that permission had previously been granted for a burger van, implying aprecedence. The Council is respectfully reminded that there had been such vehement objection tothat proposal that it did not go ahead.

The applicant claims that the nearest habitation is 40m away. The gardens of the Seawalls Flatslie immediately behind and below the proposed development, and may well suffer from cookingsmells and littering.

I note that 'pockets will be cut into the rock ...' and 'It is possible that rock anchors will need to bedrilled into the rock ...'. This may precipitate rock-falls in the quarry-face behind the proposeddevelopment. I trust affected land-owners will be indemnified against any consequences.

I object to the Planning Application and ~bearing in mind the Planning Officer's 36Report ~ I observe he disengenuously emphasises the development would be "ancillary" to the"important open space" and is a "very rare scenario".Firstly, I calculate that any development would require initial access area spread across the(existing) grass of 1500 square metres/yards/llath and subsequently similar space for servicevehicles and that this damaged access area would become a de facto parking area for visitors andvan-people (see below). Secondly, this "very rare scenario" tactic would, if successful, be a cleverlittle lever to use for further "one off" developments particularly if a cafe, such as this, needed "tobe bigger to be viable". Thirdly, although I observe Bristol would not be funding any building theywould be required maintain it in various aspects but also observe that Bristol is a little hopelesswith "maintenance" and.. with "conveniences" ~having closed most of the latter down in recent(pre-covid) times!I suggest to the Planning Ctte that they turn this application down and that the users of the Downsare both used to ~ very happy with these (ok, rather worn looking, 1942 built) conveniences, thecafe at the WaterTower is 10 minutes walk away... and a last point is~ we Downs Users don't wantanother area where, late at night, the drug traders come to swap little packets, from Car A to CarB..or do any more "handbrake turns" on the grass, which they do enough turns as it is AND WEDONT WANT TO ENCOURAGE any of the Live-in Vans Vagrants to move down their wagonsanywhere near the Sea walls. They would, no doubt, love a bit of breakfast served up near theirvery doorstep. The latter group, is another grievance-group, that Bristol is terrified of dealing withfor fear of "offending" almost anyone Except Bristol Ratepayers who are, as always, fair game!

Application for planning permission 21/06762/FCafé at Seawalls Bristol BS9

Objection

I strongly object to this new proposal for a café there for the following reasons :- Seawalls is a world-famous beauty spot with unique wild life. It must be defended againstcommercial exploitation. This is why the Downs Act was passed in 1861.- It is also recognized as a "Dark Sky" area used by the Bristol Astronomical Society to observethe stars. With lights on at night to deter vandalism, this café would prevent it all by spoiling thedarkness of the sky.- Another environmental impact would be more litter, already a major problem in this corner of theDowns, and pollution from more cars. As it is, on a busy week-end, there is illegal parking all overthe grass at Seawalls.- A further matter for concern is that this building would be nearly four times the size of the existingWcs. As there was a major rock-fall a few years ago, quadrupling the load so close to the cliffedge would be totally irresponsible.- In any case, there is already a café not very far, next to the Water tower. No need for new toiletseither as the present toilet block serves its purpose when open from early morning till night.

What strikes me is the conflict of interest here. The Merchant Venturers are responsible forensuring the application of the terms of the Downs Act. However, they are the applicants for thisproposal, through the Downs Committee where they have an unelected permanent majority. This

is not right, and the Secretary of State must adjudicate.

For all these reasons, this application should be rejected.

Mrs Dominique Crawford

Dear sir,I am writing to object to the renewed application for a cafe etc at Seawalls. There are many grounds for my objection but I have seen the objection filed by Mike Andrews on 24 January and it so completely sums up what I think that I need only refer to that. This seems to me to be a truly dreadful application and I hope very much that the council will reject it Roger Bird

I wish ,once again, to register my protest at the renewed application to build a cafe on the Seawalls site on the Downs.

An in-depth analysis for this project was produced a few years ago. The decision was against the proposal. Please take note of that.

Please will our Councillors stop interfering in areas where they have no physical experience or knowledge. Please leave this area of natural beauty alone.

This plea is heartfelt. Dr Derek Balmer.

Dear Mr. MacFadyen,

Ref. Planning Application: 21/06762F I am really surprised that this proposal for a café at Seawalls, BS9, is being put forward again after it had so comprehensively and with such good reasons been turned down by a senior government inspector last time.

My main reasons for objection are, firstly that must be entirely wrong to put a commercial enterprise in such a site of natural beauty.

Secondly, that it will attract vandalism particularly on Friday and Saturday nights when people congregate there to joyride (over the grass, at speed), to drink and take drugs - as anyone walking there on Saturday and Sunday mornings will tell you, the grass is littered with nitrous oxide canisters. And I think a brand new building will be a magnet for this kind of behaviour.

Thirdly, that it will cause a lot more rubbish than is dropped there already, any promise from the café management that they will deal with this is simply not practical, paper dropped there blows instantly way up the Downs as any volunteer litter picker will tell you.

As for parking, at weekends mostly in summer, but not just in summer, cars are parked illegally all over the grass.

The last inspector pointed out there is already a café by the Water Tower which is only

a ten minute walk away. There are also plenty of cafes on Blackboy Hill.And finally, as for any café owner committing themselves to service the toilets - this very much depends on the success of the café doesn't it?

I do feel that this is completely the wrong place for such a building, and really hope that it is not put into practice.

Yours sincerely,

Elizabeth Balmer,

Although the public toilets at Sea Walls are a disgrace, and in urgent need ofrenovation, there is no justification for a new commercial development at this site.This site is one of Bristol's famous views, precious to Bristolians and visitors alike for over twohundred years. Turner was inspired to make many sketches of this area. The Downs were giftedto the people of Bristol as an unspoilt open space for recreation and enjoyment of the scenery.The Downs committee are the guardians of this amenity. Commercial development will dilute thebeauty of this amenity. There are already excellent refreshment facilities available at the watertower and the Observatory. It is not necessary to provide any more than a decent public toilet,which could be self funding.

Comments for Planning Application 21/06762/FApplication SummaryApplication Number: 21/06762/F Address: Public Conveniences Circular Road Sneyd Park BristolBS9 1ZZ Proposal: Demolition of existing public toilet block and construction of single storeybuilding comprising café (use class E), education booth (use class F1[a]) and replacement toilets(resubmission of planning permission 18/04727/F). Case Officer: David MacfadyenCustomer DetailsName: Dr. A.R.Matthews Address: 3 Cook's Folly Road, Sneyd Park,BS9 1PL BristolComment DetailsCommenter: Neighbour and former Chairman of the Sneyd Park Residents' AssociationStance: Full objection to the Planning ApplicationComment Reasons: I refer to the comprehensive and well-argued submissions made by Mr. S.Small, Chairman of SPRA, by Mr. M. Andrews of 28 Seawalls, BS9 1PG, and by Mrs J. Seager ofTowerleaze, Seawalls Road, BS9 1PG. I am in complete agreement with each of thesepresentations and do not wish to repeat again their detailed points.

However there are some major points of issue that I wish to discuss regarding the Design andAccess Statement. This document contains a number of statements that are put forward as factwhen they are demonstrably not so - in fact they may considered as being deliberately misleading.

Design and Access Statement"At present the Downs Committee expend considerable effort . . in the maintenance of the existing

WC's" - no factual back up, one part-time staff hardly requires much effort to supervise!"The point of view of local residents who are close to the site should be taken into consideration" -every resident close to the site who has responded has objected strongly to the proposal, so I failto see how their views have been taken into consideration.Public benefits quoted in the document:"Provision of improved views of the Suspension Bridge and the Gorge and extension of these toall residents of Bristol" - this is nonsense, the proposal does nothing to improve the views whichwill be unchanged and, as for extending these to more people, it could well be argued thatincreased traffic and parking will actually deter people from coming."The cafe will . . provide a much needed service to members of the public" - is there a factualback-up to this, or is it just the author's opinion?One statement says that "the cafe will only concentrate on snacks and drinks", yet further on itexpands this to ". . providing light meals and . ." - this is likely to cause more parking problems byattracting more clientele."A number of residents queried . . the potential to increase contingent problems such as noise,parking etc." - this concern is not further addressed at all, no mention is made of noise and parkingis brushed aside, yet this is a major problem. Already, on fine summer days and at weekends, allparking spaces are taken and cars park on the grass - which is illegal, yet no police action is evertaken to prevent this. Indeed, I once spoke to the driver of a coach parked on the grass andreceived a stream of invective for my trouble."While the increase in the size . . . may be seen as causing harm to the setting, this is not'Substantial'" - really, I would have thought the quadrupling of the footprint was most definitelysubstantial."All profits will be returned to the upkeep of the Downs" - a worthy statement, but there has beenno economic evaluation provided to show that the venture will be profitable.Finally the the statement completely omits any mention of the Planning Inspectorate Report of24th September 2019 which categorically concluded "that consent for the works applied for shouldnot be granted because of the potential harm to the local neighbourhood and the landscape andbecause the alleged benefits have not been adequately demonstrated". The design has not beenchanged, the proposal is the same, so why is the Inspectorate report being cast aside with noexplanation or justification?

