This is obviously outside of the Totterdown area, but Millennium Square is of importance to people across the city. Some people have expressed excitement about the proposed Arc at Millennium Square but below we have reproduced the concerns of Bristol’s City Design Group which need to be given serious consideration when assessing whether to support or object to the proposed development. A link to the planning application is here:
Summary
The Arc has the potential to be a unique and interesting feature within the city if a far less sensitive location can be found. Bristol is a nationally important historic city. These proposals will have a negative impact in one of its most sensitive location, where the medieval Cathedral and other city landmarks stand proud above the richly historic Docks Conservation Area. To draw parallels with the degree of sensitivity, few would expect to see the scale and form of this proposed development in the background of York Minster, Lincoln Cathedral, or St Paul’s Cathedral: All monuments of equal standing and importance to the Grade I protected status of Bristol Cathedral, and each with a similarly defining role in their city’s urban character. The Council fought hard to ensure that the development of Canon’s Marsh remained low-lying, that the Cathedral towers and the skyline beyond remained the focus of new development, and key planning moves ensured it remained prominent in the townscape from south of the Floating Harbour; the proposed development acts to undermine the historic character and celebrated skyline especially where it is enjoyed by all from the quay in front of the M-Shed.
The impact on the Cathedral and its former Abbey buildings from the ride is not limited to intrusions into the classic views from the south; From College Green, and Lower College Green the structure will project over the medieval outline of the cathedral church and above the cloisters and Abbey buildings in an incongruous and uncomplimentary fashion. Views of other Listed buildings, the setting of Queen Square, and characteristic panoramas of the historic docks from many locations around the historic Docks will be impaired by the development, through its alien scale and character; all of these areas are part of Conservation Areas and we have a statutory duty to protect the special historic and architectural character.
The proposed ride structure would occupy an important location within Millennium Square, where thousands regularly play out and enjoy the attractions and artwork. The location is also on the Brunel Mile, stretching between Temple Meads, through Anchor and Millennium Squares, before terminating in views of the SS Great Britain across the Harbour; this is one of the city’s principal and popular pedestrian routes. The proposed base of the ride is 3m in diameter, but the scale of the structure above it, the counterweight, and the surprisingly loud machinery will have a significant and detrimental effect on the enjoyment of the square. The overbearing scale of the dynamic structure appears intimidating, and views important to the legibility and continuity of the Brunel mile are obfuscated; rather than encouraged onwards into Millennium Square by the sculptural planetarium sphere the spectator is greeted by a more intimidating and noisy ride, that we consider is likely to discourage movement and use of the walk and the square as well as impact on adjacent businesses.
It is important to note here that Millennium and Anchor Squares are important public spaces that are enjoyed by everyone, whether citizens of the city or visitors. The proposed ride will be a pay-to-ride attraction. This, and its limited capacity, means that it will only be enjoyed by a small minority. It must be ensured that spaces currently belonging to and enjoyed by the public at large are not compromised or sacrificed in any way. We consider there to be a substantial deficit in public benefit from the proposed location and consider the negative impacts on people using the square, the Brunel Mile, the surrounding cafes and businesses, will not be offset.
The proposals seek a substantial extension of a Grade II Listed building. The Grade II Listed GWR goods Shed forms the core of We the Curious and was reinvented with an award-winning conversion for the Millennium. The redevelopment celebrates the original and pioneering low-profile concrete building with creative and eye-catching alterations that preserve the historic importance of the host. Key to the design of the conversion was the preservation of the principle front elevation to Anchor Square in its original state, with the rooftop extension set far back from it so not to disturb the original Edwardian façade. The currently proposed development would encroach substantially onto that façade. It’s importance is not understood by the applicant’s heritage appraisals, and the proposed new rooftop structures are bulky, distracting, and overbearing on the original historic building. The ride itself does not help the impact when in the lowered position, but the addition of further rooftop mass is opposed in principle for the unnecessary harm posed to the appearance of the Listed building.
We’ve noted that the proposed visual Impact assessment has not been compiled to best-practice, and fails to address the true impact of the structure from around the city. The views provided are limited, and, where they are presented, must be revised to meet the requirements for Verified views set out in the Urban Living SPD. The field of view, ratio of images, size and quality they are presented to, must all be reviewed prior to determination. It would not be appropriate to proceed to Planning Committee without accurate visual assessments being provided. If this cannot be undertaken we ask that our own visual impact views are substituted for those submitted.
It is acknowledged that the ride is an eye-catching structure with novelty value as an elevated viewpoint on the city, but to celebrate the city’s heritage it is best located away from some of its most sensitive assets. It is not appropriate for the development to defile the historic character it purports to celebrate, nor is it fit that the public at large should be inconvenienced by such an overbearing intervention in the public realm.
