Planning and Heritage Statement

PLANNING AND HERITAGE STATEMENT

Installation and replacement of roof-level edge protection

November 2020

The Fry Building

Woodland Road

Bristol

BS8 1UG

CSJ Reference JB.5738

www.csj-planning.co.uk | [email protected] CSJ Planning Consultants Ltd, 1 Host Street, Bristol, BS1 5BU Planning and Heritage Statement – Fry Building, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1 SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS AND PLANS 1

2. SITE DESCRIPTION 2 CONTEXT 2 SITE DESIGNATIONS 2

3. PLANNING HISTORY 4

4. PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT 6 LOCAL POLICY CONTEXT 6 SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS 7 NATIONAL POLICY CONTEXT 7 HERITAGE LEGISLATION 7 HERITAGE POLICY GUIDANCE 7

5. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 9

6. KEY PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 10 KEY PLANNING CONSIDERATION 1 – THE PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT 10 KEY PLANNING CONSIDERATION 2 – MEETING THE UNIVERSITY’S NEEDS 10 KEY PLANNING CONSIDERATION 3 – APPROPRIATE DESIGN 11 KEY PLANNING CONSIDERATION 4 – HERITAGE IMPACT 12

7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 16

www.csj-planning.co.uk

Planning and Heritage Statement – Fry Building, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. This Planning and Heritage Statement has been prepared by CSJ Planning on behalf of the applicant, the University of Bristol, for Planning and Listed Building Consent for the installation and replacement of roof-level edge protection / guardrailing at the Fry Building, Woodland Road.

1.2. The development is required as existing edge protection is either lacking or so substandard that it falls below the current safety requirements of Building Regulations and the University. Discussions regarding the proposed system have been undertaken with the University’s building maintenance staff to ensure the proposals meet their needs and requirements. Principal features of the proposed development include:

• New and replacement 1100mm high guardrails which, due to space limitations, will be fixed to the inner side of the crenelated parapet and will consist of slender black painted rails to limit visual impact; and

• New 1100mm high freestanding guardrails fixed around the cruciform extension and painted black to limit visual impact. As the space allows, these will be set back approx. 1 metre from the roof edge and will replace substandard safety bars currently fixed directly to the crenelations (which will be removed).

SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS AND PLANS

1.3. The following documents have been submitted with the application:

• Planning and Heritage Statement by CSJ Planning

• Design and Access Statement by The Architecture and Planning Group (APG) plus:

o 0001-P01 Location Plan

o 0100-P02 Edge Protection Location Plans

o 0101-P03 Details

o 0102-P01 Free Standing Guarding Details

o 0103-P03 Existing North Elevation

o 0104-P03 Existing East Elevation

o 0105-P03 Existing South Elevation

o 0106-P01 Existing West Elevation

o 0107-P01 Proposed North Elevation

o 0108-P01 Proposed East Elevation

o 0109-P01 Proposed South Elevation

o 0110-P01 Proposed West Elevation

www.csj-planning.co.uk 1

Planning and Heritage Statement – Fry Building, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG

2. SITE DESCRIPTION

CONTEXT

2.1. The Fry Building is a Grade II listed building on the University’s campus with educational and heritage value central to the integrity of the precinct and Conservation Area. The building was a central hub to the University of Bristol’s institutional predecessor: University College Bristol. Since then, it has housed a variety of educational departments always having a highly functional presence in the University’s myriad of buildings.

2.2. The Fry Building is a composite structure: an amalgamation of three different buildings. These having differing dates of origin and all three parts have experienced additions and alterations since their material genesis. Whilst the historic character of the Grade II listed building has been preserved, new additions include an atrium linking to a new 140-seat lecture theatre underneath a roof garden.

2.3. The building resides at the intersection of University Road and Woodland Road behind a low rubble stone boundary wall. University Road extends northward from Queens Road and Woodland Road extends northward of Park Row. A short distance from this intersection are other large institutional buildings that belong to the University. Namely, Senate House, the Hawthorns and the Physics Building.