Potential for VandalismSeawalls is well known as being a late night site for drug use/dealing and there are frequentexamples of cars racing across the grass. The provision of a cafe building, particularly with largeexpanses of glass walls and being tucked away in a nice secluded spot, is likely to be a magnetfor spray-painting vandals and it difficult to see that the placing of CCTV cameras will providedmuch of a deterrent. The police do not appear to have any effect on activities there now and I donot see any suggestion that there might be any additional coverage.Is there any provision in the cafe budget for contingency funds for frequent removal of spraypainting?Cafe - Economic Evaluation

Mention was made above about the lack of any economic justification for the cafe, but it ispossible to do a 'back-of-the-envelope' evaluation. I have read somewhere that the possible costof the development might be £350,000. Using this, plus the cost of three staff plus staff overheadcost, interest on the building capital cost, depreciation, electricity/heat pump, waste collection,business rates, etc, and assuming a modest £2-3 profit from every customer - snacks and drinksare not high-value items - it is possible to estimate that it will require an average cafe usage of1000-1200 customers per day throughout the year to break even, let alone generate "profit for theDowns".It is hard to see these numbers during summer months, let alone during the winter.Surely it would be preferable to use say 10% of the proposed capital cost in refurbishing theexisting WC's and continue with one part-time employee to maintain them.In conclusion I ask that this non-viable, ill-conceived proposal be rejected.Dr. A. R. Matthews28th January 2022

This would be such a welcome addition to this corner of the downs. The old toilets arereally an eyesore but important amenity for those who live locally and enjoy excercising on thedowns.The addition of a cafe here, new toilets and education centre would be a valuable enhancement toan already beautiful corner of bristol.

I make a purely personal appeal to leave the Downs alone. We do not need a restaurantat the Sea Walls where there is one of the most beautiful views of our city.

The proposed plan will cause parking/traffic problems amongst many others and reduce the areato the every day, which it is not. It is very special; a fact that was recognised such a long time ago.Bristol has hundreds of restaurants/cafes and we do not need another intruding on nature, spaceand this very special place.

Please, please reject this application.

I wish to object to the new application for this building.

Although there are a few modifications to the original plan that was refused by the PlanningCommittee and also on appeal, the plans still contain the features that most objectors, includingme, have voiced in the past. This proposed building is too big and the glassed area on top istotally unnecessary for customers who just need a 'drink and snacks' and to use a toilet.

Surely a restrained building that sinks into the landscape is what would be more appropriate to thissite. 'Appropriate' is the key word for an area that was bequeathed to the citizens of Bristol for itspeace and tranquillity, not for a commercial building designed for many people to sit and eat.Commerce such as this has hitherto been resisted quite rightly especially as the thin end of whatcould be a very large wedge based on precedent if this design of cafe is approved. The previousplanning inspector quite rightly said that approval of the application should not be granted becauseof 'potential harm to the local neighbourhood and the landscape, and because the alleged benefitshave not been adequately demonstrated.'

What is immediately obvious is that the larger the facility the larger will be the problem of parkingand especially of litter. Despite denials the fact that the opening hour will be 8am will undoubtedlyencourage commercial vans or even large goods vehicles to stop for breakfast. Tourists or localBristol residents out for a stroll will not be evident so early in the morning, and indeed there will befew tourists in the winter. Any extra traffic which will undoubtedly occur will in fact be a danger topedestrians and especially children playing on the grass near the road.

GLASS AND BIRDSWe find from personal experience with our own windows that birds are attracted to go towards thesun and the reflection in the glass results in birds crashing into the windows many times a year. Itdoes not seem to be a remedy to put a coating in the ultraviolet spectrum on the glass, nor anetched design on the glass.

DESIGNThe developers seem to want to be 'modern' for the 21st century. Have they not noticed that thisbuilding is never going to be 'iconic' or unobtrusive? It will not chime with the materials of localbuildings despite the addition of some wood to it. It is so aggravating to find that even in this dayand age of tightened availability of money the beauty of such a place cannot be preserved withoutcommerce, outside cafe tables and chairs and associated necessary items such as delivery lorriesand increased rubbish collection.

TREESSurely there should be more attention paid to the safety of nearby trees. We have so many localinstances of trees being hacked or summarily chopped down that the almost wild ones that grownear the present toilet block are in danger by those who want to 'tidy' the area.

The history over more than 150 years of keeping the Downs as an open unencumbered space forpeople to roam at will and gaze at the view at the edge is going to be compromised if ANYcommerce such as the present proposal is allowed as it will creep further using precedent as anexcuse.

I submit this objection to the proposal as a local resident who uses the Downs regularly- the more so during our Lockdowns.A summary of my objections and comments is as follows:1) The application is invalid and should not have been accepted, as requirements to submit anapplication in an area such as this have not been met.2) The development is unnecessary and despoils the surroundings.3) When the trees die - as they surely will at some stage, either naturally or as a result of theproposed development - what will screen the pavilion then?4) Bristol Planning Officers and Bristol Development Committees should not determine thisApplication.5) Why are there two separate Reports from the Planning Inspectorate Common Land Notices andDecisions for only one Planning Application (18/04727)?6) This Application should be referred to the Planning Inspectorate for a third time for the sake oftransparency and following due process.In detail:I am surprised to see this Application appearing on the Planning Portal as a valid application. Itshould not have been validated, and should be withdrawn because it appears not to fulfil therequirements for validation in an area such as this.Applications for all planned developments in, or adjacent to; SSSIs, NNRs, SNCIs, RIGS shouldbe accompanied by a Biodiversity Survey and Report. This requirement is published in the"Planning Application Requirements Local List December 2017."There are references in the Design and Access Heritage Assessment (DAHA) to the variousplanning restrictions, policies and matters that should be considered, but there is no Biodiversity

Survey and Report.The Applicant has demonstrated in the DAHA that it is aware of the limitations imposed by thecharacter and designation of the area, but makes no reference to mitigating all the effects of thedevelopment, other than looking into methods of preventing birds flying into the glass walls of thecafé (a discussion, not a firm proposal), and proposing a green roof as well as photovoltaic cells.There is far more to the biodiversity and the amenity of The Downs than is evidenced by these twocomments.It is avaricious to despoil the aesthetic pleasure of one of the very few remaining Bristol beautyspots with the vans, cars, noise, and the litter that will accompany a commercial enterprise, whichis both not needed and not wanted. There is already a café in the middle of the Downs on StokeRoad by the Water Tower, and another one is not needed. People walk to Sea Walls to get awayfrom hustle and bustle and to look at the views across and along the Avon Gorge, and to enjoyrelative peace and quiet. They can survive without a cup of coffee.The aim is to provide a commercial venture to raise money to support the upkeep of the Downsand to keep the new toilet block clean and supervised. Is this viable, or might the new buildingbecome a derelict eyesore when the venture fails as the 2019 Planning Inspector wondered? Whowill have to pay for it then?In the DAHA is also the statement "The proposals have been discussed with the DownsCommittee".Well of course they have - the Downs Committee is the Applicant. Of course they approve. It is abit of "They would say that, wouldn't they?" (with apologies to Mandy Rice-Davies).The Downs Committee is comprised of 7 Councillors, one of whom is the Lord Mayor (and Chair),and 7 Merchant Venturers, one of whom is the Master of the MVs (and the Vice-Chair). TheMerchant Venturers own the Clifton Downs. Sea Walls is part of Durdham Downs, purchased bythe City of Bristol from the Lords of the Manor of Henbury in 1861. Jointly the Committee managesthe whole of the Downs.I note that this proposal has twice been referred to the Secretary of State for determination, oncein 2019 and once in 2020 (more on this later). I am surprised that these reports have not beenpublished on the Planning Portal. Visit https://www.gov.uk/guidance/2019-common-land-notices-and-decisions to find the Reports.

The first decision in November 2019 was that the development should not go ahead, as, amongstother amenity reasons, it had not been shown to be a commercially viable development. Themaintenance of the new toilets was dependent upon the café having enough revenue to pay itsown staff for both café duties and toilet duties, and the Inspector was not convinced that therewould be enough revenue.The second decision in November 2020 was in favour of the proposed development. Apparentlyfinancial viability was less of a concern for the 2nd Inspector as the Downs Committee haddemonstrated (how and when?) that it had sufficient money in its coffers to pay for the building (in2020) and there could be revenue from visitors to the Zoo, who would be parking on the Downs,and then going on to visit the Sea Walls.) From the Inspector's report "the proposed café wouldbenefit from being close to the Zoo". It is quite a walk from the Zoo to the Sea Walls.

I think we now know that these arguments have become flawed. The Zoo is to close later thisyear. There is to be no more Zoo parking on the Downs (even if the Zoo was not closing) andsubstantial costs have been awarded against the Downs Committee in a recent court decision.Either the money in its coffers will have to be used to pay these costs (is there enough?) and therewill then be none left to build the Sea Walls café, or the Bristol council tax payer will be paying forthe building of the café, and maybe the balance of the bill for Court costs as well.And, if the café is built and then fails, then the Bristol council tax payer will be paying for dealingwith that too - as the Applicant is the Downs Committee, an organ of the Council, and it appears tobe the Council part, and not the Merchant Venturer part, that pays for the upkeep of everything todo with the Downs.

In 2019 the Inspector wrote about both the amenity and the financial viability:44. The 2006 Act, together with earlier legislation, enables government to safeguard commons forcurrent and future generations to use and enjoy; to ensure that the special qualities of commonland, including its open and unenclosed nature are properly protected; and to improve thecontribution of common land to enhancing biodiversity and conserving wildlife. The consentprocess, in respect of applications under Section 38 of the 2006 Act, seeks to ensure that any useof common land is consistent with its registered status, and that works take place on common landonly when they maintain or improve the condition of the common, or where they confer somewider public benefit, and are either temporary in duration, or have no significant or lasting impact.45. The application in this case would not appear to be maintaining or improving the condition ofthe common, although it is claimed that it would contribute financially to that end. However, thelack of any empirical data is a serious impediment to properly evaluating that potential benefit. Theimpact of the structure would be lasting and, if not maintained properly, might result in a situationsimilar to the one that exists at present: a dilapidated structure which is not attractive and may bethe target for vandals.46. Whilst the proposal, if a success, would be unlikely to have any significant adverse effect onsome of the public interest aspects of the criteria or on the rights of the commoners, it would notcontribute to the conservation of the landscape. I consider that the alleged benefits to theneighbourhood have not been sufficiently supported by credible evidence.And the conclusion was:50. Having regard to the criteria set out in paragraphs 12 to 14 above, and all the writtenrepresentations, I conclude that consent for the works applied for should not be granted becauseof the potential harm to the local neighbourhood and the landscape, and because the allegedbenefits have not been adequately demonstrated.In 2020 the Inspector wrote (why was there a second bite at the cherry when there had not been afresh Planning Application?):52. The applicant has demonstrated the financial arrangements and assumptions. There is nosubstantive evidence to the contrary. I am satisfied that the evidence in this application allaysconcern that a similar situation to the one that exists at present; or that a dilapidated structurewhich is not attractive and may be the target for vandals would be likely to arise.