No doubt there is economic benefit from the proposal through the number of visitors that might be encouraged to visit the ride, and from increased spend by them, but other similar structures, for example the Brighton i360, have failed to attract the suggested visitor numbers. It’s not clear from the application how frequently the ride would be operational because of winds, and the flexibility of the flexibility of the carbon-fibre armature appears a weakness in this respect. Bristol has other venues, the Cabot Tower, Clifton Suspension Bridge, Wills Tower, and parks and hillsides around the city where it can be enjoyed from above, free of charge, or for a limited fee. It is not clear why the proposed ride would offer the scale of benefit to the public at large that could offset the negative impact on the city’s historic character, its buildings, or its public spaces.
All the purported public benefits of development can be secured on a less sensitive site. Whist it is acknowledged that the applicant has looked at M-Shed, it has not been clearly or convincingly justified why alternatives, for example, Albion Dockyard, The Grove, Castle Park, Temple Quarter, The Centre, Cumberland Basin, or any number of other locations along the docks have been rejected in favour of the current proposal. Indeed many of these locations would remove, or significantly reduce, the impact on the historic assets. The current location lacks the clear and convincing justification for why harm must be accommodated in Millennium Square.
We strongly object to the current proposal as failing to meet the city’s planning policies for good quality and inclusive design, public realm, and the impact on designated heritage assets, including Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas. We do not consider that the Council would be meeting its statutory responsibility to protect the historic environment if the proposal went ahead.
Urban design & public art comments
Urban design comments
Context
The site falls within the Harbourside neighbourhood in accordance with the Central Area Plan, Policy BCAP 41 states that development;
‘should preserve and enhance the setting of surviving heritage assets within and adjoining the regeneration area and improve the quality of public open space in the area’.
The site is within City Dock Conservation Area and easily visible from College Green Conservation Area which borders Anchor Road. Alternations to ‘We the curious’ a (Grade II listed) building are proposed to accommodate the pod docking operations. A number of other Listed Buildings and structures form part of its surrounding context. Primary amongst those is the Cathedral School (Grade II listed) and the Former Leadworks (Grade II listed). Both ‘We are curious’ and the Former Leadworks building serve as key landmark buildings edging the important public realm areas of Anchor Square and Millennium Square.
Approach to Millennium Square
Millennium Square is the culmination of the Brunel Mile the primary pedestrian route from Temple Meads to the Square. Along its length is a series of key public realm spaces including, Queens Square, Pero’s Bridge and Anchor Square. These spaces have been designed to create a transition from one space to another, with a clear route through both visually and physically. Farr’s Lane has recently been upgraded as part of the urban repair in this area to enhance the legibility of this part of the route.
The design intent for the Millennium Square approached from Anchor Square is for pedestrians to be greeted by a shimmering wall of water which curves in an embracing arc in front of them, momentarily masking the view beyond. Through a gap in this wall, pedestrians pass between the reflecting water terraces and view the expanse of the square beyond.
Effects of the Arc Base on the Approach to Millennium Square
The location of the base at the entrance to Millennium Square undermines the design as a movement motivator and creates a visual obstruction at the entrance pinch point affecting the visual transition and flow from Anchor Square and the enhanced reveal of the square on entering.
Further, the position of the base within the square edging the primary pedestrian/cycle route affects the sight lines for pedestrian and cyclists using this movement corridor and potentially increases conflicts between the two user groups. Policy BCP30 states;
‘Development that would be harmful to the amenity or accessibility of primary or secondary pedestrian route will not be permitted’
Millennium Square
Millennium Square itself is a high quality well-designed open area of public realm and an important space within an area of dense residential development whose special character is protected by Conservation Area designation.
The proposed base is 8m2 and approximately 16m tall and is positioned at the north east corner of Millennium Square. This element of the proposals includes the moving Fulcrum that extends approximately 10m beyond the base unit at various points in the Arc’s journey taking up a further 10m diameter of air space above the square.
The scale and mass of the base with the kinetic nature of the fulcrum creates associated noise and visual distraction. This would both physically and psychologically sterilise part of the public realm and visually dominate the square. It is also highly likely this would suppress the playful use of the rectangular pond running along the northern end of the square by children which it currently enables. Accordingly, this component of the proposals is detrimental to Millennium Square and contrary to Policy DM 28 and BCS21.
Unlike the modern additions of the Planetarium and Lloyd’s building which are scaled to relate to the surroundings, the size of the base would be overbearing within the space.
Alterations to the ‘We the curious’ Building
The ‘We the curious’ building is Grade II listed. The Wilkinson Eyre existing roof extension/ conversion of the Listed Goods Shed won awards from the Royal Institute of British Architects, and the Civic Trust for its design and quality.
