Great scheme, it will open up the area and mordernise the whole place.

Great scheme, it will open up the area and mordernise the whole place.

I feel strongly that if the Galleries site is to be redeveloped it should be a visuallystunning bit of city centre regeneration. The proposed buildings are completely brain deadarchitecturally.

What happened to buildings creating a sense of civic pride in our city? This is a once in ageneration development in what was pre war Bristol's most historic part of town. Buildingsproposed are blocky, too high, too numerous and offer nothing of intrigue or interest visually andwill completely dominate the skyline of the Old City.

I've run my independent retail business from the Galleries since 2012 and many otherindependents are supported within the scheme. For a city centre location rent and rates areaffordable and knocking the whole building down and starting again will destroy the livelihoods of

many business owners who rely on the site. I really believe we'll struggle to find retail premisesthat match the offering the Galleries currently gives us.

I feel strongly that if the Galleries site is to be redeveloped it should be a visuallystunning bit of city centre regeneration. The proposed buildings are completely brain deadarchitecturally.

What happened to buildings creating a sense of civic pride in our city? This is a once in ageneration development in what was pre war Bristol's most historic part of town. Buildingsproposed are blocky, too high, too numerous and offer nothing of intrigue or interest visually andwill completely dominate the skyline of the Old City.

I've run my independent retail business from the Galleries since 2012 and many otherindependents are supported within the scheme. For a city centre location rent and rates areaffordable and knocking the whole building down and starting again will destroy the livelihoods of

many business owners who rely on the site. I really believe we'll struggle to find retail premisesthat match the offering the Galleries currently gives us.

I am a flat owner at Horizon next door to the Galleries above Puregym.

This development is just what the area needs with access to Castle Park, I think we do need torejuvenate the area, waiting on St Mary Le Port etc. we need desperately this injection ofinnovation.

It will breathe life into the area, more flat owners, higher footfall, more bars etc mixed use ofcourse, restaurants, a civilised area where people are attracted to relax and chat walk etc.

Bristol tends to take a long while to get things done ie Temple Island Debenhams etc this planlooks completely reasonable and exciting attracting new life.

The area now is abit desolate, attracting dubious types, it needs modernisation with access toCastle Park and good taste.

Please pass this application, too good to miss.

I am a flat owner at Horizon next door to the Galleries above Puregym.

This development is just what the area needs with access to Castle Park, I think we do need torejuvenate the area, waiting on St Mary Le Port etc. we need desperately this injection ofinnovation.

It will breathe life into the area, more flat owners, higher footfall, more bars etc mixed use ofcourse, restaurants, a civilised area where people are attracted to relax and chat walk etc.

Bristol tends to take a long while to get things done ie Temple Island Debenhams etc this planlooks completely reasonable and exciting attracting new life.

The area now is abit desolate, attracting dubious types, it needs modernisation with access toCastle Park and good taste.

Please pass this application, too good to miss.

We cannot allow this. It is too awful. I don’t feel that the damage that Blocks A and F and G will do is is stressed enough in the Historic England report or in the Bristol

Civic Society report, alarmed as they both rightly are at the proposals. The whole

development needs to receive more intense criticism in terms of height, bulk, and

sheer boringness.

This is equally true when one looks are the proposals from the north, as can be seen

below, though in this case they are more in sync with the (much to be regretted)

emerging plans for Broadmead.

Just because the previous administration had a bizarre obsession with high rise

buildings, believing, mistakenly, that they are the key to greater density – if they are, why are Paris and Barcelona the densest cities in the developed world? - does not

mean that the present administration should allow itself to be persuaded by those

facile arguments, which were in fact never properly argued, and for which no

evidence was ever produced, the administration having apparently relied on “common sense” rather than evidence. It think it is obvious that they will have a disastrous impact on our beautiful, historic city.

www.bristolcivicsociety.org.uk Registered charity No. 244414

We welcome the permeability of the proposals and the establishment of connections to the city

centre. Although this moves away from the tight urban grain of the 18th century and earlier medieval

plans, it does create the opportunity to reimagine this part of the city centre. The proposed opening

up of the site for the public, creating a better street pattern and connection to Castle Park, are

good. The orientation of the blocks does help sun penetration in the new city block although only for

a limited period of the day. The individual blocks could step back further to help provide more

daylight into the new streets. Perhaps breaking back the corners of the site, in a way similar to the

original Galleries buildings would help open up the scheme and provide better accessibility and

place making.

Height

Tall buildings need space around them, both for evacuation of inhabitants and to ensure the

microclimate allows for a comfortable environment avoiding both overshading and down draughts.

We are unclear as to why the tallest part of the development, block A is on the highest part of the

site. This seems to be misplaced. Historic analysis of the site by previous planners and architects

indicated the tallest part of the development would be better at the Merchant Street end of the site

adjacent to the historic Newgate and outside the old city walls.

If the proposed buildings are to be taller than those existing on the site, they should be of a

standard that equates to the intellectual pulse of this beautiful city, providing and enhancing the

quality of life that attracts people to Bristol. We do not see this in the proposals and specifically in

the taller elements of the proposals. The proposals in both block and illustrative form are poor,

unimaginative and lacking in any elegance. We do not wish to see a repetition of the universally

condemned design of Castle View and its damage to Bristol’s skyline. As such these proposals

could be located anywhere as they show no local character or the distinctiveness of Bristol.

Design Quality

We whole heartily agree with HE`s comments regarding the design quality of the proposals. Block

A, especially as it is on the high point of the site, will affect Bristol’s skyline for the worse: both its

appearance and its ability to block views will disrupt the existing legibility and navigation of the city.

The frippery extending the height is entirely pointless and damaging. We would suggest further modelling / articulation of the form must take place including greater stepping of elements of the

design plus a review of the layouts. Slenderness is key to well-designed tall buildings as suggested

by HE as is the appropriateness of the proposed siting.

The uses and layouts are very basic which may cause the above problems. The footprints and floor

plans show a lack of imagination. Why are there no larger flats for an older generation and a mix of

types, such as duplexes and flats for later living? Where is the Bristol City Council`s city centre

apartment family housing design and tall buildings design codes to support delivery of high-quality

new homes in the city centre?

www.bristolcivicsociety.org.uk Registered charity No. 244414

The green spaces and landscape proposals give some reference back to the history of the site and

its connection to the medieval castle and its environment. Planting proposals should be rigorously

tested to ensure fitness and longevity in a changing climate and the microclimate being created by

the development. The reference to the castle keep, although clear on the landscape plans, is lost

within the building design and no recognition or reference is made in the elevational or building

plans. There is an intent within the proposals to reference St Peter`s Church and the Castle Keep in

the public realm and buildings on Newgate although we cannot see this in the proposals. The

medieval St Peters Church edges the city’s proposed new civic square and thus should have an

influence on the design of the proposals opposite. Some recognition of this heritage asset, its

architecture and its perpendicular style should translate into the new proposed designs.

Block B – PBSA above retail

The inclusion of well managed student accommodation helps the mix of uses here provided the

amount of PBSA in the broader area when aggregated does not drown out the existing and

emerging communities. Care should be taken to avoid ghost areas outside of term time. We would also hope the design can easily be converted to residential flats as and when the student numbers

decline. The scale of Block B is appropriate as it faces Broadmead but requires alteration along

Union Street where the height dominates and should be reduced to align with its neighbours on

Union Street. The elevation treatment again is bland even though the proposals are trying to add

colour with its use in creating a vertical emphasis. The vertical emphasis should have a better

relationship to the historic urban grain and the old burgage plots thus helping to create a Bristol

feel.

Block C – Retail

We welcome the designs for the Old Greyhound pub in Block C and the new arcade opening up to

the area of the old courtyard and onto the new performance and art space behind the almshouses.

However, the Broadmead street is overpowered by the dominance of the bland elevational

treatment of the development behind. There is a lack of thought in the skylines of the buildings,

they are very simple square flat roofs of no quality. A better design would have a different design to

the top and a reduction in scale as the buildings rise towards the sky.

Block D – Offices/Hotel above retail

The commercial Block D is of a more acceptable scale but needs alteration particularly adjacent to

the almshouses. The view from Broadmead has a better balance with its post war shopping centre

architecture and breaks the sky line in an interesting way, although again with no reduction or even

change of material to lighten the higher parts of the buildings.