But there have been rather dramatic events since then with a Court case costing a lot of moneyand the Zoo closing, as described earlier.I am concerned about this sentence in the Inspector's report "There is no substantive evidence tothe contrary.". What opportunity has anyone had to suggest, until now, that the DownsCommittee's financial situation might not be as reported to the Inspector, whenever that reportmight have been?

This Application, if it is now, or if it becomes, a valid application, should be referred to theSecretary of State again, in respect of the current concerns about financial viability and liability.It is far too important an application to be a delegated decision of Officers. There is sharedCouncillor membership between the Downs Committee, Development Control Committee A andDevelopment Control Committee B. The risk of a public perception arising that there is conflicthere is quite large, even were Councillors to recuse themselves, or declare an interest as beingthe Applicant. There needs to be public trust in an outcome that is provided by more than adeclaration of interest or a non-attendance at a meeting. "The Downs" is a sensitive subject andThe Downs Committee - an organ of the Council - is the Applicant in this matter. The normalmethods of declarations and recusals might not be trusted by residents because of the strength offeeling about The Downs and the Merchant Venturers in the City. This might be better a decisionnot left to the Council as Local Planning Authority. For their own reputational protection, and forprotection of the reputations of the Councillors involved, such a risk should be avoided.I ask "Why are there two reports from Planning Inspectors following upon one formal PlanningApplication?" There is a risk it could be perceived as being because the outcome of the firstreferral was not favourable to the Applicant? I always thought we did not do that in our Britishdemocracy. Recent examples attest to that. Some people might think that if we don't like theoutcome of an arbitration or referral or poll, let's run it again until we get one that we do like!

There is a mystifying order of events which I just don't understand. Somebody might know whattriggers what.Ist Application 18/04727 Dated 5.9.18Granted 14.3.19Ist Planning Inspectorate Report (unfavourable to Applicant) Dated 26.11.192nd Planning Inspectorate Report (favourable to Applicant) Dated 11.11.20(Note this comes before the 2nd Planning Application.)2nd Application (current: 21/06762) dated 14.12.21

Could the second Inspector's report have been commissioned before this second application,21/06762? But surely not, as that would mean that the Inspector did not have before him/her thecomments from the public who had expressed their opinion on the planning portal on this secondApplication. The Inspector would not know about the Court Case costs and the Zoo closureaffecting financial viability, and the likelihood of the screen of trees, so vital to the issue of visualamenity, dying in the near future, nor everything else that commentators are saying, if he/she had

not seen the comments on this second application before reaching a conclusion about the secondapplication. What has gone on here? Such comments might assist the Inspector with the missingevidence "There is no substantive evidence to the contrary."The financial declarations from the Applicant, referred to in the 2nd Planning Inspectorate Report,and upon which part of the decision is based, are not published on the Planning Portal. No doubtthey are sensitive documents. But thus we do not know the date they went to the Inspector, but itwill have been before November 2020. How come the Downs Committee has had an opportunityto present new evidence to the Planning Inspector, after the 1st and adverse opinion, that thepublic did not see nor know was being submitted?Has there been another Planning Application that we did not see? I cannot see it on the PlanningPortal. There was an earlier one in 2018 (18/02629/F), but that was withdrawn.

Bristol Zoo made public the announcement of its closure on 28th November 2020. This will takeplace later this year.The costs of a Court case against the Downs Committee were awarded in May 2021.Both of these dates fall after the 2nd Inspector's decision. So the Planning Inspectorate, in makingits 2nd decision, was unaware of the altered finances and perhaps diminished future financialprospects for the Downs Committee in the building and then the running of the café and toilets.In fact, the more I think about the sequence of events the more puzzling and worrying I find it.The Application in 2018 received consent from the Bristol Planners, but a negative verdict from thePlanning Inspectorate. There were several reasons given for the Inspectorate's opinion that thedevelopment should not go ahead, but the financial prospects for the café seemed to be major.It seems from the comments in the second Planning Inspector's report that further evidence fromthe Downs Committee was then submitted to the Planning Inspector, and there was then a further(2nd) opinion from a different Inspector, almost exactly a year later, with no fresh opinion beingsought from the public and no public scrutiny of the evidence being submitted. This 2nd opinionwas favourable to the development. The Reports from the Planning Inspector are on a publicwebsite, but no reference to the referrals to the Inspector, or the Reports, is made on the PlanningPortal that I can find. Also, I could not find a reference to the referral to the Planning Inspector inthe Decision and Conditions document from the 2018 application, nor in the advice documentprepared for the Development Control Committee that gave consent in 2018.In the 2nd report from the Planning Inspector specific reference is made to the lack of evidence tothe contrary that the financial arrangements had become satisfactory. But no one other than theDowns Committee knew that evidence in support of the development being financially viable hadbeen submitted to the Inspector after the first unfavourable report.This is hardly what one might call fair and transparent.

Was the development thus going to go ahead, based upon the Consent from BCC in 2018 and theApproval (2nd time around) of the Planning Inspector in 2020, but the delays forced by the Covidpandemic have meant that the 3-year consent is very soon to expire, and this further Applicationhas had to come forward?In the interim however the finances seem to have changed somewhat, and one might now

challenge the financial viability of both the building of the café and the profitability of the café everbeing sufficient to fund the supervision and maintenance of the toilets.

Hopefully the Application will be going before the Planning Inspectorate again, and he/she willhave the updated information about the finances of the Downs Committee and the futureprospects of income generation from a café.The Downs as a whole is registered as Common Land, so there should be a further referral to thePlanning Inspectorate following upon this Application. It may be that the Downs Committee hopedto rely upon the 2nd Report dated 11.11.2020, but things have changed since then.It would be reassuring to see due process being followed.

If this development is permitted the citizens of Bristol will rue the day, either through harm causedto the visual amenity and their quiet and clean enjoyment of the area, or through a hit to theirpockets, or both. But 'twill be too late.

Dear Planning Committee,It is suggested that this expensive development is being proposed as a remedy to the ongoingcosts of maintaining the existing modest toilet block. This is misguided proposal could turn out tobe another example of "Saving money at any cost", since there is no evidence that thisextravagance will ever pay for itself let alone make profits sufficient to benefit the Downs.I wish to object to this proposal for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development represents a commercialisation of Sea Walls - a world-famousbeauty spot with unique wildlife. It will introduce a building at least four times bigger than theexisting facility into an area renowned as a quiet, green spot with an amazing view. It will wreckthe peacefulness of this lovely place.

2. Introducing a cafe will increase the litter problem which is bad enough already. The use of itsproposed air-source heat pump is no more than virtue signalling since its noise will add to theintrusion caused.

3. Since the toilets will form part of the proposed cafe, it is probable that people will be put offusing them and resort to the bushes & undergrowth elsewhere. Who in these straightened timeswill want to buy an expensive coffee, just to go to the loo?

4. It appears that the sewerage facilities are already only barely adequate for the existing toiletblock. The extra burden of the cafe may well cause blockages, fat-burgs and all manner ofresulting extra costs

5. There is no need to duplicate the education centre at the suspension bridge. In addition, theDowns are well served by the cafe and toilets at the water tower.

6. A development of this type will attract more traffic, parking on the grass and vandalism. Theplate-glass windows, unguarded at night, will be especially vulnerable.

7. This proposal runs entirely against the intention of the 1861 Downs Act in that it will degradeand limit the provision that the Downs must be "forever open and unenclosed". This remains theone part of Bristol that is unspoilt and not built upon.

I wish to object to the proposed demolition of the existing public toilet block andreplacement structure comprising cafe, educational booth and replacement toilets. As thingsstand, the proposed building is both inappropriate and unnecessary. There is more than adequateprovision of cafe facilities already in the area and in the event that the existing toilets needrenovation, this can be executed at minimal cost and disruption. No evidence has been presentedto the effect that revenue from the proposed facility will be forthcoming or of sufficient value to puttowards the upkeep of the Downs - no business plan is in evidence. It is therefore something of amystery why such apparent unknown future income could be used as a supporting argument oreven entertained by the Planning Committee. Furthermore, the whole area of the Downs is aconservation area and allowing the proposed construction will set a dangerous commercialprecedent, where the Downs have always been maintained as a recreation space for the public. Itwould seem a blatant attempt to commercialise the Downs and if agreed by the Council, will nodoubt lead to a plethora of further commercial planning applications in the future. Pleasesafeguard the future of this beautiful open space for the people of Bristol, by refusing this planningapplication.

Broadly, I support this application. The proposal will be a great improvement on theexisting toilet facilities. I think it is important that this building is contemporary in design; I think thatit is also important that the building recedes into the landscape - the timber cladding and flat roofaddress this. I don't find the design precedents of Mies van der Rohe convincing; has thisapplication been presented to a Design Review committee?

I do agree with some of the comments with regard to safety and anti-social behaviour; perhapsfurther consideration should be given to out of hours shutters, as part of the design. Can furtherconsideration be given to sensitively designed external lighting in this area too, both for the safetyof the staff and customers after dark.