2.4. To the south of the building is the School of Geographical Sciences, the Bristol Museum and Art Gallery and Wills Memorial Building. Opposite to the west, across University Road, is Bristol Grammar School. Abutting the eastern side of Woodland Road, with the Fry Building comprising much of the western side, is the School of Arts.

2.5. There is no overwhelming style that dictates the architecture though Victorian, Edwardian and Georgian styles are present in the area. In addition, there are recent builds such as the Centre for Sport, Exercise and Health; these lack heritage or aesthetic value.

2.6. The site is located in a proximate to a well-connected public transport network with there being a large number of services and routes that provide access to other areas of Bristol as well as Temple Meads train station for further regional or national travel.

2.7. The existing edge protection on the building is not considered to be a part of the original design for the building. Indeed, no guardrailing can be seen on historic aerial photography from the 1940s1.

SITE DESIGNATIONS

2.8. The site is located within the Tyndall’s Park Conservation Area. Many of the nearby buildings are listed either as Grade I or Grade II. The buildings of highest value include Royal Fort House (Grade I) and the Physics Building (Grade II).

Tyndall’s Park Conservation Area

2.9. The site is located within the Tyndall’s Park Conservation Area. The Conservation Area was designated on 18th February 1981. Many of the nearby buildings are Grade I or Grade II Listed.

2.10. Of note are: Wills Memorial Building (Grade II*), Browns Restaurant (Grade II) and 66 Queens Road (Grade II). The buildings of highest value include Royal Fort House and the Physics Building. These,

1 As per https://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/ image reference EAW000736.

www.csj-planning.co.uk 2

Planning and Heritage Statement – Fry Building, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG

in addition to other undesignated buildings of heritage merit, contribute to a strong heritage character of the surrounding area.

2.11. Tyndall’s Park is named after Thomas Tyndall, who resided in Royal Fort (directly to the south of Senate House) and acquired the area to create a landscaped park. Pressure from population and economic growth over time saw peripheral sections of the park sold off and developed, creating large, detached villas with gardens. Larger sections were eventually sold off to education establishments and today, the University precinct covers the vast majority of the former parkland. Most of the development took place in the 19th and 20th centuries.

2.12. The Conservation Area strives to protect the large and distinctive styles of the University’s buildings. Also, deemed important to protect, are the Edwardian and Victorian terraced villas that surround the University’s main precinct, particularly to the north. In addition, the area’s designation attempts to reduce the impact of traffic and movement around the area so to maintain a townscape that is not dominated by vehicular use or traffic.

2.13. The Fry Building is close to the south-western border of the Conservation Area. However, given its large extent, it spans from this liminal space to an edge proximate to the centre of the Conservation Area. The building is one of the key institutional buildings that have a primary role in the definition of the character of the area. The character of large buildings in the Conservation Area percolate throughout the designation acting as key loci of heritage value which produce the prevailing characteristics and style of the locality.

2.14. These buildings are particularly important as they are in conflict with other large buildings in the area that actively degrade the heritage character of the area. One such building is the University of Bristol’s Sports Hall and Gymnasium. As such, the Fry Building can be seen to underpin the integrity of the Conservation Area.

www.csj-planning.co.uk 3

Planning and Heritage Statement – Fry Building, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG

3. PLANNING HISTORY

3.1. Primary planning history is as follows:

• 14/01893/F | Refurbishment of the Fry Building comprising internal and external alterations to the building fabric, demolition of a number of external single storey structures, provision of approximately 1133 msq of new floorspace contained within a lower ground floor extension, and a new integrated landscape and public realm design. Status: GRANTED subject to condition(s) on 11th July 2014.

• 14/01908/LA | Refurbishment of the Fry Building comprising internal and external alterations to the building fabric, demolition of a number of external single storey structures, provision of approximately 1133 msq of new floorspace contained within a lower ground floor extension, and a new integrated landscape and public realm design. Status: GRANTED subject to condition(s) on 11th July 2014.

