DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
(CENTRAL) COMMITTEE - 3 JANUARY 2007
Application Nos: 05/04067/F
05/04071/LC
STATEMENT OF JOHN PAYNE, CHAIRMAN OF BRISTOL CIVIC SOCIETY.
1. Bristol Civic Society is extremely supportive of the SS Great Britain
project and applauds the outstanding work undertaken to restore the Brunel's
ship.
2. The Civic Society does not take issue with the principle of enabling
development to secure finance for on-going maintenance. However, it is of
paramount importance that such development fully respects the setting of the
ship.
3. In addition, it should not be forgotten that the land for the enabling
development has been provided by Bristol City Council on behalf of the
citizens of Bristol and it is important, therefore, that the proposed
development respects the views of Bristolians.
4. The Civic Society has one principal outstanding objection to the
proposal, an objection set out in letters to the Director of Planning dated
23 November 2005 and 12 June 2006. This is that the height of Building 3,
for which there is no historical precedent, is excessive and that there
should be a step down in height from Building 2.This outstanding objection
is not contained in your report.
5. Our reason for this objection is that Building 3 would be harmful to the
setting of the ship, particularly when it was viewed from the Millennium
Promenade in the Cannons Marsh development from where the masts of the SS
Great Britain, seen against the open sky, are intended to make an
outstanding terminal feature. As proposed, Building 3 would appear at the
height of the ship's funnel and significantly reduce the impact of the
masts' silhouette. It would be well above the height of the Jefferies
Building.
6. The Civic Society is not alone in its views about the height of this
building. English Heritage, in its letter to the Council dated 14 December
2005, recommended that anything on the site of Building 3 should read as
being significantly less bulky than Building 2. The Conservation Advisory
Panel, as noted in your report, also stated that a lower building would be a
better back drop to the ship. A substantial majority of respondents of the
Citizen's Panel consultation indicated a preference for a back drop of
skyline and original buildings.
7. The Civic Society feels strongly that the harmful impacts of Building 3
can only be resolved by reducing its height by 2 storeys. We, therefore,
urge the Committee to defer a final decision on the applications:
(i) To allow full consideration of the visual and financial impacts of
reducing the height of Building 3 by 2 storeys;
(ii) To consider alternative methods of redressing any reduction in income.