The proposed roof terrace should respect the notable architectural merit of Wilkinson Eyre roof extension which is subservient to the host building and configured to create a considerable setback along the Anchor Square frontage and smaller set back along Anchor Road. This design principle was to ensure the architectural integrity of the main Edwardian façade facing Anchor Square, a more intimate space surrounded by smaller scale buildings, remained unaltered with minimal built form impact along Anchor Road.
The proposed roof extension to the ‘We the curious’ building to accommodate the pod docking area, waiting lounge and escape stairway creates prominent built form along the Anchor Square frontage which appears to dominate the host building failing to preserve and enhance this heritage asset.
The materiality and configuration of the proposed roof extension emphasis the massing which lacks the lightness and material subtlety of the existing roof extension. This is especially evident at the corner of Anchor Road at the entrance to Anchor Square. The stair tower is crude in form and dominates this corner of the building.
Visual impact of the Arc from the surrounding townscape
The existing townscape condition delivers visual prominence to the important (mostly public) buildings within the city such as the Cathedral, Wills Memorial Building and Cabot tower. The proposed Arc is significantly higher than any other building in Bristol and would be the dominant feature on the Bristol skyline, albeit that it will not be in the upright position all the time.
It is considered that the Arc, a commercial non-public leisure attraction should not be the dominant feature on the skyline. The harm this would create on the skyline is not outweighed by the public benefit.
Public Art Comments
William Pye’s Aquarena was a landmark Millennium project in 2000 for the regenerated Bristol Harbourside. A number of distinct features characterise this immersive sculpture – such as reflective water terraces, jets and water walls. It continues to be a much loved destination for many Bristol citizens and characterises this public city centre civic space – offering space for children to play, people to reflect.
There is a serious concern that the close proximity of the base of the Arc form will overshadow and interrupt this public realm experience and diminish this public art offer in the civic square. Importantly, the irrigation and waterworks technicalities may be interrupted and it is unclear if this has been considered. As a permanent work, a significant interjection in its surrounding space would usually a require consultation with the artist/gallery as the Arc base is severely impacting the artwork experience.
Landscape and Visual Impact Comments
The TVIA provided does not comply with the requirements for composition and presentation of images; these are set out on page 34 of the Urban Living SPD and the applicant has been made aware of these requirements as part of earlier pre-application discussions. We need consistency in how developments are depicted to ensure an accurate and realistic impression of their impact. The focus on panoramic views and wide angled views gives a false impression of the scale and actual impact on the public and must be amended, or we request that CDG equivalent modelled views are substituted or accompany the documents shared for appraisal by committee with an explanation of the reasons.
As previously stated the basic requirements are designed to replicate the human field of view when standing in the spaces, and it should be possible to print out the images at A3 size to use as comparison on-site under the same conditions. In brief, the requirements are:
Photos taken with 50mm full-frame camera or equivalent cropped view
Horizon centred vertically in views
Photos presented in their original 2:3 ratio or equivalent
Images presented at A3 size for direct comparison on-site, or larger format where the use of wide angle has been specifically agreed
Although the methodology provided with the TVIA describes some of these criteria the presented images don’t appear to follow that methodology.
Viewpoint 1 – View looking west from Narrow Quay
Existing image and proposed verified view should occupy separate A3 pages. Wider angle context image is useful but should be on a separate page.
The proposal introduces a new incongruous element within the Harbour side Conservation Area without contributing to the harbour side character. The structure dominates the view frame, creating a new and unnecessary focus within the conservation area. From this viewpoint the proposal is judged to be of moderate adverse effect.
Viewpoint 1.1 – View looking west from side of Pero’s Bridge; verified view not provided
Viewpoint 1.2 – View looking west from centre of Anchor Square. The proposal adversely impacts the appearance and significance of the grade II listed Canon’s Marsh Goods Shed. The counterweight and support structure’s impact the setting of the Goods Shed and clutter the visual link between Anchor Square and Millennium Square. By causing harm to the listed goods shed and hindering the legibility of the route between the two squares the proposal is judged to result in significant adverse effect.
Note that the Senior Conservation Architect has made separate and specific comments on the effects on the listed buildings.
Viewpoint 1.3 – View looking west onto Millennium Square from Anchor Square; verified view not provided
Viewpoint 2 – View looking west from Queens Quay, 33 Queens Square
Existing image and proposed verified view should occupy separate A3 pages. Wider angle context image is useful but should be on a separate page.