• 16/00063/F | Demolition of a section of low boundary wall of the Fry Building fronting Woodland Road to allow increased access during construction period. Reinstatement of boundary wall with reclaimed material to match previous appearance. Status: GRANTED subject to condition(s) on 26th February 2016.

• 16/00064/LA | Demolition of a section of low boundary wall of the Fry Building fronting Woodland Road to allow increased access during construction period. Reinstatement of boundary wall with reclaimed material to match previous appearance. Status: GRANTED subject to condition(s) on 26th February 2016.

• 16/00533/LA | Refurbishment of the Fry Building comprising internal and external alterations to the building fabric, demolition of a number of external, single storey structures, provision of approximately 1133 sqm of new floor space contained within a lower ground floor extension and a new integrated landscape and public realm design. Amendments to the new atrium and staircase, change to the lower ground floor circulation space and seating within the proposed new lecture theatre and amendment to the south east staircase and lobbies in the south wing. Status: GRANTED subject to condition(s) on 29th April 2016.

• 16/00519/X | Variation of condition 26 (List of approved plans/documents) attached to planning permission 14/01893/F (refurbishment of the Fry Building comprising internal and external alterations to the building fabric, demolition of a number of external single storey structures, provision of approximately 1133 sqm of new floorspace contained within a lower ground floor extension, and a new integrated landscape and public realm design). (Major application). Status: GRANTED subject to condition(s) on 29th April 2016.

• 18/02404/LA | Replacement of fire damaged roof, associated building works and internal repair and partial reinstatement of vaulted ceiling below. Status: GRANTED subject to condition(s) on 3rd August 2018.

• 18/02403/F | Replacement of fire damaged roof, associated building works and internal repair and partial reinstatement of vaulted ceiling below. Status: GRANTED subject to condition(s) on 3rd August 2018.

• 18/05069/NMA | Application for a non-material amendment - to vary condition 5 attached to consent granted under application no. 18/02403/F. Status: GRANTED subject to condition(s) on 5th October 2018.

www.csj-planning.co.uk 4

Planning and Heritage Statement – Fry Building, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG

• 18/05070/X | Variation of condition 5no. of application reference number: 18/02404/LA - to vary condition 5 attached to consent granted under application no. 18/02404/LA - proposed change to type of Cornish roof tile to be used. Status: GRANTED subject to condition(s) on 23rd November 2018.

• 18/05348/X | Application to vary condition No. 5(Materials) attached to planning permission 18/02403/F. Status: GRANTED subject to condition(s) on 29th November 2018.

• 19/01523/LA | Demolition and rebuild (lower height) of external retaining wall (re-use of stone where possible). Status: GRANTED on 25th March 2020.

• 19/05584/A | Non-illuminated freestanding sign, located within the curtilage. GRANTED subject to condition(s) on 7th January 2020.

www.csj-planning.co.uk 5

Planning and Heritage Statement – Fry Building, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG

4. PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT

4.1. This chapter provides an overview of the policy context within which this application is made. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires Local Planning Authorities to determine planning applications in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

LOCAL POLICY CONTEXT

4.2. In this instance, the site falls under the jurisdiction of Bristol City Council and is covered by policies contained within the following adopted Development Plan documents:

• Bristol Core Strategy, adopted June 2011;

• Bristol Central Area Plan, adopted March 2015; and

• Site Allocations and Development Management Policies, adopted July 2014.

Bristol Core Strategy (2011)

4.3. The Bristol Core Strategy is the key document in the Local Development Framework (new Local Plan). It sets out key visions, strategic guidance and development control policies for the Bristol area. The following policies apply in this instance:

• Policy BCS2 Bristol City Centre

• Policy BCS15 Sustainable Design and Construction

• Policy BCS20 Effective and Efficient Use of Land

• Policy BCS21 Quality Urban Design

• Policy BCS22 Conservation and the Historic Environment

Bristol Central Area Plan (2015)

4.4. The Bristol Central Area Plan provides more specific site allocations, designations and development management policies for the central area of Bristol. The following are of relevance:

• Policy BCAP11 University and Hospital Development

Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (2014)