Block E – Almshouse

The removal of the block mass of the shopping centre to the SW of the almshouses, Block E is

www.bristolcivicsociety.org.uk Registered charity No. 244414

welcomed, but we suggest the enclosure created by the new proposals to the NW and SE over

dominates the scale of the almshouses. A more coherent and softer approach should be

encouraged by further setting back the upper floors of blocks F and D and lowering the nearest

façade to align with the roof height of the almshouses. This would help to enhance the setting

better. However, its historic setting is one of tight built forms, terrace like and domestic in scale,

cheek by jowl with its neighbours. Therefore, would it not be more appropriate to tighten its

surroundings and lower its immediate neighbour buildings? We also hope the phasing doesn’t

relegate securing the future of the almshouses to a postscript to the redevelopment.

Block F – Offices above retail

The commercial office Block F provides a good contrast in design to the other blocks however we

believe there is an opportunity to establish a better relationship with its historic context and its

relationship to the river Frome and Castle Park. The overshadowing of the almshouses is a concern

especially as the proposals are intimating a wide sunny and bright external arts space behind which

it will not be.

Block G – Flats above retail

It is good to see dual aspects flats and the residential mix from studios to 2 bed flats in Block G

although again the elevational treatment is bland with no reference to the local character and the

distinctiveness of Bristol. Opportunities to provide colour in the design to help articulate and create

a vertical emphasis would improve the design and align with the history of the site and its historic

built forms.

Texture and Colour

All the images of the proposals show subtle colour shades to the blocks whereas the tones and

materials palettes in the documents relating to the blocks do not show this and in fact show no

colour. Which is it?

Skyline

All the building forms should address the skyline better and this should be in the design codes. Just

relying on the simplest form of a flat roof is an easy get out and one Bristol doesn’t need so let us

have some imagination and create a better place for us all to live in.

Conclusion

We had a presentation to our members from the developer which was welcome, not least because

this is a complicated scheme supported by a dense array of supporting documents. It is not an easy

package for development professionals to access never mind members of the public. But this is a

www.bristolcivicsociety.org.uk Registered charity No. 244414

hugely significant development for the future of central Bristol. It is a once in a generation

opportunity and demands careful consideration.

In doing so, it is important to appreciate what is being sought through this ‘hybrid’ planning

application. It is not a simple redline outline application establishing the principle of uses. Full

permission is being sought for the demolition of the existing buildings to ground floor level; a

detailed highways layout to provide access to the site; change of use of the existing basement to

provide flexible leisure space (sui generis nightclub / cinema / live music venue, Class E(d) indoor

sport or recreation, Class F1(e) exhibition hall) and ancillary uses (Class C1, Class C3, Class E, sui

generis purpose built student accommodation), car parking, cycle hub and servicing; change of use

of Merchant Taylors’ Almshouses to provide flexible Class E/ F1/ F2 use; all other items, including

the parameter plans are seeking outline permission.

This means that if the planning permission is approved, the height, scale, block locations and mass

of the outline scheme together with the amount of proposed floorspace will be established and

more than likely is what would be built. Leaving the consideration of such matters to when the

detailing of the scheme is seen would be too late. Now is the time to get it right.’

Unfortunately, the society cannot support the application in its present form until substantial

alterations are made to the fundamental issue of creating an appropriate scale of buildings

responding to the existing character and sensitivity of the surrounding townscape of Bristol.

Bristol Civic Society, July 2024

THE GALLERIES SHOPPING CENTRE, BROADMEAD, BRISTOL, BS1 3XAApplication No. 24/01850/P

The society reiterates our earlier comments made in 2022 regarding the overall development,especially its objection to the scale and height of the new proposals. Bristol City Council`s own citycentre development and delivery plan clearly indicates that `developments should be of anappropriate scale of buildings responding to the existing character and sensitivity of thesurrounding townscape, providing appropriate enclosure of the public realm, and withconsideration to overshadowing of neighbours.` There is also provision for taller buildings inappropriate locations, where taller buildings contribute positively to views and vistas, and where

impact on microclimate has been carefully considered. This is an important part of the city centreand one experienced by many in the city as well as visitors. It needs a correspondingly high-quality attractive development that underpins the city centre revival. We do not see theserequirements being met by these proposals.

Masterplan and Elevations - Design Codes

We note in the proposals that it is suggested the various blocks may well be sold off (if planning isapproved) to several different developers. As such, we feel the design codes are not sufficientlydetailed or prescriptive enough, especially in the elevational built form and identity sections, toensure what is built will be delivered, and we quote from the masterplan principles submitted withthe application, `high quality schemes that align with the aspirations established through theconsultation process with Bristol City Council, the local community and different stakeholders` or a`scale, built form and design of all buildings will contribute towards a positive sense of place for thedevelopment, that will be sensitive to its immediate neighbourhood, to key local views and tosurrounding heritage assets`. What has been submitted in our view will not deliver a distinctive,high quality and enjoyable place in the city. The design codes should provide better guidance onthe architecture, referencing the local character and distinctiveness of Bristol. The presentproposal in its disregard for quality elevations is a very introverted scheme and does not contributeto the city; it provides a lost opportunity and one that should be corrected.

There are a great number of potential benefits to this mixed-use scheme not just in the increasedhousing, commercial and leisure uses on the site but also bringing green spaces into the city anda more permeable approach to Castle Park from Broadmead. If the proposed phasing is adopted,then we would hope that Bristol City planners will condition the phasing to ensure the public realmis completed adjacent to the blocks before each building block is completed and occupied.

We welcome the permeability of the proposals and the establishment of connections to the citycentre. Although this moves away from the tight urban grain of the 18th century and earliermedieval plans, it does create the opportunity to reimagine this part of the city centre. Theproposed opening up of the site for the public, creating a better street pattern and connection toCastle Park, are good. The orientation of the blocks does help sun penetration in the new cityblock although only for a limited period of the day. The individual blocks could step back further tohelp provide more daylight into the new streets. Perhaps breaking back the corners of the site, in away similar to the original Galleries buildings would help open up the scheme and provide betteraccessibility and place making.

Height

Tall buildings need space around them, both for evacuation of inhabitants and to ensure themicroclimate allows for a comfortable environment avoiding both overshading and down draughts.We are unclear as to why the tallest part of the development, block A is on the highest part of the

site. This seems to be misplaced. Historic analysis of the site by previous planners and architectsindicated the tallest part of the development would be better at the Merchant Street end of the siteadjacent to the historic Newgate and outside the old city walls.

If the proposed buildings are to be taller than those existing on the site, they should be of astandard that equates to the intellectual pulse of this beautiful city, providing and enhancing thequality of life that attracts people to Bristol. We do not see this in the proposals and specifically inthe taller elements of the proposals. The proposals in both block and illustrative form are poor,unimaginative and lacking in any elegance. We do not wish to see a repetition of the universallycondemned design of Castle View and its damage to Bristol's skyline. As such these proposalscould be located anywhere as they show no local character or the distinctiveness of Bristol.

Design Quality

We whole heartily agree with HE`s comments regarding the design quality of the proposals. BlockA, especially as it is on the high point of the site, will affect Bristol's skyline for the worse: both itsappearance and its ability to block views will disrupt the existing legibility and navigation of the city.The frippery extending the height is entirely pointless and damaging. We would suggest furthermodelling / articulation of the form must take place including greater stepping of elements of thedesign plus a review of the layouts. Slenderness is key to well-designed tall buildings assuggested by HE as is the appropriateness of the proposed siting.

The uses and layouts are very basic which may cause the above problems. The footprints andfloor plans show a lack of imagination. Why are there no larger flats for an older generation and amix of types, such as duplexes and flats for later living? Where is the Bristol City Council`s citycentre apartment family housing design and tall buildings design codes to support delivery of high-quality new homes in the city centre?

The green spaces and landscape proposals give some reference back to the history of the siteand its connection to the medieval castle and its environment. Planting proposals should berigorously tested to ensure fitness and longevity in a changing climate and the microclimate beingcreated by the development. The reference to the castle keep, although clear on the landscapeplans, is lost within the building design and no recognition or reference is made in the elevationalor building plans. There is an intent within the proposals to reference St Peter`s Church and theCastle Keep in the public realm and buildings on Newgate although we cannot see this in theproposals. The medieval St Peters Church edges the city's proposed new civic square and thusshould have an influence on the design of the proposals opposite. Some recognition of thisheritage asset, its architecture and its perpendicular style should translate into the new proposeddesigns.