However, I am supportive of a cafe in this location.

2

times greater than the space occupied by the current toilet block and

encroaches on the current sweep of space that allows free unencumbered

access and views over the Avon Gorge. In fact this area provides the only safe

accessible viewing area for those whose mobility is compromised. To reduce

this area with not only the building but also the obstacles of an unquantified

amount of outside seating is to deny full access to those whose rights are

protected under the Equality Act 2010.

The application acknowledges that there is an issue with visibility of the

building. It says the cafe will be obscured from within and across the gorge by

trees. There are no trees on the main sweep of the viewing area. It will be

highly visible from all approaches on the Downs and will impede the

established view point of the Seawalls. No amount of glass can mitigate the

appearance of the structure.

There is no evidence to support the theory that another cafe facility is needed

by the people of Bristol or other visitors to the Downs. There is already a cafe

by the water tower that is well established and there is nothing to suggest that

it does not meet the footfall requiring refreshment in the area.

The committee is said to need £12,500 pa to service the toilets with the

additional cost for vandalism bringing the total to £20,000. [There will be a

greater chance of vandalism if a glass structure is built].

That amount cannot justify contravening the Downs Act of 1861or the Bristol

Core Strategy Policy.

The committee already have an income stream from the various permissions

that they grant to business users of the Downs . They should expand on that

and look for further opportunities to generate income rather than despoil an

area of outstanding beauty that should be preserved for all future

generations.

The Merchant Venturers are responsible for protecting the Downs but they

are also interested parties in this application through their involvement in the

Downs Committee. There is a clear conflict of interest and the Secretary of

State needs to adjudicate on this application.

I object to this proposal.

Angela Stadden

Dear Mr MacFadyen I wish to object to this ridiculous and ill-considered proposal to build a glass box café in a prominent position at Seawalls. Do the Downs Committee, who clearly do not venture to Seawalls after midnight, not realise that this area at night is notorious for drug-taking - witnessed by the frequent cylinders of nitrous oxide gas I see scattered around - drug-dealing, stolen car racing (see attached photo of burnt-out wreck), and car chases on the grass. I have spoken to the caretaker of the WCs who says that a round-the-clock night-time staff watchman would be required to keep the glass box safe from vandalism. I agree. This would remove any chance of making a profit from the café. Far from being a money-spinner for the Downs it would be a financial and maintenance disaster. The new application has actually moved the café to a more prominent position which will interfere with the skyline more - as seen from the Downs - thus ruining the whole approach to this nationally renowned beauty spot. This is the wrong place for a commercial development. Far from improving amenity, it would reduce it. Yours sincerely,

Emma Andrews

I support the proposal.As a regular walker on the Downs I think the facilities proposed would be a welcome addition.

This comment is about the trees that are affected by the proposed development. Thesame trees also affect the acceptability of the proposal because the Applicant is relying upon theexistence of the trees as a screen for a building in a sensitive spot (see Design and AccessHeritage Assessment (DAHA)). In my comment I suggest that the reliance upon the trees as ascreen may not be sustainable.I note in the Application Form that the Applicant has answered the question No 11 thus:Q. And/or: Are there trees or hedges on land adjacent to the proposed development site that couldinfluence the development or might be important as part of the local landscape character?A.NoWhich clearly is an error, but the Applicant did submit an Arboricultural Report, which would havebeen a requirement if the answer had been Yes, so it is minor and forgivable.

Why is there no Biodiversity Survey and Report? The designations of the area require one. Thepolicies are referred to in the DAHA but that is not the same as a Biodiversity Survey and Report.Should this Application have been validated?

Fortunately, there is no loss of trees proposed, or, at most, one. The trees under consideration arenear the edge of the site, off-site, and they grow in very shallow soil. Their roots should beprotected and that protection should be supervised.I note that the Applicant is relying on the trees to shield the view of the pavilion from the Gorgeand the Suspension Bridge. That seems a foolish and short-lived reliance. Trees such as those onthe edge of the Gorge have a limited life-span, and part of their lives has already been "spent".They are described in the three-year-old report as "Poor" or "Fair". I see no proposals for

succession planting, or even new planting on site, to provide a better shield/screen or a longer-lived shield/screen. The arboricultural report is dated February 2019 and is based on a surveyundertaken in September 2018, more than three years ago. It also annexes a plan which isdifferent from the one shown in the current application - it appears to have been prepared for aneven earlier application in 2018. The report is both out of date and refers to a different proposal. Itcannot be relied on in support of this application, particularly as ADB was in one of the Ash trees.

The Design and Access Heritage Assessment makes this statement "In this position the café willbe obscured from within and across the gorge by the trees adjacent. It should just be possible tosee the suspension bridge from the roof of the pavilion and therefore to see the end of the pavilionfrom the suspension bridge. However, set amongst the trees and being just over a mile from theBridge, the proposals have a minimal impact on the setting when viewed up the gorge."

Relying on trees owned by people other than the Applicant to screen a building that objectorsclaim spoils internationally acclaimed views is not sustainable. Although the trees are in aConservation Area, they would need Tree Preservation Orders to protect them from a S211 Noticeto Fell. They might not achieve that status, as although their huge public visual amenity cannot bedenied, they are allegedly not good specimens. They could all be gone in an instant, or rather 6weeks. If they become diseased then felling is the likely outcome. If they had been granted TPOstatus, which is unlikely, then replacement trees would have to be planted within 5 metres, iffeasible, but they would be small for many years.Many of the trees are Ash and more may have been infected by Ash Dieback since the report wasundertaken - another reason why the report cannot be relied on. The fact that they are Ash treesshould also be taken into consideration with regard to their future - in as much as they probablydon't have a future.

It is also unclear who owns these trees, all of which are off site. They do not appear to bemanaged by the Council. They do not appear on PinPoint mapping as being Council owned trees.This will need to be clarified. Has the owner of the trees given their consent for the proposedworks to be undertaken? They are extensive (see below).

T1 Whitebeam Sorbus aria Fair. Tight forks at 2m. Off site Crown lift to 4m. Up to 2m crownreduction. Re-shapeT2 Ash Fraxinus excelsior Poor. Extensive deadwood and dieback. Off site Remove dead wood.Up to 2m crown reduction on east side, or fellT3 Field maple Acer campestre Fair. Off siteT4 Ash Fraxinus excelsior Fair. Off siteT5 Ash Fraxinus excelsior Fair. Ivy clad stems. Off site Crown lift to 4m. Up to 2m crown reductionon east sideT6 Ash Fraxinus excelsior Fair. Off site Lift lower canopy to 4m on east sideT7 Ash Fraxinus excelsior Fair. Off site Remove lowest limb on east side of southern stem.Remove north stem

If the trees are not owned by the Applicant, then only the length of any limb that crosses theboundary can be trimmed, which may not be to the extent described as a 4 metre Crown lift or a 2metre Crown reduction in the "Works required" column.

If planning consent is granted maybe additional tree planting could be conditioned? But who wouldhave to plant them - and where?

I do not think that the future of these trees has been properly considered with regard to theacceptability of the proposal, declared in the DAHS as needing screening by the trees. They arenot going to be there for long to provide a screen.

Dear Mr Macfadyen

Objection

I wish to object to the proposed planning application to build a cafe on Seawalls.

I cannot deny that the existing toilets are in desperate need of updating and refurbishing. However, I do not feel that building a cafe in that position is the answer. The design is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area and will be an eyesore in the vicinity of that iconic viewpoint.

It appears that it is impossible to stop irresponsible drivers ruining the grass in that area. How is it going to be possible to stop vandalism to a building that will be unattended for many hours after dark.

I have seen no mention of who will run the cafe and what the business plan is. How do we know that the building will not be redundant and derelict within a few years.

If the Merchant Venturers have money to spare they could use it on a simple rebuild of the toilets. These would be open for longer hours during the day and not rely on the opening hours of a cafe, or facilities that are for 'patrons only'.

I trust that this application will NOT be granted.

Yours sincerely

Anna Fowler - regular user of the Downs

The proposal is inadequate in its failure to explain how it will deal with the inevitableanti-social activities that will affect the site. I addition the public conveniences should retain themale/female split for hygiene purposes.

I fully support this proposal. It is a long overdue addition to the facilities on the Downsand will be a welcome replacement for the current run-down lavatories. The prospect of generatingextra revenue to contribute to the maintenance of the Downs is also of great benefit, and thedesign is relatively unobtrusive.

Jan 21st 2022

Proposed Café on Circular Road BS9PLANNING REF: 21/06762/FFull Objection

We wish to raise a number of objections to the proposed development. Our property is Towerhirst,Seawalls Rd. BS9 1PG which is Listed as Grade 2 and is less than 40 metres from the proposeddevelopment. In reading the architect's Design and Access Statement there are some commentsthat seem to imply that we are completely happy with the proposal. That is not so.The resubmission of the original planning application 18/04727/F now 21/06762/F, is by its nature'the same/ similar to the original' hence my previous objections still stand and many of which havenot been addressed in the resubmission. Therefore I wish my original objections to be taken intoaccount again.In addition I would like to make the following comments in support of my objection:

Design Access and Heritage statement'Passive supervision by staff.' How is this to be effected out of hours. Most of the anti socialbehaviour on the sea walls occurs out of hours. The police are too stretched to monitor this as hasbeen found in the past. Therefore who and how is this to be effectively monitored given the plan isto now allow 24 hour access to the WC facilities. There continues to be night time problems withboy racers throughout the year on The Seawalls which increases markedly in the summer months,any proposed structure will inevitably be targeted as has been found with the existing cafe on theDowns which is constantly passed by members of the public.

