Bristol Civic Society logo Civic Society Comments

Home Up

The Society's comments on the current development proposals for the University of Bristol Strategic Masterplan.

Ian White
Central Area Planning Team
Bristol City Council
Brunel House
St George's Road Bristol BSI 5UY

2nd January 2006


Dear Mr White,

Public Consultation of Draft SPD11: University of Bristol Strategic Master plan

I refer to your letter dated 5th December and thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above document.

There are a number of things which the Civic Society welcomes in the Draft SPD and I will list these before addressing the issues which concern us. We welcome, in particular, the general approach of perimeter development on the development sites. The consequential enclosure of spaces is also welcome as. are the proposals to develop and improve walkways. We strongly support the theoretical reduction of traffic within the SPD area and trust that sufficient weight will be given to implementing measures to achieve this reduction.

The concerns of the Society focus on the approach to consultation and, more particularly, the proposal for a tall building. Dealing first with the approach to consultation, the Society is not convinced that the City Council has given sufficient weight to front loading the consultation process in the spirit of paragraph 2.9(b) of the Council's Draft Statement of Community Involvement. The consultation process has been strong on seeking comments on proposed development forms but has given far less opportunity for the public to suggest solutions to the concept of consolidating University functions within the SPD area.

Our main concern, however, relates to the concept of a tall building on the site. Before addressing the proposal on SPD1 I we refer to the Conclusions and Recommendations of the Transport, Local Government and Regions Parliamentary Committee Report on Tall Buildings, published in July 2002. That Committee found "the contribution which (tall buildings) can make to the urban. renaissance to be very limited". The Committee further noted that tall buildings do not necessarily achieve higher densities than medium or low rise development and can be less efficient in the use of space than alternatives. "Tall buildings," the Committee concluded, "are more often about power, prestige, status and aesthetics than efficient development". Whilst the Committee noted that the design problems of tall buildings
can be overcome, it was adamant in its view that "It is vital that our historic cities are not forced to undergo another wave of high rise buildings. We must never repeat the mistakes of the 1960s, vividly illustrated by Bath, where a single tall building insensitively and feebly designed has harmed the setting of a great historic city."

Bristol Civic Society shares the concerns so well expressed by the Parliamentary Committee. We feel that a tall building in the area proposed would be harmful to views across the city and further erode the setting of historic parts of it. We are particularly concerned about the impact of such a building on the night skyline when internal lights, and possibly external lighting, would intensify its harmful effects.

SPD 11 attaches some weight to the City's Tall Buildings Strategy as a basis for including a high building in the SPD area. The Civic Society draws your attention to the detailed wording of the strategy (p19), i.e.. that it "may be appropriate to locate a single 'iconic' building...top of the Clifton-Kingsdown escarpment". We feel that this is not a convincing basis for including a tall building in this area. Furthermore, we are not convinced of the need for an iconic building here and feel that it could actually diminish the significance of the existing iconic University buildings, especially the Wills Tower and the Royal Fort. There are less intrusive ways for the University to make a distinctive and distinguished impact on the townscape. These could include an arch or arches at prominent entrances to the precinct, feature buildings at the corners of perimeter developments, or simply very high quality design of low rise buildings, the spaces they enclose and the routes that connect them.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the draft SPD 11. We look forward to your response


Yours sincerely
G J Tucker Hon Secretary.

=======================

Letter from Vice-Chair 12/07/06


Bristol Civic Society has already made clear both in correspondence (GJ Tucker, 02.01.06) and submission to PESC, 20.06.06. the aspects which the Society welcomes in the draft SPD. "The concerns of the Society focus on the approach to consultation and, more particularly, the proposal for a tall building" (GJT, 02.01.06.)

There are two issues resulting from the inclusion of a Tall Building by the University in its Masterplan.

1. The need for one.
Although the Council, in its Tall Buildings Policy SPD1, page 19, (adopted January 2005) said "it may be appropriate to locate a single 'iconic' building on the Clifton/Kingsdown escarpment, it also recognised that "this is a sensitive location" where other "iconic buildings already exist. The Society has always objected to the concept of a tall building here. The 02.01.06. letter also referrred to the Parliamentary Select Committee On Tall Buildingsof 2002, as did the submission to PESC. These references are relevent. "Tall buildings have a limited contribution to urban renaissance. they do not necessarily achieve higher densities than medium or Iow rise development and can be less efficient in the use of space than alternatives.
They are more often about power, prestige, status and aesthetics then efficient development, with architects oftten willing to claim a building was well-designed regardless of location, context or integration with the surrounding environment" This final comment has particular relevance to the intricate pattern of little streets
surrounding the location. Finally the Committee said that "it is vital that our historic cities avoid another wave of high rise buildings. BCS is of the opinion that these are weighty pronouncements which should guide Cabinet in reaching conclusions.

2. Environmental Impact.
The evidence (Ev. 56) to the Parliamentary Committee by the Director of Wind Engineering, Ove Arup, is important and helpful. We recommend that Cabinet takes them into account.
It is quite feasible that a tall building, like others around the world, will create wind turbulence, updraughts and an uncomfortable micro-climate for pedestrians and local residents. The Council surely has a responsibility to protect its citizens.

So what would the proposed building create up on the top of a hill? An Environmental Impact Assessmen (EIA) is essential.
It is for the applicant as part of their EIA, to prove via models in a wind tunnel that our contention can or cannot be supported.

Audrey Lennox