Block B - PBSA above retail

The inclusion of well managed student accommodation helps the mix of uses here provided theamount of PBSA in the broader area when aggregated does not drown out the existing andemerging communities. Care should be taken to avoid ghost areas outside of term time. We wouldalso hope the design can easily be converted to residential flats as and when the student numbersdecline. The scale of Block B is appropriate as it faces Broadmead but requires alteration alongUnion Street where the height dominates and should be reduced to align with its neighbours onUnion Street. The elevation treatment again is bland even though the proposals are trying to addcolour with its use in creating a vertical emphasis. The vertical emphasis should have a betterrelationship to the historic urban grain and the old burgage plots thus helping to create a Bristolfeel.

Block C - Retail

We welcome the designs for the Old Greyhound pub in Block C and the new arcade opening up tothe area of the old courtyard and onto the new performance and art space behind the almshouses.However, the Broadmead street is overpowered by the dominance of the bland elevationaltreatment of the development behind. There is a lack of thought in the skylines of the buildings,they are very simple square flat roofs of no quality. A better design would have a different designto the top and a reduction in scale as the buildings rise towards the sky.

Block D - Offices/Hotel above retail

The commercial Block D is of a more acceptable scale but needs alteration particularly adjacent tothe almshouses. The view from Broadmead has a better balance with its post war shopping centrearchitecture and breaks the sky line in an interesting way, although again with no reduction oreven change of material to lighten the higher parts of the buildings.

Block E - Almshouse

The removal of the block mass of the shopping centre to the SW of the almshouses, Block E iswelcomed, but we suggest the enclosure created by the new proposals to the NW and SE overdominates the scale of the almshouses. A more coherent and softer approach should beencouraged by further setting back the upper floors of blocks F and D and lowering the nearestfaçade to align with the roof height of the almshouses. This would help to enhance the settingbetter. However, its historic setting is one of tight built forms, terrace like and domestic in scale,cheek by jowl with its neighbours. Therefore, would it not be more appropriate to tighten itssurroundings and lower its immediate neighbour buildings? We also hope the phasing doesn'trelegate securing the future of the almshouses to a postscript to the redevelopment.

Block F - Offices above retail

The commercial office Block F provides a good contrast in design to the other blocks however we

believe there is an opportunity to establish a better relationship with its historic context and itsrelationship to the river Frome and Castle Park. The overshadowing of the almshouses is aconcern especially as the proposals are intimating a wide sunny and bright external arts spacebehind which it will not be.

Block G - Flats above retail

It is good to see dual aspects flats and the residential mix from studios to 2 bed flats in Block Galthough again the elevational treatment is bland with no reference to the local character and thedistinctiveness of Bristol. Opportunities to provide colour in the design to help articulate and createa vertical emphasis would improve the design and align with the history of the site and its historicbuilt forms.

Texture and Colour

All the images of the proposals show subtle colour shades to the blocks whereas the tones andmaterials palettes in the documents relating to the blocks do not show this and in fact show nocolour. Which is it?

Skyline

All the building forms should address the skyline better and this should be in the design codes.Just relying on the simplest form of a flat roof is an easy get out and one Bristol doesn't need solet us have some imagination and create a better place for us all to live in.

Conclusion

We had a presentation to our members from the developer which was welcome, not least becausethis is a complicated scheme supported by a dense array of supporting documents. It is not aneasy package for development professionals to access never mind members of the public. But thisis a hugely significant development for the future of central Bristol. It is a once in a generationopportunity and demands careful consideration.

In doing so, it is important to appreciate what is being sought through this 'hybrid' planningapplication. It is not a simple redline outline application establishing the principle of uses. Fullpermission is being sought for the demolition of the existing buildings to ground floor level; adetailed highways layout to provide access to the site; change of use of the existing basement toprovide flexible leisure space (sui generis nightclub / cinema / live music venue, Class E(d) indoorsport or recreation, Class F1(e) exhibition hall) and ancillary uses (Class C1, Class C3, Class E,sui generis purpose built student accommodation), car parking, cycle hub and servicing; change ofuse of Merchant Taylors' Almshouses to provide flexible Class E/ F1/ F2 use; all other items,including the parameter plans are seeking outline permission.

This means that if the planning permission is approved, the height, scale, block locations andmass of the outline scheme together with the amount of proposed floorspace will be establishedand more than likely is what would be built. Leaving the consideration of such matters to when thedetailing of the scheme is seen would be too late. Now is the time to get it right.'

Unfortunately, the society cannot support the application in its present form until substantialalterations are made to the fundamental issue of creating an appropriate scale of buildingsresponding to the existing character and sensitivity of the surrounding townscape of Bristol.

Bristol Civic Society, July 2024

THE GALLERIES SHOPPING CENTRE, BROADMEAD, BRISTOL, BS1 3XAApplication No. 24/01850/P

The society reiterates our earlier comments made in 2022 regarding the overall development,especially its objection to the scale and height of the new proposals. Bristol City Council`s own citycentre development and delivery plan clearly indicates that `developments should be of anappropriate scale of buildings responding to the existing character and sensitivity of thesurrounding townscape, providing appropriate enclosure of the public realm, and withconsideration to overshadowing of neighbours.` There is also provision for taller buildings inappropriate locations, where taller buildings contribute positively to views and vistas, and where

impact on microclimate has been carefully considered. This is an important part of the city centreand one experienced by many in the city as well as visitors. It needs a correspondingly high-quality attractive development that underpins the city centre revival. We do not see theserequirements being met by these proposals.

Masterplan and Elevations - Design Codes

We note in the proposals that it is suggested the various blocks may well be sold off (if planning isapproved) to several different developers. As such, we feel the design codes are not sufficientlydetailed or prescriptive enough, especially in the elevational built form and identity sections, toensure what is built will be delivered, and we quote from the masterplan principles submitted withthe application, `high quality schemes that align with the aspirations established through theconsultation process with Bristol City Council, the local community and different stakeholders` or a`scale, built form and design of all buildings will contribute towards a positive sense of place for thedevelopment, that will be sensitive to its immediate neighbourhood, to key local views and tosurrounding heritage assets`. What has been submitted in our view will not deliver a distinctive,high quality and enjoyable place in the city. The design codes should provide better guidance onthe architecture, referencing the local character and distinctiveness of Bristol. The presentproposal in its disregard for quality elevations is a very introverted scheme and does not contributeto the city; it provides a lost opportunity and one that should be corrected.

There are a great number of potential benefits to this mixed-use scheme not just in the increasedhousing, commercial and leisure uses on the site but also bringing green spaces into the city anda more permeable approach to Castle Park from Broadmead. If the proposed phasing is adopted,then we would hope that Bristol City planners will condition the phasing to ensure the public realmis completed adjacent to the blocks before each building block is completed and occupied.

We welcome the permeability of the proposals and the establishment of connections to the citycentre. Although this moves away from the tight urban grain of the 18th century and earliermedieval plans, it does create the opportunity to reimagine this part of the city centre. Theproposed opening up of the site for the public, creating a better street pattern and connection toCastle Park, are good. The orientation of the blocks does help sun penetration in the new cityblock although only for a limited period of the day. The individual blocks could step back further tohelp provide more daylight into the new streets. Perhaps breaking back the corners of the site, in away similar to the original Galleries buildings would help open up the scheme and provide betteraccessibility and place making.

Height

Tall buildings need space around them, both for evacuation of inhabitants and to ensure themicroclimate allows for a comfortable environment avoiding both overshading and down draughts.We are unclear as to why the tallest part of the development, block A is on the highest part of the

site. This seems to be misplaced. Historic analysis of the site by previous planners and architectsindicated the tallest part of the development would be better at the Merchant Street end of the siteadjacent to the historic Newgate and outside the old city walls.

If the proposed buildings are to be taller than those existing on the site, they should be of astandard that equates to the intellectual pulse of this beautiful city, providing and enhancing thequality of life that attracts people to Bristol. We do not see this in the proposals and specifically inthe taller elements of the proposals. The proposals in both block and illustrative form are poor,unimaginative and lacking in any elegance. We do not wish to see a repetition of the universallycondemned design of Castle View and its damage to Bristol's skyline. As such these proposalscould be located anywhere as they show no local character or the distinctiveness of Bristol.