4.5. The Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD. It contains development management policies, designations and site allocations to help control and guide development across the city. The following policies are of relevance:

• Policy DM1 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

• Policy DM26 Local Character and Distinctiveness

• Policy DM27 Layout and Form

• Policy DM30 Alterations to Existing Buildings

• Policy DM31 Heritage Assets

www.csj-planning.co.uk 6

Planning and Heritage Statement – Fry Building, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG

SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS

4.6. The University of Bristol’s Strategic Masterplan adopted in 2006 provides both the University and the city of Bristol with a framework for its development over the next 10 to 15 years. Principally, the masterplan has five aims. Those highlighted in bold are pertinent to the proposed development:

• To improve the physical environment;

• To create a mix of spaces within the precinct;

• To improve accessibility;

• To create a more sustainable university; and,

• To improve the University’s relationship with the community.

NATIONAL POLICY CONTEXT

The National Planning Policy Framework

4.7. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in February 2019. This is a key part of the Government’s reforms to make the planning system less complex and more accessible, and to promote sustainable growth.

4.8. The NPPF should be referred to as a whole, but chapters 2 (Achieving sustainable development) 12 (Achieving well-designed places) and 16 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) are of particular importance.

HERITAGE LEGISLATION

4.9. Section 66(1) of The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 outlines the general duty with respect to listed buildings in exercise of planning functions. It states:

In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

4.10. Where conservation areas are concerned, section 72(1) states:

With respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.

HERITAGE POLICY GUIDANCE

4.11. Annexe 2 of the NPPF defines a heritage asset as:

“A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions because of its heritage interest. It includes designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing).”

4.12. And the significance of a heritage asset as being:

www.csj-planning.co.uk 7

Planning and Heritage Statement – Fry Building, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG

“The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic of historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence but also from its setting.”

Conservation Area Enhancement Statements (1993)

4.13. The Conservation Enhancement Strategy provides policy for the protection and enhancement of areas with architectural and historical importance. For each area, there is a statement that is orientated to ensure that all development preserve and improve the local character.

4.14. This proposed site is located in the Tyndall’s Park Conservation Area. Therefore, its Enhancement Statement carries weight in the consideration of this proposal. The statement has the objectives to:

• Reduce vehicular traffic through transport management and greater pedestrianisation;

• Improve the area’s character through landscaping and respect for the historic architectural materiality; and,

• Redevelopment of buildings harming the local character.

4.15. In the Key Issues subsection of the Tyndall’s Park area appraisal, the statement outlines that the degradation of the coherent character of the university has taken place by many unfitting developments in recent years. The statement attacks the skyline of the University precinct noting that it has a large variation of quality and incoherent development.

www.csj-planning.co.uk 8

Planning and Heritage Statement – Fry Building, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG

5. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

5.1. This development is entirely contained to the building’s roof. The parapet areas subject to this application currently have no guarding fitted or where existing, the guarding is lower than the Building Regulations minimum height of 1100mm. The roof perimeter guarding is therefore only partially compliant with safety regulations and it is necessary for the University to make the unsafe areas safe for maintenance staff. The applicant refers the reader to the existing elevation plans submitted with the application.

5.2. The specific location of the new guardrailing is detailed on the proposed plans and elevations. Two types of railing are proposed:

5.3. Specification of the guardrails and their choice above other available systems is provided within the submitted Design and Access Statement and detailed on the plans. These new protection systems should have minimal impact on both the existing building fabric and the view of the parapets and roofs from the surrounding roads and buildings.

www.csj-planning.co.uk 9

Planning and Heritage Statement – Fry Building, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG

6. KEY PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

6.1. Taking into account the proposed development, policy, and all other material considerations, there are considered to be five Key Planning Considerations which determine the acceptability of the scheme, to be addressed over the next sections:

• Key Planning Consideration 1 – The Principle of Development

• Key Planning Consideration 2 – Meeting the University’s Needs

• Key Planning Consideration 3 – Appropriate Design

• Key Planning Consideration 4 – Heritage Impact

KEY PLANNING CONSIDERATION 1 – THE PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT

6.2. The ‘principle of development’ in this context is defined as the underlying proposal to rebuild a material element of the Fry Building that is in a state of disrepair. Policy BCAP11 of the Bristol Central Area Plan encourages the development of new facilities or the redevelopment and renewal of existing facilities at the University.