Cars are regularly torched on the seawalls and circular road. If there is a building structure withinreach this could be badly affected

2.'minimising visual impact' the proposal is totally out of keeping with the buildings surrounding theDowns all of which are of stone construction. See section 12 of the Planning (listed buildings andConservation Areas ) Act 1990There has been no breakdown of proposed income versus cost ofconstruction/maintenance/running costs. The footfall since the DEFRA application,which could not be viewed due to covid, and therefore local residents were not able to commenton in the timescales required, has fallen to pre pandemic levels.

Policy DM26. We do not believe that this proposal contributes positively to an area's character andidentity. Indeed we feel that the opposite is true. We feel that the proposal does not respondappropriately to the green infrastructure and historic assets (i). Does not respect the local pattern,grain and historical development of the area (ii). Does not retain, enhance or create importantviews (iv). Does not preserve or enhance existing landmarks (v). Does not respond to existingform of existing buildings (vi). Definitely does not reflect the predominant materials of the area(viii).

2.1 The scope and implementation of the 1861 Act is different to implementing changes without alegal Act of Parliament. Surely the first purpose built commercial project on the Downs since 1861should be subject to a change in the 1861 Act not just an interpretation by the Downs Committeeas it sets a completely new precedent. Conflict with the Clifton and Durdham Downs (Bristol) Act1861Our principal objection is that this development is a commercial enterprise and as such is incomplete contrast to the aims and strictures of the original Clifton and Durdham Downs (Bristol)Act 1861. This is a proposal for a commercial building (A3). There have been no new commercialstructures built on The Downs since that Act. To create a commercial retail outlet would set a veryunfortunate precedent and would in our view run contrary to the ethos of The Downs and the 1861

Act governing its management. A number of local residents feel that this might create a precedentfor the future. We cannot be sure that future members of the Downs Committee would not takeadvantage of the granting of this proposal as a precedent for future development and thus destroyover 150 years of protection.In the Downs Management Plan for Clifton and Durdham 2012 -2017 (produced by The DownsCommittee - the Applicant) they state that:"The second heavily used area is Sea Walls where there are views of The Gorge, interpretationsigns and a second public toilet. It has also been decided to investigate if better facilities can beprovided at that area in future. This would require the agreement of the Secretary of State due tothe wording of the 1861 Downs Act" (point 4.3, second paragraph, page 28).In 1931 a Provisional Orders Confirmation (Bristol and Leicester Act 1931 was required to amendthe 1861 Act to give the Downs Committee the power to appropriate land to build dressing roomswith washing facilities and sanitary conveniences . Those facilities were not for commercial use asis the bulk of the current proposal.In the Design and Access Statement (2.2) it is stated that "The scope and implementation of theact are interpreted by the Downs Committee". Surely, as the Downs Committee is the applicant inthis proposal, the scope and implementation of the act should be interpreted by an independentauthority such as the Secretary of State.

2.4 Fuel

Where is the source heat pump to be located and what proposals are there for keeping the noise5db below the background noise levels given the peace of the surrounding area?

2.5 Towerhirst property is not located 70 m to the north of the site but, as noted in 9.5, less than40 metres. Please see attached plan. In addition the area used by the residents of Towerhirstshown on the Location and Block plan is only 13 m from the proposed cafe and the potentialextraction fan both of which will impact on Towerhirst. Please see attached photo.

Policy BCS21 How does this proposal contribute positively to an areas character and identitywhen the whole point of the Downs is to keep it as an area of peace and tranquility for all visitors.Any need for refreshments can be found from the existing cafe a short walk away.

Policy BCS22 how doe this development safeguard and enhance the setting and areas ofacknowledged importance ie Towerhirst

Policy DM26How does this contribute positively to the area's character given that it fails to meet points ii, iii, iv,v, vi,vii, and viii?

2.6 Landscape context

see notes on arboriculture statement. The proposed site will not be set amongst trees in the nearfuture and therefore not obscured from sight.

3.0 Heritage contextThe heritage value of Towerhirst will be negatively impacted by the build of a commercialdevelopment operating daily from 8am to 7pm (winter aside).How does the build improve the views of the bridge and the Gorge unless there is an intention toput a second storey build/terrace on the cafe?

4.0 The local residents have not been consulted on the resubmission of the plans.

7. Use7.2 The existing footprint of the WC are stated as 39m2. The new internal/covered footprint totals92m2 ( see 7.2) this is well over twice the current footprint. In addition, there is a terrace area ofhow large ? extending to the fountain I would estimate 25m2 from the drawings giving a total of117m2 ie 4 times the size of the existing WC block.7.3 The noise will impact on Towerhirst from 8am to 7pm

9. Building Design

9.1 There is still no income forecast to justify the cost of the build, running and maintenance. Alsomy previous ,valid concerns re the increase and change in the sewage and how this is to beaddressed has not been answered. The existing sewage runs under Towerhirst and has beenblocked several times in the past due to items being disposed of in the WC leading to sewageflooding Towerhirst and involving excavation works in the garden. We are very concerned thatincreased use of what is obviously an old sewer will overwhelm the existing sewer.9.11 Increased RubbishIt is likely that customers of a proposed café would buy food and drink to eat on The Downs ratherthan in the café. At the moment people tend to bring their own picnic provisions and most tend totake their rubbish home with them. If they purchase food and drink from the café it is likely toincrease the amount of litter left behind. Currently a number of local residents take it uponthemselves to do a regular litter pick especially after the weekends when this service is notperformed. The potential increase in litter may well deter this voluntary service.

9.15 Extraction fan is only located a few metres (13) from the area used for seating in the gardenat Towerhirst so odours throughout the day are inevitable in this property.

Appendix 1 Arboriculture Method Statement

The potential view given on the plans to the west of the cafe of the river avon, can only be seen bystanding on the seawalls not from sitting at the proposed cafe, unless there are plans to extendthe seating area or move a viewing/seating area onto the roof, given there is a recommendation tofell T2 on the report.Presumably the trees shown on Black rocks on the report fall inside Seawalls apartments. TreesT2,T3,T4 all fall within the C2 category with remaining life expectancy of 10 years. This report waswritten in 2018, therefore only 6 years remain meaning that any future roof development wouldoverlook neighbouring properties.

As stated by the Development Control Committee B 13.3.19'no harmful loss of light, overshadowing , impact to the outlook or loss of privacy would result toany adjacent residential property.' Towerhirst is obviously impacted by this proposal.

As a born and bred Bristolian I am lucky enough to live in Towerhirst and see the enjoymentBristol get from the Downs as an area of peace and tranquillity and a café is bound to significantlychange this character of the seawalls area. It will inevitably produce noise, smells and increasedtraffic into this area of peace and tranquillity.

Policy DM26. We do not believe that this proposal contributes positively to an area's character andidentity. Indeed we feel that the opposite is true. We feel that the proposal does not respondappropriately to the green infrastructure and historic assets (i). Does not respect the local pattern,grain and historical development of the area (ii). Does not retain, enhance or create importantviews (iv). Does not preserve or enhance existing landmarks (v). Does not respond to existingform of existing buildings (vi). Definitely does not reflect the predominant materials of the area(viii).

Obviously there is a need for toilets on the Downs and we appreciate the Downs Committee'sdecision to support the existing facilities despite funding from the council being withdrawn.Perhaps a better solution would be the provision of vandal proof toilets that include a charge foruse this has indeed been deemed profitable by other councils. We question the need for a secondcafé on the Downs. There is an existing café near the water tower which is well used by the public.It has parking nearby and is not in an area of natural beauty. It does not impinge on the tranquillityand peace of the Downs.

Yours Sincerely

Janet SeagerTowerhirstSeawalls RoadBristolBS9 1PG

Dear Mr Macdfadyen

I am dismayed to learn that the above application has been re-submitted

As stated previously, my strong objections to this submission relate to matters of road safety, parking and conservation. That area of the Downs, particularly during the summer months, suffers from significant traffic congestion and consequent pedestrian hazards.Were the proposed cafe to materialise, these and associated parking problems would inevitably be compounded.

The only possible solution to these difficulties would then be the construction of an extensive car park adjoining the cafe. Were this to materialise, the Downs Committee would be directly responsible for the desecration of one of Bristol's most iconic landmarks!

Charles Martin

The Bristol Downs are an iconic part of the city hosting football, dog walking, cyclingand many other activities. There is no need for another cafe on the Downs - one is already inexistence by the water tower. The siting of the proposed cafe is not suited to the neighbourhoodand is likely to suffer attempted damage by vandals particularly where the glass windows areconcerned. Yes they may be constructed of toughened glass but that does not mean it cannot bedamaged, whereupon our local Police force do not have the manpower to police the area, not tomention the inconvenience to the residents, parking facilities and the mess likely to be createddespite any number of litter bins! I grew up in Bristol and this area has not changed much over theyears therefore why give it the opportunity to do so now!

Please Note: In places the application refers to our property being some 70 meters from the proposed structure. It is in fact some 40 meters away as they have corrected in one place. However, the area most used in our garden (our deck - see attached photo) is only some 13 meters away. This has implications for the position of the proposed structure, the extractor fan, ground heat source and siting of the rubbish bins. We wish to raise a number of objections to the proposed development. Our property is Towerhirst, Seawalls Rd. BS9 1PG which is Listed as Grade 2 and is less than 40 metres from the proposed development. In reading the architect's Design and Access Statement there are some comments that seem to imply that we are completely happy with the proposal. That is not so. The resubmission of the original planning application 18/04727/F now 21/06762/F, is by its nature 'the same/ similar to the original' hence my previous objections still stand and many of which have not been addressed in the resubmission. Therefore I wish my original objections to be taken into account again. In addition I would like to make the following comments: Design Access and Heritage statement 1. 'Passive supervision by staff.' How is this to be effected out of hours. Most of the anti social behaviour on the sea walls occurs out of hours. The police are too stretched to monitor this as has been found in the past. Therefore who and how is this to be effectively monitored given the plan is to now allow 24 hour access to the WC facilities.