Design Quality

We whole heartily agree with HE`s comments regarding the design quality of the proposals. BlockA, especially as it is on the high point of the site, will affect Bristol's skyline for the worse: both itsappearance and its ability to block views will disrupt the existing legibility and navigation of the city.The frippery extending the height is entirely pointless and damaging. We would suggest furthermodelling / articulation of the form must take place including greater stepping of elements of thedesign plus a review of the layouts. Slenderness is key to well-designed tall buildings assuggested by HE as is the appropriateness of the proposed siting.

The uses and layouts are very basic which may cause the above problems. The footprints andfloor plans show a lack of imagination. Why are there no larger flats for an older generation and amix of types, such as duplexes and flats for later living? Where is the Bristol City Council`s citycentre apartment family housing design and tall buildings design codes to support delivery of high-quality new homes in the city centre?

The green spaces and landscape proposals give some reference back to the history of the siteand its connection to the medieval castle and its environment. Planting proposals should berigorously tested to ensure fitness and longevity in a changing climate and the microclimate beingcreated by the development. The reference to the castle keep, although clear on the landscapeplans, is lost within the building design and no recognition or reference is made in the elevationalor building plans. There is an intent within the proposals to reference St Peter`s Church and theCastle Keep in the public realm and buildings on Newgate although we cannot see this in theproposals. The medieval St Peters Church edges the city's proposed new civic square and thusshould have an influence on the design of the proposals opposite. Some recognition of thisheritage asset, its architecture and its perpendicular style should translate into the new proposeddesigns.

Block B - PBSA above retail

The inclusion of well managed student accommodation helps the mix of uses here provided theamount of PBSA in the broader area when aggregated does not drown out the existing andemerging communities. Care should be taken to avoid ghost areas outside of term time. We wouldalso hope the design can easily be converted to residential flats as and when the student numbersdecline. The scale of Block B is appropriate as it faces Broadmead but requires alteration alongUnion Street where the height dominates and should be reduced to align with its neighbours onUnion Street. The elevation treatment again is bland even though the proposals are trying to addcolour with its use in creating a vertical emphasis. The vertical emphasis should have a betterrelationship to the historic urban grain and the old burgage plots thus helping to create a Bristolfeel.

Block C - Retail

We welcome the designs for the Old Greyhound pub in Block C and the new arcade opening up tothe area of the old courtyard and onto the new performance and art space behind the almshouses.However, the Broadmead street is overpowered by the dominance of the bland elevationaltreatment of the development behind. There is a lack of thought in the skylines of the buildings,they are very simple square flat roofs of no quality. A better design would have a different designto the top and a reduction in scale as the buildings rise towards the sky.

Block D - Offices/Hotel above retail

The commercial Block D is of a more acceptable scale but needs alteration particularly adjacent tothe almshouses. The view from Broadmead has a better balance with its post war shopping centrearchitecture and breaks the sky line in an interesting way, although again with no reduction oreven change of material to lighten the higher parts of the buildings.

Block E - Almshouse

The removal of the block mass of the shopping centre to the SW of the almshouses, Block E iswelcomed, but we suggest the enclosure created by the new proposals to the NW and SE overdominates the scale of the almshouses. A more coherent and softer approach should beencouraged by further setting back the upper floors of blocks F and D and lowering the nearestfaçade to align with the roof height of the almshouses. This would help to enhance the settingbetter. However, its historic setting is one of tight built forms, terrace like and domestic in scale,cheek by jowl with its neighbours. Therefore, would it not be more appropriate to tighten itssurroundings and lower its immediate neighbour buildings? We also hope the phasing doesn'trelegate securing the future of the almshouses to a postscript to the redevelopment.

Block F - Offices above retail

The commercial office Block F provides a good contrast in design to the other blocks however we

believe there is an opportunity to establish a better relationship with its historic context and itsrelationship to the river Frome and Castle Park. The overshadowing of the almshouses is aconcern especially as the proposals are intimating a wide sunny and bright external arts spacebehind which it will not be.

Block G - Flats above retail

It is good to see dual aspects flats and the residential mix from studios to 2 bed flats in Block Galthough again the elevational treatment is bland with no reference to the local character and thedistinctiveness of Bristol. Opportunities to provide colour in the design to help articulate and createa vertical emphasis would improve the design and align with the history of the site and its historicbuilt forms.

Texture and Colour

All the images of the proposals show subtle colour shades to the blocks whereas the tones andmaterials palettes in the documents relating to the blocks do not show this and in fact show nocolour. Which is it?

Skyline

All the building forms should address the skyline better and this should be in the design codes.Just relying on the simplest form of a flat roof is an easy get out and one Bristol doesn't need solet us have some imagination and create a better place for us all to live in.

Conclusion

We had a presentation to our members from the developer which was welcome, not least becausethis is a complicated scheme supported by a dense array of supporting documents. It is not aneasy package for development professionals to access never mind members of the public. But thisis a hugely significant development for the future of central Bristol. It is a once in a generationopportunity and demands careful consideration.

In doing so, it is important to appreciate what is being sought through this 'hybrid' planningapplication. It is not a simple redline outline application establishing the principle of uses. Fullpermission is being sought for the demolition of the existing buildings to ground floor level; adetailed highways layout to provide access to the site; change of use of the existing basement toprovide flexible leisure space (sui generis nightclub / cinema / live music venue, Class E(d) indoorsport or recreation, Class F1(e) exhibition hall) and ancillary uses (Class C1, Class C3, Class E,sui generis purpose built student accommodation), car parking, cycle hub and servicing; change ofuse of Merchant Taylors' Almshouses to provide flexible Class E/ F1/ F2 use; all other items,including the parameter plans are seeking outline permission.

This means that if the planning permission is approved, the height, scale, block locations andmass of the outline scheme together with the amount of proposed floorspace will be establishedand more than likely is what would be built. Leaving the consideration of such matters to when thedetailing of the scheme is seen would be too late. Now is the time to get it right.'

Unfortunately, the society cannot support the application in its present form until substantialalterations are made to the fundamental issue of creating an appropriate scale of buildingsresponding to the existing character and sensitivity of the surrounding townscape of Bristol.

This looks like a great scheme and I fully support it. I have no issue with the heightparticularly as housing is so badly needed, and really like how it will offer so much while improvingthe area so much. I look forward to seeing it built.

This looks like a great scheme and I fully support it. I have no issue with the heightparticularly as housing is so badly needed, and really like how it will offer so much while improvingthe area so much. I look forward to seeing it built.

I object to this outline proposal for the following reasons:

1. The buildings are all quite out of scale with buildings of prevailing height in the vicinity (WineStreet, Newgate, Broad Weir, Quakers Friars), which goes against the Council's 2023 Bristol CityCentre Development and Delivery Plan (CDDP). The bulk and height will have a serious negativeimpact on nearby locations (Castle Park, Wine Street, Union Street, Merchant TaylorsAlmshouses, Quakers Friars), and will have a significant detrimental impact on longer views of thecity, e.g. from Kingsdown and Totterdown.

2. Central Bristol already has too many tower buildings and is starting to lose its special characteras a low-rise city. It could be argued that Castle Park View served the function described in theaforementioned CDDP, of creating a new landmark at a key gateway - but it does not need to be

joined by others, or it will cease to be a landmark. And a Green-led Council should in any caserecognise that buildings of over ten storeys or so have a significantly greater environmental cost interms of both embedded carbon and lifetime energy usage. High-rise buildings approved by theprevious, Mayor-led administration must not be allowed to set a precedent for future development.

I object to this outline proposal for the following reasons:

1. The buildings are all quite out of scale with buildings of prevailing height in the vicinity (WineStreet, Newgate, Broad Weir, Quakers Friars), which goes against the Council's 2023 Bristol CityCentre Development and Delivery Plan (CDDP). The bulk and height will have a serious negativeimpact on nearby locations (Castle Park, Wine Street, Union Street, Merchant TaylorsAlmshouses, Quakers Friars), and will have a significant detrimental impact on longer views of thecity, e.g. from Kingsdown and Totterdown.

2. Central Bristol already has too many tower buildings and is starting to lose its special characteras a low-rise city. It could be argued that Castle Park View served the function described in theaforementioned CDDP, of creating a new landmark at a key gateway - but it does not need to be

joined by others, or it will cease to be a landmark. And a Green-led Council should in any caserecognise that buildings of over ten storeys or so have a significantly greater environmental cost interms of both embedded carbon and lifetime energy usage. High-rise buildings approved by theprevious, Mayor-led administration must not be allowed to set a precedent for future development.