Queen Square was the subject of an historic restoration scheme to recreate as far as practicable its Georgian townscape, one of the largest squares of its time throughout Europe. The view of the ride is incongruous in this context, harmful to both the character of Queen Square and the wider City and Queen Square Conservation Area. From this viewpoint, due to the importance and quality of the historic context within Queen Square the proposal is judged to have a moderate adverse impact.
Viewpoint 3 – View looking northwest from Princes Wharf, M Shed
Existing image and proposed verified view should occupy separate A3 pages. Wider angle context image is useful but should be on a separate page
The view incorporates a number of key landmark buildings – Cabot Tower, Cathedral, Royal Fort – that characterise the Bristol skyline from this viewpoint, as well as buildings fronting the harbour that express the strongly horizontal form typical of the conservation area. The proposal reduces the significance of the historic structures within the view. Also as with viewpoint 1 the proposal does little to add to the character of the conservation area and arguably detracts from it more through the movement of the Arc through its flight pattern; slight to moderate adverse impact.
Viewpoints 3.1 and 3.2 – from Museum Square and the Fairburn Steam Crane respectively – verified views not provided. Arising from the potential harm to an appreciation of the cathedral in 3.2 we ask for this to be viewpoint to be modelled.
Viewpoint 4 – Pedestrians at Bath Basin, Lower Guinea Street
Existing image and proposed verified view should occupy separate A3 pages. Wider angle context image is useful but should be on a separate page.
Significance of effect agreed – neutral
Viewpoint 5 – View looking North from Gaol Ferry Bridge, southern end
Significance of effect agreed – neutral
Viewpoint 6 – View looking east from No1 Brunel Square, Great Western Dock
Significance of effect agreed – neutral
Viewpoint 7 – View looking from Cascade Steps at Broad Quay
Existing image and proposed verified view should occupy separate A3 pages. Wider angle context image is useful but should be on a separate page.
As with viewpoint 1 above the proposal introduces a new incongruous element within the Harbour side Conservation Area without contributing to the harbour side character. From this viewpoint the proposal is judged to be of slight adverse effect.
Viewpoint 8 – View looking east along Hotwell Road
Existing image and proposed verified view should occupy separate A3 pages. Wider angle context image is useful but should be on a separate page
Significance of effect agreed – negligible
Viewpoint 9 – Upper platform Cabot Tower
Existing image and proposed verified view should occupy separate A3 pages. Wider angle context image is useful but should be on a separate page.
Significance of effect agreed – neutral
Viewpoints 10 & 10.1 – Views Looking south from College Green
Existing images and proposed verified views should occupy separate A3 pages. Wider angle context images are useful but should be on a separate page.
Views of the grade I listed Cathedral and its setting within College Green are one of Bristol’s most valued historic townscapes. Though the proposed ride is revealed only slightly within view 10, it’s visual effect in view 10.1 will provide a major distraction within the frame; its intermittent appearance during operational hours will exacerbate it’s alien character within the view. And is regarded here as resulting in a significant adverse effect.
Viewpoint 11 – Looking south west from Anchor Road
The impact of the alterations to the listed goods warehouse has been commented upon in relation to view 1.2. The harm arising to the building will be the subject of comments from the Senior Historic Environment Officer. In terms of the townscape impact the diminution of the historic architecture is of a lesser degree than that in view 1.2, but is still regarded in effect as slight to moderate adverse.
Viewpoint 12 – Looking north east from Millennium Square
The visual effects are of a similar order to those described for viewpoint 1.2 above; diminishment of the listed goods warehouse caused by an extension of the more contemporary architecture to house the ride access facilities, visual intrusion to the setting of the listed building by caused by the support pillar and counterweight and overall clutter of elements. The visual effect on the townscape is less harmful than that in view 1.2; moderate adverse
Viewpoint 13 – View looking south from Trinity Street steps
Not yet modelled. This may be required in the comments of the Senior Historic Environment Officer.
Other required viewpoints
The submitted locations include a number of views where impacts are relatively minor. While these tell the observer something about the visual effects on the townscape context, there are a number of alternative view locations that have not been assessed and where visual effects on the historic harbour and important views are likely to be more harmful.
The images below are constructed in the BCC Vu City model from viewpoints where the visual effects of the proposal will have an impact on areas of the Docks Conservation Area. They show the varied character of the conservation area incorporating a number of listed buildings and structures including the Cathedral, Colston Tower, the Arnolfini Arts Centre, Prince Street Bridge and further to the east, the spire of St. Mary Redcliffe Church.
All of the viewpoints discussed here are popular locations and the buildings and structures form a series of familiar elements that make the special character of the conservation area. The impact of the proposals is to shift the focus attention to the Arc structure itself, thereby lessening the significance of the existing built form.
It is required here that the following additional views should also be considered within the TVIA to give a more complete assessment of the potential harm arising from the Arc proposals.