There continues to be night time problems with boy racers throughout the year on The Seawalls which increases markedly in the summer months, any proposed structure will inevitably be targeted as has been found with the existing cafe on the Downs which is constantly passed by members of the public. Cars are regularly torched on the seawalls and circular road. If there is a building structure within reach this could be badly affected 2. 3. 4. 2. 5. 'minimising visual impact' the proposal is totally out of keeping with the buildings surrounding the Downs all of which are of stone construction. See section 12 of the Planning (listed buildings and Conservation Areas ) Act 1990 6. There has been no breakdown of proposed income versus cost of construction/maintenance/running costs. The footfall since the DEFRA application, 7. which could not be viewed due to covid, and therefore local residents were not able to comment on in the timescales required, has fallen to pre pandemic levels. 8. 9. 10. Policy DM26. We do not believe that this proposal contributes positively to an area's character and identity. Indeed we feel that the opposite is true. We feel that the proposal does not respond appropriately to the green infrastructure and historic assets (i). Does not respect the local pattern, grain and historical development of the area (ii). Does not retain, enhance or create important views (iv). Does not preserve or enhance existing landmarks (v). Does not respond to existing form of existing buildings (vi). Definitely does not reflect the predominant materials of the area (viii). 2.1 The scope and implementation of the 1861 Act is different to implementing changes without a legal Act of Parliament. Surely the first purpose built commercial project on the Downs since 1861 should be subject to a change in the 1861 Act not just an interpretation by the Downs Committee as it sets a completely new precedent. Conflict with the Clifton and Durdham Downs (Bristol) Act 1861 Our principal objection is that this development is a commercial enterprise and as such is in complete contrast to the aims and strictures of the original Clifton and Durdham Downs (Bristol) Act 1861. This is a proposal for a commercial building (A3). There have been no new commercial structures built on The Downs since that Act. To create a commercial retail outlet would set a very unfortunate precedent and would in our view run contrary to the ethos of The Downs and the 1861 Act governing its management. A number of local residents feel that this might create a precedent for the future. We cannot be sure that future members of the Downs Committee would not take advantage of the granting of this proposal as a precedent for future development and thus destroy over 150 years of protection.

In the Downs Management Plan for Clifton and Durdham 2012 -2017 (produced by The Downs Committee - the Applicant) they state that: "The second heavily used area is Sea Walls where there are views of The Gorge, interpretation signs and a second public toilet. It has also been decided to investigate if better facilities can be provided at that area in future. This would require the agreement of the Secretary of State due to the wording of the 1861 Downs Act" (point 4.3, second paragraph, page 28). In 1931 a Provisional Orders Confirmation (Bristol and Leicester Act 1931 was required to amend the 1861 Act to give the Downs Committee the power to appropriate land to build dressing rooms with washing facilities and sanitary conveniences . Those facilities were not for commercial use as is the bulk of the current proposal. In the Design and Access Statement (2.2) it is stated that "The scope and implementation of the act are interpreted by the Downs Committee". Surely, as the Downs Committee is the applicant in this proposal, the scope and implementation of the act should be interpreted by an independent authority such as the Secretary of State. 2.4 Fuel Where is the source heat pump to be located and what proposals are there for keeping the noise 5db below the background noise levels given the peace of the surrounding area? 2.5 Towerhirst property is not located 70 m to the north of the site but, as noted in 9.5, less than 40 metres. In addition the area used by the residents of Towerhirst shown on the Location and Block plan is only 13 m from the proposed cafe and the potential extraction fan both of which will impact on Towerhirst. Policy BCS21 How does this proposal contribute positively to an areas character and identity when the whole point of the Downs is to keep it as an area of peace and tranquility for all visitors. Any need for refreshments can be found from the existing cafe a short walk away. Policy BCS22 how doe this development safeguard and enhance the setting and areas of acknowledged importance ie Towerhirst Policy DM26 How does this contribute positively to the area's character given that it fails to meet points ii, iii, iv, v, vi,vii, and viii? 2.6 Landscape context

see notes on arboriculture statement. The proposed site will not be set amongst trees in the near future and therefore not obscured from sight. 3.0 Heritage context The heritage value of Towerhirst will be negatively impacted by the build of a commercial development operating daily from 8am to 7pm (winter aside). How does the build improve the views of the bridge and the Gorge unless there is an intention to put a second storey build/terrace on the cafe? 4.0 The local residents have not been consulted on the resubmission of the plans. 7. Use 7.2 The existing footprint of the WC are stated as 39m2. The new internal/covered footprint totals 92m2 ( see 7.2) this is well over twice the current footprint. In addition, there is a terrace area of how large ? extending to the fountain I would estimate 25m2 from the drawings giving a total of 117m2 ie 4 times the size of the existing WC block. 7.3 The noise will impact on Towerhirst from 8am to 7pm 9. Building Design 9.1 There is still no income forecast to justify the cost of the build, running and maintenance. Also my previous ,valid concerns re the increase and change in the sewage and how this is to be addressed has not been answered. The existing sewage runs under Towerhirst and has been blocked several times in the past due to items being disposed of in the WC leading to sewage flooding Towerhirst and involving excavation works in the garden. We are very concerned that increased use of what is obviously an old sewer will overwhelm the existing sewer. 9.11 Increased Rubbish It is likely that customers of a proposed café would buy food and drink to eat on The Downs rather than in the café. At the moment people tend to bring their own picnic provisions and most tend to take their rubbish home with them. If they purchase food and drink from the café it is likely to increase the amount of litter left behind. Currently a number of local residents take it upon themselves to do a regular litter pick especially after the weekends when this service is not performed. The potential increase in litter may well deter this voluntary service. 9.15 Extraction fan is only located a few metres (13) from the area used for seating in the garden at Towerhirst so odours throughout the day are inevitable in this property. Appendix 1 Arboriculture Method Statement The potential view given on the plans to the west of the cafe of the river avon, can only be seen by standing on the seawalls not from sitting at the proposed cafe, unless there are plans to extend the seating area or move a viewing/seating

area onto the roof, given there is a recommendation to fell T2 on the report. Presumably the trees shown on Black rocks on the report fall inside Seawalls apartments. Trees T2,T3,T4 all fall within the C2 category with remaining life expectancy of 10 years. This report was written in 2018, therefore only 6 years remain meaning that any future roof development would overlook neighbouring properties. As stated by the Development Control Committee B 13.3.19 'no harmful loss of light, overshadowing , impact to the outlook or loss of privacy would result to any adjacent residential property.' Towerhirst is obviously impacted by this proposal. I am lucky enough to live in Towerhirst and see the enjoyment Bristol get from the Downs as an area of peace and tranquillity and a café is bound to significantly change this character of the seawalls area. It will inevitably produce noise, smells and increased traffic into this area of peace and tranquillity. Policy DM26. We do not believe that this proposal contributes positively to an area's character and identity. Indeed we feel that the opposite is true. We feel that the proposal does not respond appropriately to the green infrastructure and historic assets (i). Does not respect the local pattern, grain and historical development of the area (ii). Does not retain, enhance or create important views (iv). Does not preserve or enhance existing landmarks (v). Does not respond to existing form of existing buildings (vi). Definitely does not reflect the predominant materials of the area (viii). Obviously there is a need for toilets on the Downs and we appreciate the Downs Committee's decision to support the existing facilities despite funding from the council being withdrawn. Perhaps a better solution would be the provision of vandal proof toilets that include a charge for use this has indeed been deemed profitable by other councils. We question the need for a second café on the Downs. There is an existing café near the water tower which is well used by the public. It has parking nearby and is not in an area of natural beauty. It does not impinge on the tranquillity and peace of the Downs.

Yours Sincerely Kean Seager Towerhirst, Seawalls Rd Bristol, BS9 1PG

I write to object most strongly to the proposed development of a cafe at the Sea Walls on Clifton Down for the following reasons:

1. The Downs, particularly at the Sea Walls is a wonderfully semi wild area of outstanding natural beauty and it is this fact that makes it vital that this site is maintained in this condition. The proposed development would take away the very thing that makes site so special.

2. Many more people would be attracted to the cafe, most probably driving there and would create congestion, pollution and parking problems. At the moment car parking is difficult during the day. Perhaps a big new car park on the grass would be called for to meet the demand !!!

3.The world famous views from the site, in to the Avon Gorge and to the Bristol Channel beyond, must be preserved but could be compromised.by the cafe building.

4. The cafe with the normal sizeable outside seating area would have a major negative impact at this site and would probably generate increased levels of noise and litter which would be detrimental to the site and would not be appreciated by the large numbers of foreign visitors There is enough of a litter problem already.

5. The area of concern is used by walkers, runners and cyclists because of the excellent air quality and the normally quiet nature of the surroundings and this could be ruined by

the development proposed

The cafe would likely attract unwanted wildlife eg sea gulls and crows and would in any case be detrimental to the many other species that inhabit the sea walls.

I use the area for exercise (cycling and running) and would be very upset if this development went ahead . I would feel that my wild "green lung" so close to the City Centre had been compromised.