I would like to establish which is more important to BCS; functionality of interior, orappearance of the exterior, but it appears that BCS are concerned with outward aesthetics ofbuildings, than they are about the purpose for which they are built...how they perform for theoccupants.

Living on Wine Street, We are going to be more affected by the build than most...we would like tosee disruption minimised and meaningful inconvenience-mitigating measures in place. We areless concerned about the height of the buildings than BCS, who seem to focus on buildingaesthetics, rather than how a building works for its purpose. Floor counting, mass assessing andgraining geeks are a consideration, but are less important that the overall performance of abuilding.

When viewed from Castle Park, the Galleries carpark, with a facade that looks unfinished, ispossibly the ugliest building in Old City, making redevelopment necessary to improvement thestreet scene.

The proposed buildings will bring a refreshing change to an otherwise drab, dysfunctional block,giving much needed active frontage along Newgate, which will create vibrancy and a new excitingdynamic in the area. The connection with Castle Park needs to be carefully crafted to blendsympathetically with the park and to avoid unnatural level changes...harmonious integration hereis essential for comfortable pedestrian flow. Additionally, to improve pedestrian safety, thereshould be not be a dedicated cycle route up or down Newgate...pedestrians deserve some cycle-free space in BS1.

Union Street needs to be kept oneway to improve pedestrian flow and safety, which would beseverely compromised if, as suggested, it became two-way. The new development, with anincreased nighttime economy, no integrated parking and reduced traffic flows, will likely lead togreater footfall, this will require wider, not narrower footpaths, as a two-way Union Street wouldnecessitate.

The extensive student accommodation proposed, would skew the demographic in theneighbourhood, leading to limited non-student activities, shopping choices and greater societaldivision and social stratification.

I would like to establish which is more important to BCS; functionality of interior, orappearance of the exterior, but it appears that BCS are concerned with outward aesthetics ofbuildings, than they are about the purpose for which they are built...how they perform for theoccupants.

Living on Wine Street, We are going to be more affected by the build than most...we would like tosee disruption minimised and meaningful inconvenience-mitigating measures in place. We areless concerned about the height of the buildings than BCS, who seem to focus on buildingaesthetics, rather than how a building works for its purpose. Floor counting, mass assessing andgraining geeks are a consideration, but are less important that the overall performance of abuilding.

When viewed from Castle Park, the Galleries carpark, with a facade that looks unfinished, ispossibly the ugliest building in Old City, making redevelopment necessary to improvement thestreet scene.

The proposed buildings will bring a refreshing change to an otherwise drab, dysfunctional block,giving much needed active frontage along Newgate, which will create vibrancy and a new excitingdynamic in the area. The connection with Castle Park needs to be carefully crafted to blendsympathetically with the park and to avoid unnatural level changes...harmonious integration hereis essential for comfortable pedestrian flow. Additionally, to improve pedestrian safety, thereshould be not be a dedicated cycle route up or down Newgate...pedestrians deserve some cycle-free space in BS1.

Union Street needs to be kept oneway to improve pedestrian flow and safety, which would beseverely compromised if, as suggested, it became two-way. The new development, with anincreased nighttime economy, no integrated parking and reduced traffic flows, will likely lead togreater footfall, this will require wider, not narrower footpaths, as a two-way Union Street wouldnecessitate.

The extensive student accommodation proposed, would skew the demographic in theneighbourhood, leading to limited non-student activities, shopping choices and greater societaldivision and social stratification.

The Kingsdown Conservation Group objects to this application.

While we note that this is an outline application, with all matters reserved save access, theapplicant has submitted a comprehensive set of documents which we feel justifies commenting ontheir intentions as a whole.

For sustainability reasons we would have preferred to see the existing Galleries extensivelyrepurposed but have to accept that until such time that the NPPF is updated, to take into accountembodied carbon, reuse of an existing is unlikely to be considered by developers.

Our principal objection to the current proposal is that it disregards the guidance set out in therecently adopted Bristol City Centre Development and Delivery Plan (endorsed by BCC Council in

December 2023). The purpose of this plan is "to guide future regeneration, development andimprovement works". In the section "Approach: Height and Microclimate" (page 63), Figure 41 setsout "potential building scale parameters". The Galleries site is identified as having potential for amix of "areas of prevailing height" and "areas of amplified height" with "potential for contextual tallbuildings to be determined through the tall building strategy". BCC Urban Living SPD page 27defines "prevailing building heights" as "the most commonly occurring height of buildings within anarea of common character", while buildings of "amplified height" are "buildings that are modestlyhigher than the prevailing building height, up to 1.5 x prevailing height is areas of uniform height orup to 2 x prevailing height in areas of varied height". Looking at Drawing PL023 Existing ElevationBroadmead it is clear that the existing Galleries is already building of "amplified height, being overtwice the height of the buildings of prevailing height (as identified in Figure 41) . This being thecase one would expect the heights of proposed new buildings to be no greater than the existingGalleries which would also make it contextually in keeping with the adjacent redevelopment ofQuakers Friars. Yet the proposed buildings (excluding the tower) are vastly higher that this, beingthree and four times higher than the buildings of prevailing height. The result is a set of buildingsthat are contextually completely out of keeping with their setting due to their excessive height,scale and bulk. That this would be case is made abundantly clear in the numerous visualisationsthat show how oppressive the buildings will appear when seen, for instance, from Union Street, StJames Park, across Castle Park or as they tower over the listed Merchant Taylors' Almhouses.

Which brings us to the tower. Why is it that every new development has to include one? Yes, thenew development plan allows for tall buildings to be considered but only if they "contributepositively to the character of the wider built form and views (for example, creating new landmarksat key gateways) and do not impact negatively on their immediate surroundings". This is clearlynot the case with this tower. Existing buildings along Broad Weir, Newgate and Wine Street are allof a relatively consistent height, so contextually the siting of the new tower appears arbitrary andwilful. It is not needed as a "wayfinder", nor is its design of sufficient merit for it to become aniconic feature of the city. Looming up it will negatively impact the setting of St Peter's Church anddiminish the visual impact of the church tower, as well as diminishing the setting of historicchurches in the old centre (when viewed along Corn Street). Views across the city would also besignificantly damaged. Historic views across the city down both Marlborough Hill and Alfred Hillwould be blocked by the development. This, combined with the loss of a city view down MontagueHill (which will be blocked by proposed towers on the Debenhams and Premier Inn sites), wouldmean that many of the views from the Kingsdown escarpment, long enjoyed by the public, wouldbe lost when they should have been protected.

Given the climate crisis it is irresponsible to allow buildings of more than ten storeys. The amountof energy entailed in the construction of tall buildings is significantly more, as are the lifetimeenergy costs. Unsustainable construction cannot be justified simply because the buildings will belinked to the district heating system. This amounts to "greenwashing".

In terms of design and layout the buildings are perhaps a bit generic, with no real response to

context. In particular they fail to respond to the opportunities offered by the road closure whichoffers improved links to the park. Little attempt has been made to bring down the vast height of thebuildings to a more human scale by, for instance, setting back upper floors or changingconstruction materials (as has been done successfully in the Quakers Friars development). Thespaces between the buildings, which look pleasant enough in the sketch drawings, would in realityfeel dark and oppressive due to the excessive height of the buildings in relation to the width of thespaces.

In conclusion we feel the proposal is completely at odds with the newly adopted City CentreDevelopment and Delivery Plan. As one of the first tests of this new plan it is surely important thatits aims are followed rather than ignored? Otherwise what is the point of having a plan? Thisproposal fails to satisfy a number of its key Strategies and will make both Broadmead and CastlePark less pleasant places to be.

Please refuse this application.

The Kingsdown Conservation Group objects to this application.

While we note that this is an outline application, with all matters reserved save access, theapplicant has submitted a comprehensive set of documents which we feel justifies commenting ontheir intentions as a whole.

For sustainability reasons we would have preferred to see the existing Galleries extensivelyrepurposed but have to accept that until such time that the NPPF is updated, to take into accountembodied carbon, reuse of an existing is unlikely to be considered by developers.