6.3. There are no policies within the Local Development Plan which specifically restrict the installation or replacement of roof-top edge protection. Therefore, it is considered that the principle of development is considered acceptable in this instance.

KEY PLANNING CONSIDERATION 2 – MEETING THE UNIVERSITY’S NEEDS

6.4. The concept which drives the proposed development focuses on repairs and improvements to the Fry Building that will enable its ongoing and safe operation as part of the University estate.

6.5. BCAP Policy BCAP11 states that the University Precinct will be developed for educational and ancillary uses associated with the University of Bristol, and states that:

“In the precinct, the development of new facilities or the redevelopment and renewal of existing facilities will be encouraged. Development that would impede the consolidation and expansion of the University within the precinct will not be permitted”

6.6. Core Strategy Policy BCS2 is also highly material to the type and the location of the development proposed. It recognises that the University is a major institution which makes a considerable contribution to the economy and mix of uses in the City Centre. The adopted policy continues to seek and promote the consolidation and expansion of the University to meet its needs.

6.7. As set out in the previous section of this report and the Design and Access Statement, there is a pressing health and safety requirement to replace and install new roof-top edge protection on the Fry Building to ensure the requirements of Building Regulations are met, and to reduce the risk of serious injury or death to University maintenance staff. There is therefore an intrinsic link between this development and facilitating the needs of the University which is supported widely in planning policy.

6.8. On this basis, meeting the University’s needs should carry more than the usual weight attributed to facilitating building improvement works, and the development should be supported by the Council on this basis.

www.csj-planning.co.uk 10

Planning and Heritage Statement – Fry Building, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG

KEY PLANNING CONSIDERATION 3 – APPROPRIATE DESIGN

6.9. In the Local Plan and the University of Bristol’s Masterplan, there is a focus on high-quality, well- integrated and sustainable design that is appropriate for the setting and the site’s constraints. With respect to design within the University Precinct, Policy BCAP43 advocates a flexible but high-quality approach, and states:

“Development should protect the area’s historic assets and respond strongly to the area’s topography through its design. A flexible approach will be taken to the redevelopment of sites within the university and hospital precincts, although higher standards of urban design will continue to be sought.”

6.10. The proposed development is required for health and safety reasons and to ensure the proper maintenance of this listed building can continue without unacceptable hindrance. The architect has attempted to achieve these aims whilst limiting as much as possible the visual and physical impact on the building.

6.11. The Design and Access Statement describes a number of alternative options considered for this project, with the final choice made up of two systems: (1) freestanding guardrails set back from the edge of the building where the space allows so that from the street the visual impact of these rails will be obscured; and (2) slender black painted rails connected directly to the crenelated parapets where space is limited, designed to minimise visible impact.

6.12. Policy DM30 sets out four criteria against which alterations to buildings should be tested. These are described and assessed below.

i. Respect the siting, scale, form, proportions, materials, details and the overall design and character of the host building, its curtilage and the broader street scene.

6.13. The review and final choice of two different options to achieve a necessary aim is considered respectful to the host building, achieved through a carful understanding of its special characteristics and adapting the design to the space available whilst meeting the needs of health and safety regulations.

ii. Retain and/or reinstate traditional or distinctive architectural features and fabric.

6.14. The development will allow more straightforward access to the roof, assisting with the ongoing maintenance of this historic building. In addition, the development will remove visible guarding bars within the crenelations of the cruciform extension, thereby restoring part of the building’s original appearance in this respect.

iii. Safeguard the amenity of the host premises and neighbouring occupiers.

6.15. The development satisfies this part of the policy. The development is clearly required to safeguard the amenity of the host building through facilitating a safe means of access to the roof for maintenance staff.

iv. Leave sufficient usable external private space for the occupiers of the building.