2

13.a Impact on priority species? Of course there is. The applicant on the previous application provided a section to illustrate sightlines. Half way down the cliff (shown vertical in the section) a pair of kestrels nest. They are hardly likely to do so with people sitting and eating and chatting just feet away, and the continuous noise of an air-source heat pump. 13.b Effect on designated sites? Yes. The same section shows the trees at the edge of the SAC and SSSI just beyond the wall – only 2m from the proposed building. The Arboricultural report, four years old - and not amended to take account of the new site position, refers to crown lifting and reduction and even felling of stems (with TPOs) on the designated site of the Clifton Gorge. It is also likely that this application falls foul of the European Courts of Justice Ruling of April 2018 regarding protected habitats as noted in the previous objection from Towerhirst. 14. Sewage. The objection from Towerhirst to the previous application states that the mains sewage pipe is inadequate for even the present use, and that Wessex Water have provided an entirely inaccurate map. As a near neighbour (only 90 metres from the site) I can support the statement that the pipe runs under Towerhirst’s garden and gets blocked. How will it cope with grease and kitchen effluent etc. from a café? Reasons for objection. Change of Use. The present WCs provide a free social service to the community. This application is for a commercial Class E use. Seawalls is a national and internationally known beauty spot. It must be defended against commercial greed. To stop commercial exploitation was the very reason the Downs Act was passed, in 1861: to ensure that they be "forever open and unenclosed". For hundreds of years people have been complaining about the commercialisation of beauty. Think of Niagara Falls or Land's End with their curse of commercialisation. The café will change, degrade and commercialise the experience of a visit to the viewpoint. it will not maintain it’s “sense of place”. Change in size. The internal floor space is larger by a factor of 1.4 compared to the existing building. However the footprint of the roof increases the built area by a factor of 3.8. This building would be nearly four times the size of the existing WCs. Contravention of the Downs Act of 1861 It would require the Secretary of State and potentially new primary legislation to permit concreting over the grass – which is a green-field, common-land, conservation area. Parking and traffic safety. There is no provision for additional parking. Already on a busy weekend cars are parked illegally all over the grass at Seawalls. A café open from 8.0am will attract additional commercial drivers for breakfast, and will likely attract coaches for their passengers to have a snack. Parked vehicles already cause a hazard to families crossing the road because of the sharp bend and lack of visibility. Policy BCS10 requires “minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles.” Further hardening of the grass to permit parking would be a major intervention on the Downs – turning Seawalls into a car-park, which again

3

would be against the Downs Act. At present, at quieter times, delivery drivers frequently park at Seawalls to use the WCs, this will become impossible due to lack of parking space. This is the wrong site for a café on these grounds of parking and safety alone. Litter/pollution. There is already a major litter problem in this corner of the Downs, with local residents like myself having to clear it up from bushes. A café will make this menace far worse. There will also be noise and smells to further pollute this beauty spot. At present visitors from all over the world come to enjoy the peace, birdsong, and a place that escapes the commerce and pollution of the rest of the city. This proposal would mean that the first thing visitors see will be commercial. Vandalism. A large glass box will be an invitation to major vandalism which is unfortunately already a source of much anxiety to near neighbours. Dark Sky. The Downs are recognised as a 'Dark Sky' area. The Bristol Astronomical Society organise Star Parties to observe the stars there. The proposed glass box has to be illuminated at night to deter vandalism, this will spoil the dark sky at this famous site. Stability of the cliff-face. As a resident of Seawalls I contributed to the cost of the netting of the cliff immediately below the proposed site following the major rock-fall a few years ago. To quadruple the load right on the edge of the cliff without carrying out a prior engineering survey would be irresponsible. In the event of any further collapse of rock onto our land below, Seawalls residents would of course seek compensation. Lack of Necessity as a social service. This café is not necessary for the public. There is already the Café Retreat at the water tower and numerous cafés around Black Boy Hill. There are dozens of more viable and acceptable ways of raising money for the Downs that the Downs Committee should explore first. Financial viability The Merchant Venturers claim that income from the café will pay for the upkeep of the toilets. Their business plan to confirm this has not been published. If it were to be built it would likely reduce the turnover at Café Retreat, possibly threatening profitability. The turnover at Seawalls would be so low in winter, with no 'passing trade', that it may become a net cost. A commercialisation precedent Allowing this very first commercial development on the Downs in perhaps the most sensitive area of the entire Downs will set a catastrophic precedent for further creeping commercialisation of the Downs, which has already wrecked places like Lands End. Would you build a Café right next to Stonehenge? Conflict of interest. The Merchant Venturers are responsible for the application of the terms of the Downs Act, but they are the applicants, through the Downs Committee (on which they hold an unelected permanent majority). This is a clear conflict of interest. Another reason why the Secretary of State, at least, must be invoked to adjudicate. The wider public interest must be protected by adjudication by a third party in this case.

4

Relevant Planning Guidance. This proposal is in contravention of the Bristol Core Strategy Policy BCS21 – it will not contribute to the area’s open and unspoilt character and identity. It will seriously damage it both visually and commercially. Policy BCS22 – It will not safeguard heritage assets. It will severely compromise views of the famous Towerhirst octagonal tower on this listed building – only 40 metres north of the site. The open view of this tower has been celebrated by painters of the Clifton Gorge for centuries. Instead the café will be an obtrusive wart on the face of Clifton Gorge. Policy DM26 – It will not contribute positively to the area’s character and identity. It will commercialise and thus detract from its peaceful beauty. Policy DM26.v – It will not preserve or enhance the setting of existing landmarks and local features. It will be an unwarranted intrusion. Policy DM26.vii and viii – It does not reflect locally characteristic architectural styles nor materials. Previous Planning Inspector's refusal of permission of previous application 18/04727/F The Planning Inspectorate Report dated 24th September 2019 Conclusion stated "Having regard to the criteria set out in paragraphs 12 to 14 above, and all the written representations, I conclude that consent for the works applied for should not be granted because of the potential harm to the local neighbourhood and the landscape, and because the alleged benefits have not been adequately demonstrated." Helen Slade Sale of alcohol. This is not mentioned in the application but in the unlikely event of this application being approved, the sale of alcohol must be prohibited. As must be the use of music. Context and conclusion

The former Mayor, Mr George Ferguson, called the Downs “one of Bristol’s greatest assets’. Bristol is very well served with cafés. It has few world-famous areas of outstanding beauty where people come for rest, recreation, picnics, exercise, dog-walking and sport, and Seawalls is arguably the most important of these. Its use has greatly increased during the Covid pandemic and lockdowns. A café at Seawalls is unnecessary, and wholly at odds with the Bristol Core Strategy Policy, it is against common-sense, and with the original purpose of the Downs Act of 1861 which was to preserve the Downs open and unenclosed for future generations. We must not allow it to be desecrated for monetary gain.

To ruin the Downs in order to conserve them would be an ultimate stupidity. Instead the planning department, supported by and acting for the people of Bristol (many of whom would not be able to afford to buy a coffee at the café), must exercise proper stewardship and ensure that the viewpoint at Seawalls is preserved unspoilt for future generations.

I object most strongly to this proposal, which must be rejected.

Mr Michael Andrews

This proposal goes against the Downs Act which states NO commercial buildingsshould be installed. Why would this even be considered? All we need is vandal-proof toilets. Theproposed building has a lot of glass which would be a target for vandals who already frequent thearea, drive over the grass and attempt to ruin what is a beautiful peaceful area in a heavilypopulated City. People need a place to go to find calm and to relax, not yet another cafe of whichthere are loads within a mile of this site. The Water Tower cafe has been extended and is wellused and another is NOT required.

I agree with the comments submitted by Steve Small. In addition, I feel that the peaceand tranquility of this natural area will be ruined by for all, residents and visitors alike. I also think itwill add to the littering problem. Also, there is already too much commercial activity happeningonThe Downs as it is with concerts and individual sporting businesses setting up shop on TheDowns. There is a cafe and toilets by the water tower. That is sufficient.

As Chair of the Sneyd Park Residents' Association (SPRA) I write on behalf of SPRAmembers to fully object to the above proposal and would ask you to decline this Planningapplication for the following reasons:-

1. The Downs Act does not allow for commercial development and the proposed cafe is clearly acommercial development.2. The proposed building is not in keeping with surrounding Listed Properties.3. The proposed building backs onto the Sneyd Park conservation area and it is not in keepingwith this area.4. The proposed building would be within the Downs Conservation area and would it meet theplanning requirements of said region?5. Due to the proposed design which is not in keeping with the region it will destroy the approachto the iconic Sea Walls and the natural beauty of the Downs.6. Tourist come from all over the world to see the Downs and of course Clifton Suspension Bridge.

"A few years ago I was in Australia and in conversation a gentleman shared with me hisexperience of walking across the Downs to the Sea Walls and looking at the bridge before walkingto the bridge. He commented how wonderful it was to walk up to this iconic view in the middle of alarge city but feel you were in country side not ruined by commercial development."

7. DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT AND HERITAGE ASSESSMENTMakes no mention of the Sneyd Park Conservation Area and said impact on the area. Why as theproposed cafe is within metres of the area?

8. The Planning Inspectorate Report dated 24th September 2019 Conclusion stated"Having regard to the criteria set out in paragraphs 12 to 14 above, and all the writtenrepresentations, I conclude that consent for the works applied for should not be granted becauseof the potential harm to the local neighbourhood and the landscape, and because the allegedbenefits have not been adequately demonstrated."Helen Slade

The potential harm to the local neighbourhood and the landscape, has not changed.

9. Inspector of Historic Buildings and Areas, stated"Thank you for your letter of 7 January 2022 regarding the above application for planningpermission. On the basis of the information available to date, we do not wish to offer anycomments. We suggest that you seek the views of your specialist conservation and archaeologicaladvisers, as relevant."Stephen Guy

Have the views of a specialist conservation and archaeological adviser been sought? There is noevidence of any views.

10. SUSTAINABILITY STATEMENT AND ENERGY STRATEGY States"Incorporating an air source heat pump and a heat recovery ventilation system will reduce theelectricity demand, and therefore the CO2 emissions."While the proposed heating system is to be applauded the plans do not show location of said airsource pump, and how it will be sound proofed.