Our principal objection to the current proposal is that it disregards the guidance set out in therecently adopted Bristol City Centre Development and Delivery Plan (endorsed by BCC Council in

December 2023). The purpose of this plan is "to guide future regeneration, development andimprovement works". In the section "Approach: Height and Microclimate" (page 63), Figure 41 setsout "potential building scale parameters". The Galleries site is identified as having potential for amix of "areas of prevailing height" and "areas of amplified height" with "potential for contextual tallbuildings to be determined through the tall building strategy". BCC Urban Living SPD page 27defines "prevailing building heights" as "the most commonly occurring height of buildings within anarea of common character", while buildings of "amplified height" are "buildings that are modestlyhigher than the prevailing building height, up to 1.5 x prevailing height is areas of uniform height orup to 2 x prevailing height in areas of varied height". Looking at Drawing PL023 Existing ElevationBroadmead it is clear that the existing Galleries is already building of "amplified height, being overtwice the height of the buildings of prevailing height (as identified in Figure 41) . This being thecase one would expect the heights of proposed new buildings to be no greater than the existingGalleries which would also make it contextually in keeping with the adjacent redevelopment ofQuakers Friars. Yet the proposed buildings (excluding the tower) are vastly higher that this, beingthree and four times higher than the buildings of prevailing height. The result is a set of buildingsthat are contextually completely out of keeping with their setting due to their excessive height,scale and bulk. That this would be case is made abundantly clear in the numerous visualisationsthat show how oppressive the buildings will appear when seen, for instance, from Union Street, StJames Park, across Castle Park or as they tower over the listed Merchant Taylors' Almhouses.

Which brings us to the tower. Why is it that every new development has to include one? Yes, thenew development plan allows for tall buildings to be considered but only if they "contributepositively to the character of the wider built form and views (for example, creating new landmarksat key gateways) and do not impact negatively on their immediate surroundings". This is clearlynot the case with this tower. Existing buildings along Broad Weir, Newgate and Wine Street are allof a relatively consistent height, so contextually the siting of the new tower appears arbitrary andwilful. It is not needed as a "wayfinder", nor is its design of sufficient merit for it to become aniconic feature of the city. Looming up it will negatively impact the setting of St Peter's Church anddiminish the visual impact of the church tower, as well as diminishing the setting of historicchurches in the old centre (when viewed along Corn Street). Views across the city would also besignificantly damaged. Historic views across the city down both Marlborough Hill and Alfred Hillwould be blocked by the development. This, combined with the loss of a city view down MontagueHill (which will be blocked by proposed towers on the Debenhams and Premier Inn sites), wouldmean that many of the views from the Kingsdown escarpment, long enjoyed by the public, wouldbe lost when they should have been protected.

Given the climate crisis it is irresponsible to allow buildings of more than ten storeys. The amountof energy entailed in the construction of tall buildings is significantly more, as are the lifetimeenergy costs. Unsustainable construction cannot be justified simply because the buildings will belinked to the district heating system. This amounts to "greenwashing".

In terms of design and layout the buildings are perhaps a bit generic, with no real response to

context. In particular they fail to respond to the opportunities offered by the road closure whichoffers improved links to the park. Little attempt has been made to bring down the vast height of thebuildings to a more human scale by, for instance, setting back upper floors or changingconstruction materials (as has been done successfully in the Quakers Friars development). Thespaces between the buildings, which look pleasant enough in the sketch drawings, would in realityfeel dark and oppressive due to the excessive height of the buildings in relation to the width of thespaces.

In conclusion we feel the proposal is completely at odds with the newly adopted City CentreDevelopment and Delivery Plan. As one of the first tests of this new plan it is surely important thatits aims are followed rather than ignored? Otherwise what is the point of having a plan? Thisproposal fails to satisfy a number of its key Strategies and will make both Broadmead and CastlePark less pleasant places to be.

Please refuse this application.

The Panel objects to this application.

This is a holding comment as the Panel requires further time to assess this application and will beproviding additional comment. It is noted that the majority of Castle Park is both a local HistoricPark and Garden and a Scheduled Ancient Monument plus there are significant listed buildingswithin the immediate vicinity of the site.

As a starting point re-development of this site is accepted. However, this is a monumental scale ofdevelopment that is completely inappropriate in terms of height, scale and mass and cannot besupported.

This building must mainly be objected to on grounds of its ugliness and its impact onCastle Park. It really is hardly credible that Bristol will shoot iself in the foot by allowing one of itscore assets, so much loved by ordinary people and such a focus for tourists, to be bordered bythis immensely tall and hideous building, which will completely overwhelm it. Surely by now wehave learned that beauty matters, that Bristol's prosperity depends at least partly on itsattractiveness, its charm, that like many other European rich cities, wealth partly graces thembecause people really like being in them, and are drawn to settle in them. People enjoy walkingabout in our charming city, and enjoy its parks and its views - but also, hopefully, recognize thatthis charm is highly vulnerable and can easily be spoiled by banal, characterless development aswas encouraged by the previous mayor and of which this is the latest unfortunate manifestation.Let us stop this nonsense now and preserve our assets for the future, and please, let us havesome ambition for our city.

The Panel objects to this application.

This is a holding comment as the Panel requires further time to assess this application and will beproviding additional comment. It is noted that the majority of Castle Park is both a local HistoricPark and Garden and a Scheduled Ancient Monument plus there are significant listed buildingswithin the immediate vicinity of the site.

As a starting point re-development of this site is accepted. However, this is a monumental scale ofdevelopment that is completely inappropriate in terms of height, scale and mass and cannot besupported.

This building must mainly be objected to on grounds of its ugliness and its impact onCastle Park. It really is hardly credible that Bristol will shoot iself in the foot by allowing one of itscore assets, so much loved by ordinary people and such a focus for tourists, to be bordered bythis immensely tall and hideous building, which will completely overwhelm it. Surely by now wehave learned that beauty matters, that Bristol's prosperity depends at least partly on itsattractiveness, its charm, that like many other European rich cities, wealth partly graces thembecause people really like being in them, and are drawn to settle in them. People enjoy walkingabout in our charming city, and enjoy its parks and its views - but also, hopefully, recognize thatthis charm is highly vulnerable and can easily be spoiled by banal, characterless development aswas encouraged by the previous mayor and of which this is the latest unfortunate manifestation.Let us stop this nonsense now and preserve our assets for the future, and please, let us havesome ambition for our city.

the tall building is much too tall.

I object strongly to the height of the proposed development.It will tower over Castle Park in a menacing manner - however you wrap it up in elegant language.Bristol's skyline is currently pleasing. We should not be spoiling it with towers 21 floors high.(Aesthetically it is abhorrent and socially it leads to social isolation/exclusion)PLEASE REJECT this application. 10 floors is high enough. We can obtain density in other ways.

the tall building is much too tall.

I object strongly to the height of the proposed development.It will tower over Castle Park in a menacing manner - however you wrap it up in elegant language.Bristol's skyline is currently pleasing. We should not be spoiling it with towers 21 floors high.(Aesthetically it is abhorrent and socially it leads to social isolation/exclusion)PLEASE REJECT this application. 10 floors is high enough. We can obtain density in other ways.

There is much to support in the proposals: an outward-facing scheme to replace theinward-facing Galleries, the far better links to Castle Park, the mix of uses (if actually delivered!),the clever ideas about managing the slope etc. However:

- I object to the considerable height of the student housing block. It should be the same height asother blocks.- The domination of student accommodation in Nelson Street and the related uses have seriouslydamaged the quality of that street, so the same could well happen with the amount of studenthousing now suggested. This is unacceptable- This is a large enough project for overall viability to be achieved even if the studentaccommodation is reduced. That could be done by juggling the other uses. This should be done.- The Design Code is good but I object because it appears to suggest one code for all the new

development when the context is such that variety of design detail is needed.

There is much to support in the proposals: an outward-facing scheme to replace theinward-facing Galleries, the far better links to Castle Park, the mix of uses (if actually delivered!),the clever ideas about managing the slope etc. However:

- I object to the considerable height of the student housing block. It should be the same height asother blocks.- The domination of student accommodation in Nelson Street and the related uses have seriouslydamaged the quality of that street, so the same could well happen with the amount of studenthousing now suggested. This is unacceptable- This is a large enough project for overall viability to be achieved even if the studentaccommodation is reduced. That could be done by juggling the other uses. This should be done.- The Design Code is good but I object because it appears to suggest one code for all the new

development when the context is such that variety of design detail is needed.

