25/13665/F – Canons House Canons Way Bristol BS1 5LL
Proposed refurbishment comprising internal and external alterations of existing office buildings (comprising ‘Circle’, ‘Link’ and ‘Crescent’ buildings) including single storey upward extension to Crescent building, glazed entrance lobby extension and external additions to Link building, to provide office floorspace and flexible ground floor food & drink and retail uses with ancillary event space (Use Class E), roof terraces, cycle parking, servicing arrangements, lighting, public realm works and landscaping.
Summary of comments.
- Support for the multi offices and cultural, retail, food and drink uses proposed.
- An explanation is required of how these different uses are serviced generally and especially when the amphitheatre is in use.
- An explanation of how these proposals are coordinated with the amphitheatre uses.
We support this listed office building being brought back into use, retaining it as a commercial development with a sensitive upgrading to enable it to survive well into the future. However, we suggest there are a few questions that need to be answered prior to any approval being granted by Bristol City Council.
The Society approves of the cultural uses proposed for the new auditorium in the link building and the proposed permeability of this part of the development. The roof level café and board rooms would be a very attractive offering to occupiers but should not detract from the use of the amphitheatre. It would be good to know how the roof level café would be run during any commercial activities programmed to take place in the amphitheatre to avoid those customers having a free show. Also, we believe the idea of expanding the local retail, food and drink offer into the ground floor of the crescent building is a good one. This would enrich the amphitheatre space and make it more of a destination. However, again the policing of this space during amphitheatre shows etc. needs to be explained to avoid undue conflict with these activities. It is obviously disappointing this had not been explained prior to submitting the application as it would maybe have avoided the number of objections now seen on the planning portal.
Ian Jenkins