11. A cafe already exists on the Downs at the water tower which is 0.8 of a mile on footpaths, ashorter distance over the grass. It is well used by those who enjoy walking on the Downs andenjoying light refreshments before or after a walk.So why is another cafe required?

I ask planning to take the above points into consideration and decline this application to protect theDowns from commercial development for all future generations.

Kind regards,

Stephen Small

Chair of SPRA.

The Downs is an open space with excellent natural features gifted to the people ofBristol for walking, relaxing and exercising in a green space. There is already a cafe on the downswith toilet facilities. There are also many cafes just off the downs on Whiteladies road and Clifton. Idon't see any benefits from adding another commercial operation. I would like the Downs to keepas close to an un-developed space as possible.

Hopefully there have been any lessons learnt through the past two years of thepandemic, not least being the vital role of open public spaces for good physical and mental health.The idea of now building a café in one of the most glorious parts of Bristol shows the utterdisregard for the care of both the people and the environment of the city by the Councillors andDowns Committee. I don't know if this project is driven by greed, stupidity or narrow self interest,but it must be stopped before this commercialisation destroys what little natural beauty the city hasleft.

I am writing in support of the development of the above.The Downs is an area gifted to the people of Bristol for recreation. As a lifelong Bristolian I haveenjoyed this gift and feel that the addition of the cafe/public conveniences/education will enhancethe area.

We're fully supportive of this valuable community asset.

The proposed building will satisfy a longstanding need for cafe facilities both for regularusers of the Downs and for visitors enjoying the Sea Walls for the first time.It will also provide educational facilities and will replace the existing depressing toilet block.It will be an attractive yet relatively unobtrusive building which will not detract from its beautifullocation.I fully support the application.

I object as a user,passionate about Nature, Wildlife and Wellbeing.

Sea Walls is of World Heritage status and SSSI.It is important that the the local community living around the Downs are included in all decisionsand management of this precious space.The Downs are for everyone and all types of Wildlife. The wildness is being destroyed, over usedand municipalised.The Downs is not a city park it is a precious reserve. Reserves need discreet hides/buildings withtoilets BUT not a cafe/education centre. It will become like a Motorway Services! We can get foodand drink in many other outlets nearby.Bristol is at the forefront of conservation, promoting all things green and tackling climate change. Ifthis goes ahead as proposed Bristol will be giving a very bad example.Elizabeth Bloomfield 19/01.22

The current toilet block, though in need of modernisation, is relatively discreet in thatcorner of the Downs. To replace it with a monstrosity many times its size and emitting electric lightis absurd.There is no need for another cafe there. If people must eat and drink there are plenty of cafes inthe vicinity- not least the one already on the Downs at the water tower. Nor is an education blockneeded - there are masses of educational facilities in the City including the Museum, M-Shed andthe one at the Suspension Bridge. The Downs is an agreeable natural open space and should notbe cluttered with more concrete.In addition the cafe must attract parked cars and there are already too many parked cars in thenarrow road there which will make it difficult for families with small children to cross the road andfor people with elderly or disabled relatives wishing to visit the Sea Walls to find a parking space.

I am very much in favour of a cafe here. It would enhance the area, not destroy it as hasbeen suggested. The cafe would take up only a minuscule percentage of the enormous expanseof the downs. There is so much beauty there for people to enjoy walking, cycling, picnicking,playing ball games etc and the cafe would in no way prevent any of that. The cafe at the other endof the downs by the main road is a long way off and is very small, so this proposed new cafewould be welcome. People walking in that area may be pleased to have refreshments there beforegoing home. The cafe would also mean we could enjoy being on the downs in cold weather, whenit is too cold to picnic on the grass. Of course we must make sure it would not encourage anymore commercialisaton. There are cafes in all sorts of natural beauty areas, such as parks,mountain areas etc and they are usually welcome by walkers. Buildings and the naturalenvironment should be able to co-exist as long as the buildings are tastefully conceived.

I strongly object to this planning application, one that has been previously denied withcountless objections and concerns. The downs is one of the very few areas of open beauty Bristolis extremely lucky to have, and we simply cannot keep building on all our green areas across thecountry. Approval of this application would make it more difficult to reject future applications forcommercial businesses to be run on the Downs and it would be such a shame to impact one ofour few remaining natural areas, let alone the detrimental impact on animals and nature anincreased footfall would cause. I feel we have already damaged the wonderful history of this areaas a peaceful outdoor area for the people of Bristol to find peace, vital for their mental wellbeing,by allowing it to host an annual festival. We cannot go on causing such negative human impactson this area, we must draw a line now before we go any further and damage what we have, we willonly come to regret such a decision. Let alone the impacts of increased fossil fuels/decrease in airquality that would be caused by more visitors driving to the area.

As a resident who overlooks the buildings in question, I object as there is zero benefit toThe Downs, and the replacement building will not be in keeping with the others nearby.There is no need for a café. People are not staying away from The Downs due to lack ofrefreshment. Any experience of The Downs is not dampened by lack of a coffee. However ifpeople do need such refreshment, there's already a café situated near the water tower. Acommercial business will only be of benefit to the owners, and once such a property has beenbuilt, it will lead onto other proposals for more commercial enterprises. As such this is a ruse totest the resolve of the council and planning committees, to see what businesses can be added inthe future. There is no need for an education centre, there are already sufficient notices placedaround with useful information. There's already too much traffic and parking in that area,especially in the summer months, and this will only attract more, making it a hazard for walkers,cyclists and joggers. There's also the question of how late the café will stay open, possiblyattracting late night customers that will create noise, and add to the already disappointing levels oflitter in the area.

I would like it explained what is the need for a café, who will the owners be, and what's theirinterest in looking after The Downs?

However I believe that David Macfadyen has effectively signed this proposal off already.

Though this is stated to be a simple reapplication of the past approved scheme it is not.The Toilets have been reduced from 6 to 4 individual cubicles with statement that they can now allhave a charge system put in place. The cafe area is smaller, and the roof light removed and thephotovoltaic array substantially reduced, which reduces sustainabilty though it does also reducethe temptation for theft of the array from such an accessible building. The new application still talksof the roof as a terrace and preventing unauthorised access to it suggesting it is to be built toenable it to be used as a terrace with minimal extra planning consent. it is not stated if the roof isto be built with adequate load bearing to be used later as a terrace. Though the permissiongranted in 2019 requires more details on the restoration of the fountain before proceeding as wellas a sustainable draininge strategy be produced, neither are submitted after 3 years sinceplanning application and indeed the restoration of the fountain is less clear in this new application.

I continue to be concerned that this will be a security risk to the area, as it is not clear what thepurpose of the CCTVs are - what will happen to the output of the CCTV cameras - will it be storedon site so it can be destroyed by any vandals, or reviewed live - in which case by whom?Given the rate of vandalism to cars in this area and the criminal activities that occur in the eveningby this area I am concerned that this building will rapidly get vandalised and substantial shuttersneed to be installed as at the Watertower buildings. The Downs Committee appear to feel thoughthat having such a wonderful all glass building will mean that it will not be a tempting site todamage even though all other sites on the downs have this problem. This feels unrealistic.I welcome the all proposed all night toilets which will be an invaluable resource for the peopleliving in their vans. I pesume it will attract more to the area especially as the parking restrictions donot appear to be enforced.

It is not stated how the 'education' booth will be maintained when it is damaged - will it be theAGDWP or the Downs Committee?

I ride round Circular Road almost every day for exercise, so I know the area well.

I like the proposal for a cafe as it is likely to bring important social and community benefits. Angood cafe could even attract new people to enjoy the Downs, bringing additional benefits formental and physical health.

It could provide-a place for people to meet up for a chat out of the wind, rain, or sun,-a destination for the tired, elderly or disabled to rest comfortably during their walk on the downs,-a place for lonely or isolated people to be with others and maybe exchange a few words.

When public toilets are part of a modern cafe, they are more likely to be pleasant and usable,compared with the present uninviting toilet block. This could be welcome to some people, whowould then be more willing make the trip out.

The modern minimal design with glass walls will be relatively unobtrusive and a welcomealternative to the current ugly block and the ice-cream vans. I would certainly prefer this toobtrusive stone and brickwork designed to match nearby buildings.

Wishing the project well.

Jack Humphreys

The sea walls is a important part of Bristols heritage and is a spot where all can have aquiet time enjoying the view etc. A cafe would change the whole feeling of the place which wouldbe a great shame. Also parking around the area is already very busy during popular times and acafe would inevitably make that worse so that some people who cannot easily park further awayand walk would be excluded.

This application is not supported by the community and has been rejected multipletimes. It should not be accepted now.My objections as many others include:a. The development (other than renewal of toilets) is nit as described in the title limited to thetoilets and therefore is misrepresented to the public.b. The development (other than renewal of toilets) is development which is prohibited under thebylaws in this location.c. The development is unnecessary as there is already a cafe on the Downs and a classroom inthis area of natural beauty and views would be unwarranted, unnecessary and unreasonable.d. The access to the viewing platform is already difficult due to the the weight of cars, traffic andparking at the location. This has already lead to traffic accidents at this location. There isinadequate parking and the roads are restricted and insufficient to accommodate the additionaldevelopment.

I fully support the application and am wholeheartedly in favour of the cafe.

This is a long-overdue amenity. The sooner it is completed, the better.

As a Bristolian bred and born I object strongly to this planning application. It is the firstcommercial building to be erected on the Downs.The Sea Walls is an iconic area with stunningviews across to the Channel and Wales which will be hidden . The building itself is totally out ofkeeping with the elegant old Victorian houses flanking the Circular Rd . It will attract dozens ofcars with limited parking and impinge on the cyclists, runners and dog walkers that enjoy a verylow traffic free area. It is not relevant to the atmosphere and freedom of the Downs.