Detailed Response

I am a Designing Out Crime Officer (DOCO) with a responsibility for Crime Prevention ThroughEnvironmental Design (CPTED) projects within the Bristol area. As a Constabulary we offer adviceand guidance on how the built environment can influence crime and disorder.

Paragraphs 96, 101 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework December 2023 requirecrime and disorder and fear of crime to be considered in the design stage of a development. Otherparagraphs such as 8, 110, 112, 114, 116, and 123 also require the creation of safe environmentswithin the context of the appropriate section.

The Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy (adopted June 2011) states that one of the

overarching issue for ensuring a sustainable future is reducing the opportunity for crime.

The National Model Design Code produced by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and LocalGovernment states that all schemes should aim to create a safe and secure environment andprovide a sense of security for all users (paragraph 63).

Bristol Local Plan - Site Allocations and Development Management Policies - (Adopted July 2014)section DM28: Public Realm states that Development should create or contribute to a safe,attractive, high quality, inclusive and legible public realm that contributes positively to localcharacter and identity and encourages appropriate levels of activity and social interaction. Section4 adds that development will be expected to: Reduce crime and fear of crime by creating a well-surveyed public realm that is well managed and cared for;

Section 17 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a duty on an authority to consider crime anddisorder implications.

(1) Without prejudice to any other obligation imposed on it, it shall be the duty of each authority towhich this section applies to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of theexercise of those functions on, and the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent,(a)crime and disorder in its area (including anti-social and other behaviour adversely affecting thelocal environment); and(b)the misuse of drugs, alcohol and other substances in its area and(c)re-offending in its area and(d)serious violence in its area.The duty imposed on an authority by subsection (1) to do all it reasonably can to prevent seriousviolence in its area is a duty on the authority to do all it reasonably can to-(a)prevent people from becoming involved in serious violence in its area, and(b)reduce instances of serious violence in its area.

I have viewed the planning application and have the following comments.

- We welcome the early consultation with our department and the Counter Terrorism SecurityAdvisor (CTSA) and acknowledge the contents of the DAS and Security Risk Assessment. Wewould just like to draw your attention to the reference regarding The Bridwell Police Station in thatdocument (p.24). The Bridewell police station is a base for officers and staff. They would generallybe responding to calls for service or on patrol on their relevant beats, it should not be a given thatthe proximity of the station would result in a quick police response time.- We look forward to the reserved matters stage at which stage there will be more details andpossible further comments to be added by our department.- I would also like to remind the applicant that we can provide guidance on the police initiativeSecured by Design from the outset www.securedbydesign.com

If there are any questions concerning these comments, then please feel free to contact me.

Peter WozniakDesigning Out Crime Officer.

I am writing to formally object to the aforementioned planning application. Afterreviewing the proposal and considering its implications, I am compelled to voice my concernsregarding several aspects of the development that I believe will adversely affect our community.

Pressure on Local Services:The current infrastructure, particularly the local GP practices in Broadmead, is already stretchedthin, with services being significantly oversubscribed. The proposed development will inevitablylead to an increase in local population density, exacerbating this issue further. It is disappointingthat the local council has not yet addressed these concerns adequately. Additional healthcarefacilities must be considered to mitigate this impact.

Impact on Local Traffic and Congestion:

As highlighted in previous objections, the scale of the proposed development will significantlyincrease traffic and congestion in the area. Broadmead is already known for its busy streets, andwithout a robust plan to manage this increased demand, the development could lead to significantdisruptions and decreased quality of life for existing residents.

Rights to Light and Air:The design of Tower A raises significant concerns regarding the rights to light and air for thesurrounding properties. The height and placement of this building may infringe upon our legalentitlements. We are currently considering all legal options and will explore potential actions if it isdetermined that our rights are indeed being breached.

Property Act 1925 and Restrictive Covenants:In accordance with the Property Act of 1925, we will be examining the restrictive covenantsassociated with the land intended for development. It is crucial to ensure that the developmentadheres to the original intended use of the land. Should any discrepancies arise, we will appeal tothe Master of the Lands to enforce these restrictions strictly.

I trust that the planning committee will consider these objections seriously and recognize thepotential negative impacts of this development on the Broadmead community. It is imperative thatany development respects the needs and rights of existing residents and integrates smoothly intothe fabric of our community.

Thank you for considering my objections.

Yours sincerely,

I am writing to formally object to the aforementioned planning application. Afterreviewing the proposal and considering its implications, I am compelled to voice my concernsregarding several aspects of the development that I believe will adversely affect our community.

Pressure on Local Services:The current infrastructure, particularly the local GP practices in Broadmead, is already stretchedthin, with services being significantly oversubscribed. The proposed development will inevitablylead to an increase in local population density, exacerbating this issue further. It is disappointingthat the local council has not yet addressed these concerns adequately. Additional healthcarefacilities must be considered to mitigate this impact.

Impact on Local Traffic and Congestion:

As highlighted in previous objections, the scale of the proposed development will significantlyincrease traffic and congestion in the area. Broadmead is already known for its busy streets, andwithout a robust plan to manage this increased demand, the development could lead to significantdisruptions and decreased quality of life for existing residents.

Rights to Light and Air:The design of Tower A raises significant concerns regarding the rights to light and air for thesurrounding properties. The height and placement of this building may infringe upon our legalentitlements. We are currently considering all legal options and will explore potential actions if it isdetermined that our rights are indeed being breached.

Property Act 1925 and Restrictive Covenants:In accordance with the Property Act of 1925, we will be examining the restrictive covenantsassociated with the land intended for development. It is crucial to ensure that the developmentadheres to the original intended use of the land. Should any discrepancies arise, we will appeal tothe Master of the Lands to enforce these restrictions strictly.

I trust that the planning committee will consider these objections seriously and recognize thepotential negative impacts of this development on the Broadmead community. It is imperative thatany development respects the needs and rights of existing residents and integrates smoothly intothe fabric of our community.

Thank you for considering my objections.

Yours sincerely,

The enormous size and scale of the proposed development are totally out of keepingwith the surrounding buildings, parkland and heritage assets.

The enormous size and scale of the proposed development are totally out of keepingwith the surrounding buildings, parkland and heritage assets.

I am a supporter of a scheme like this in principle that provides a large number ofhomes and redevelops underused space, but I was disappointed that there was barely anyinformation on how and what types of affordable housing will be committed to in this scheme aspart of the 20% that has been vaguely offered. For such a big impactful project it seems like thedeveloper should have at least done some research into what kinds of affordable homes would bemost needed in that area, and made some more solid commitments in their statement.

In principle, I think redeveloping the galleries site is a great idea and can be the catalystfor regeneration of Broadmead, however from the current plans the sheer scale of the largesttower seems out of proportion with the city-scape. The breadth and height of the proposed towerdominates the skyline in the images presented. Either a shorter tower block or a narrower, moreelegant tower may be more in keeping with the city.

Additionally, the way tower blocks have recently been built in Bristol, I am concerned about a lackof imagination in design of the tower, especially with a building of the sheer scale proposed. Iknow the design has not been created by the developer yet, but I hope when they get to thatstage, the design is sympathetic to the historical nature of the area and castle park. Rather thanusing concrete to create another mundane, overbearing tower block, why not lean into thematerials in the broader area such as Cotswold stone to fit in with the surrounding historical

buildings, or create something modern and cutting edge to compliment the skyline?

Object to plans, new plans for building are awful, building far to big.Taking more retail away from city is wrong, as a city centre, need to help rebuild them, not takemore away.

With the plans going a head with the debenhams building, don't feel more student housing isneeded.

What is described as 'affordable accommodation' is a promise I would like to see, but what wouldbe the bench mark long term, for it not to be taken advantage of once built?

I am a supporter of a scheme like this in principle that provides a large number ofhomes and redevelops underused space, but I was disappointed that there was barely anyinformation on how and what types of affordable housing will be committed to in this scheme aspart of the 20% that has been vaguely offered. For such a big impactful project it seems like thedeveloper should have at least done some research into what kinds of affordable homes would bemost needed in that area, and made some more solid commitments in their statement.

In principle, I think redeveloping the galleries site is a great idea and can be the catalystfor regeneration of Broadmead, however from the current plans the sheer scale of the largesttower seems out of proportion with the city-scape. The breadth and height of the proposed towerdominates the skyline in the images presented. Either a shorter tower block or a narrower, moreelegant tower may be more in keeping with the city.