6.16. No external private space is compromised by this development. Only maintenance staff are permitted to access the roof.

www.csj-planning.co.uk 11

Planning and Heritage Statement – Fry Building, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG

6.17. This development should also be considered within the context of other roof-top alterations already made to the Fry Building. Guardrailing is not uncommon, with the railings proposed by this application matching existing railings or replacing railings already in place with a consistent design. This will limit the visual impact further.

6.18. Taking the above into account, the design is considered appropriate and should not therefore form a reason of refusal for these applications.

KEY PLANNING CONSIDERATION 4 – HERITAGE IMPACT

6.19. The proposed works are located within the curtilage of the Grade II Listed Fry Building. It is therefore of local importance and has significance within the locality in terms of contribution to the character of the area as well as nationally.

6.20. English Heritage’s Conservation Principles defines the heritage value of a building using a number of different criteria: Evidential Value, Historical Value, Aesthetic Value, and Communal Value. These four values will be used to assess the heritage value of the affected elements of the asset within the context of the historical value of the Fry Building. This will enable an informed judgment about the depth and extent of the proposed works and their effect. Their definitions are as follows.

• Evidential Value: is ‘the potential of a place to yield evidence about past human activity’.

• Historical Value: is derived from the ways in which historic narratives and facets of society can be connected and understood through the present sense of place. It can be illustrative or associative.

• Aesthetic Value: is derived from the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation from a place’s materiality and design. The aesthetic values are often the result of the conscious design of a place, including artistic endeavour.

• Communal Value: derives from the meanings of a place, for the people who relate to it, or for whom it figures in their collective experience or memory.

Evidential Value

6.21. The Fry Building, being constructed in the early 20th century, has the potential for considerable evidential value. This classification of value is constructed around its current and past use which are indicative of historic societal activities.

6.22. Hence, its evidential value is grounded in its use as a large institutional, educational building. This value is further elevated due to the surrounding context and the historic precedence of the University of Bristol’s precinct. However, this context, though it provides a strong setting for this value, ensures this evidential value is not distinct or unique. As such, this evidential value is considered to be moderate.

6.23. The roof and/or roof-level edge protection guardrailing is not considered to be important to, nor have any impact on the evidential value of the Fry Building as described, other than through allowing its safe and continued maintenance so that it can continue to deliver these values. In this sense, the development will cause no harm, and deliver a minor benefit.

www.csj-planning.co.uk 12

Planning and Heritage Statement – Fry Building, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG

Historical Value

6.24. The appropriate preservation of heritage assets that have retained their use can be highly indicative of past historical narratives. With the Fry Building, as the present users are the same as the past users, students, these buildings provide a looking glass into the past life of Bristol University due to sound preservation of the interiors and externality. As such, the building has a moderate level of historical value.

6.25. The building is an example of the University’s expansion at a specific point in time; specifically, the second phase of major construction of the University’s development. This expansion, when it occurred, was part of a wider high education growth experienced nationally in the early 20th century.

6.26. The roof and/or roof-level edge protection guardrailing is not considered to be important to, nor have any impact on the historical value of the Fry Building as described, other than through allowing its safe and continued maintenance so that it can continue to deliver these values. In this sense, the development will cause no harm, and deliver a minor benefit.

Aesthetic Value

6.27. Aesthetically, the building as a whole has considerable merit. Despite the surrounding development’s construction being unintentionally phased, there is a good degree of aesthetic homogeneity between the wings and within the different elements of the wings themselves. Hence, the Department of Chemistry and the greater extent of the Fry Building have both attractive exteriors and interiors as well as interesting individual features.

6.28. The building is indicative of Sir George Oatley’s architecture as well as the collegiate gothic architectural style which was derived from trends within gothic revival architecture. Notably, this style was featured in educational buildings particularly in North American Universities including Yale and Princeton universities. It can be considered to be representative of clear artistic endeavour to reflect the material character accompanying the large educational expansion featured globally in order to represent the relatively new University of Bristol as an institution with considerable educational potential.