Additionally, the way tower blocks have recently been built in Bristol, I am concerned about a lackof imagination in design of the tower, especially with a building of the sheer scale proposed. Iknow the design has not been created by the developer yet, but I hope when they get to thatstage, the design is sympathetic to the historical nature of the area and castle park. Rather thanusing concrete to create another mundane, overbearing tower block, why not lean into thematerials in the broader area such as Cotswold stone to fit in with the surrounding historical

buildings, or create something modern and cutting edge to compliment the skyline?

Object to plans, new plans for building are awful, building far to big.Taking more retail away from city is wrong, as a city centre, need to help rebuild them, not takemore away.

With the plans going a head with the debenhams building, don't feel more student housing isneeded.

What is described as 'affordable accommodation' is a promise I would like to see, but what wouldbe the bench mark long term, for it not to be taken advantage of once built?

The proposed development is entirely out of character with the surroundingenvironment. Of particular issue is the height of the proposed developments, which are vastly outof proportion with the surrounding area and will blight sight-lines.

The potential height and size will further add to the problem of 'downdraft effect' in this area.

Bristol has enough tall buildings already. An area with excessively tall buildings willdrive me away. I think the height of buildings in Wine Street as well as Broad Weir are plenty highenough. I think the re-development of the Galleries should be kept to a maximum of six floors. Iwould personally feel uncomfortable using a high-rise destination. We do not want to create a'New York-on-Avon'.

The oldest parts of the City are at significant risk of being badly developed in my view.Over-sized, modern buildings jar with the historical context (the St Mary le Port development is aclear example of this). Bristol is blessed with wonderful historical sites and it is critical that they arecelebrated by the developments our generation put forward. This site is close to Castle Park, StMary Le Port, Corn Street, and St John's on the Wall so care needs to be taken in developing theGalleried. There is an opportunity to convert a tired and uninspiring complex (The Galleries) intosomething that celebrates the history of the area it is situated in. The plans suggest the developerhas overlooked the opportunity to celebrate the history of the area by proposing a building that isalready obviously much too large. More refinement is needed before even outline plans areprogressed in my opinion.

The designs for this are not in keeping with the local aesthetic, and the sheer size ofthat which is proposed will put Castle park mostly under shadow for a vast proportion of each day.

This will damage trees and plants on the park along with spoiling the enjoyment of the area forthose who frequent it during the daytime hours

The Galleries is about as tall a building that this area can sustain without removing light from thepark and I feel the developers should be forced to reconsider

I've been driven to write in support of the scheme following today's Bristol 247 articlethat shows the block images of the proposed scheme while carefully hiding the much lessoffensive mock images far down at the bottom beneath the adverts. I really like the proposals, themix of uses, the day and night focus, bringing people back into the city centre, and making muchbetter use of the space. The essence of the article is it's too tall but I think the mock image lookgood and taking a few floors off would make little difference. II'd like to see less student howeverthere's a clear need and far better here than in family homes across Bristol.

The proposed development is entirely out of character with the surroundingenvironment. Of particular issue is the height of the proposed developments, which are vastly outof proportion with the surrounding area and will blight sight-lines.

The potential height and size will further add to the problem of 'downdraft effect' in this area.

Bristol has enough tall buildings already. An area with excessively tall buildings willdrive me away. I think the height of buildings in Wine Street as well as Broad Weir are plenty highenough. I think the re-development of the Galleries should be kept to a maximum of six floors. Iwould personally feel uncomfortable using a high-rise destination. We do not want to create a'New York-on-Avon'.

The oldest parts of the City are at significant risk of being badly developed in my view.Over-sized, modern buildings jar with the historical context (the St Mary le Port development is aclear example of this). Bristol is blessed with wonderful historical sites and it is critical that they arecelebrated by the developments our generation put forward. This site is close to Castle Park, StMary Le Port, Corn Street, and St John's on the Wall so care needs to be taken in developing theGalleried. There is an opportunity to convert a tired and uninspiring complex (The Galleries) intosomething that celebrates the history of the area it is situated in. The plans suggest the developerhas overlooked the opportunity to celebrate the history of the area by proposing a building that isalready obviously much too large. More refinement is needed before even outline plans areprogressed in my opinion.

The designs for this are not in keeping with the local aesthetic, and the sheer size ofthat which is proposed will put Castle park mostly under shadow for a vast proportion of each day.

This will damage trees and plants on the park along with spoiling the enjoyment of the area forthose who frequent it during the daytime hours

The Galleries is about as tall a building that this area can sustain without removing light from thepark and I feel the developers should be forced to reconsider

I've been driven to write in support of the scheme following today's Bristol 247 articlethat shows the block images of the proposed scheme while carefully hiding the much lessoffensive mock images far down at the bottom beneath the adverts. I really like the proposals, themix of uses, the day and night focus, bringing people back into the city centre, and making muchbetter use of the space. The essence of the article is it's too tall but I think the mock image lookgood and taking a few floors off would make little difference. II'd like to see less student howeverthere's a clear need and far better here than in family homes across Bristol.

Preliminary Comments – 11 June 2024

2

The baseline tree habitat

The applicant’s evidence identifies 19 trees within the redline boundary. All of these are owned

and managed by Bristol City Council. Two trees will be removed – T1 & T2.

Under SADMP DM 17 and the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard (BTRS) three replacement trees

will be required.

Under the Statutory Metric, these trees are classified as Individual trees habitat and cover a

combined area of 0.3048 hectares, of which 0.2966 hectares will be retained.

We do not agree that the two trees – classified with a retention category value of ‘C’ under

BS5837:2012 – are in poor condition. We have classified them as being in moderate condition,

as the other onsite trees have been.

We also do not accept that the baseline and post development Individual trees habitats have

low strategic significance. Trees in the city are expressly protected under BCS9 & SADMP DM17

of the adopted Local Plan and so should be accorded high strategic significance.

On this basis, we calculate that the baseline Individual trees habitat is worth 2.80 Habitat Units.

Preliminary Comments – 11 June 2024

3

We note that the applicant proposes planting 111 small ‘street’ (urban) trees in poor condition

(0.45ha). We are told that: ‘Significant new tree planting is proposed which far outweighs minor

losses and aims to link with the adjacent Castle Park.’3

However, looking at drawings LTS_108(01) 101 & 102,4 we are only able to identify only 43

‘small’ category trees being planted on site. On the basis that these will achieve poor condition

after 10 years and have high strategic significance, we calculate that they will contribute 0.56

Habitat Units to the post-development onsite habitat.

We note that a further 10 trees are projected to be planted in planters. In our view, these

cannot be categorised as Individual trees habitat. Instead, we have classified these as part of

the Urban Ground level planters habitat which we have assigned. We have assumed that each

planter is 1 x 1 metre until we see evidence to the contrary.

The two drawings referred to above, appear to show new tree planting (according to the key

provided) offsite in Castle Park. We assume this is an error as these trees are already present

in the park. However, we note that new planters with trees appear to be proposed offsite in

Merchant Street and Newgate. Perhaps these trees make up the 58 tree shortfall. This needs to

be clarified.

We have adopted the applicant’s other Statutory Metric parameters and calculate that the

plans will achieve an overall net biodiversity gain of 79.69% all of which can be provided onsite.

3 24_01850_P-BIODIVERSITY_NET_GAIN_REPORT-3681938 - Principle 7, Page 3. 4 24_01850_P-LANDSCAPE_CALL-OUT_PLAN_-_GROUND_LEVEL-3681926 & 24_01850_P-LANDSCAPE_GA_-_GROUND_LEVEL-3681928

My family business is one of the properties being demolished and as a result we will beloosing our main family income. The business has been in the Galleries since it opened. It'sabsolutely abysmal how the you can just decide to knock down a building and not think of peoplelively hoods.

My family business is one of the properties being demolished and as a result we will beloosing our main family income. The business has been in the Galleries since it opened. It'sabsolutely abysmal how the you can just decide to knock down a building and not think of peoplelively hoods.

I'm not against construction or building, infact we need much more. But why is the sameuninventive, unispiring, modernist dirge being build again and again. Something with someclassical styling is badly need. These designs are soulless.

I'm not against construction or building, infact we need much more. But why is the sameuninventive, unispiring, modernist dirge being build again and again. Something with someclassical styling is badly need. These designs are soulless.