6.29. In addition, the building has a crucial role in the views of the area; helping constitute a powerful townscape through its overwhelmingly educational and institutional scale.

6.30. In summary, the building is of a good quality architecturally and is well suited to the curve and slope of Woodland Road displaying clear signs of intelligent and well-thought out design matching the contemporary trends of its construction. As such, it has a high level of aesthetic value.

6.31. In the places where the guardrailing is proposed to join directly to the crenelated parapet, the development has the potential to cause some negative impact by altering the planned appearance; however, there are many existing examples of roof-level edge protection on the Fry Building and of roof alterations in general. It is acknowledged that no edge protection would be a preferable result in these locations but this is simply not possible due to health and safety regulations and the need to maintain the building – a need which is ultimately connected to ensuring the structure as an aesthetic whole lasts for future generations to experience. A lack of maintenance would result in a more serious deterioration of the aesthetic value over time.

6.32. The solution proposed is considered to represent the best possible option through consolidation of existing unsatisfactory edge protection into a homogenised design which, when considered as part of the building overall (including existing elements of edge protection), would not be considered to appear out of place, or to unduly compromise the aesthetic value of the building as a whole.

www.csj-planning.co.uk 13

Planning and Heritage Statement – Fry Building, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG

6.33. This proposed development also proposes to deliver what are considered to be improvements to the appearance of the building by removing the substandard bars currently installed around the cruciform extension and replacing them with guardrailing set back from the building edge.

6.34. It is therefore considered that, on balance, there would not be any negative impact or harm caused to the aesthetic value of the building.

Communal Value

6.35. The building’s communal value is constructed through its location in the setting of the University’s precinct. Here, with many other large buildings of a variety of styles that have been constructed at differing times, a communal place making occurs. The large massing of these buildings catalysts this.

6.36. The Fry Building, being of similar scale and massing, adds to this value, particularly given its centrality to the precinct and visual impact on the public realm proximate.

6.37. This value is further enhanced by the current and historic importance to the University’s precinct ensuring that it figures in the collective memories of students who have studied at the University of Bristol over the last century. Symbolic and social interaction like this are central to a building’s communal value.

6.38. As such, the building is considered, through a multi-faceted process, to contribute to the meaning of the locality and have moderate levels of communal value.

6.39. The roof and/or roof-level edge protection guardrailing is not considered to be important to, nor have any impact on the communal value of the Fry Building as described, other than through allowing its safe and continued maintenance so that it can continue to deliver these values. In this sense, the development will cause no harm, and deliver a minor benefit.

Statement of Significance

6.40. Within Historic England’s Conservation Principles Policies and Guidance, a policy document aimed at outlining the sustainable methodology that should be associated with the management of the historic environment, there are guidelines on how to assess the heritage significance of a given asset.

6.41. Of note here is the difference between heritage significance and heritage values. Where heritage values relate specifically to the various material and immaterial dimensions, heritage significance is a broader term that is conceptualised as the sum of previously discussed values when tested against certain facets. Hence, a stipulation of a building’s values always precedes an assessment of heritage significance. Specifically, the NPPF defines significance as:

The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting

6.42. Once a building’s value and, in turn, its significance are established, a proposed development can be tested against policy and law ensuring it enhances and preserves the building, if it is a heritage asset, and any heritage assets the building might reside in.

6.43. As per the assessment above it is considered that the current guardrailing and roof area hold little heritage significance, whilst the building as a whole holds considerable heritage value. The lack of guarding can also be said to have a negative impact on heritage significance given it disables the ability to properly maintain the building, potentially causing a serious negative impact on the special characteristics of the buildings and local area which contribute towards heritage significance.

www.csj-planning.co.uk 14

Planning and Heritage Statement – Fry Building, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG

Assessment of the proposal against policy

6.44. Sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 confer the legal requirement to pay special regard to the desirability of preserving or (in the case of Conservation Areas) enhancing the building or settings of such assets.

6.45. Policies DM31 and BCS22 set out the need for new development to safeguard or enhance the character and setting of designated heritage assets. Policy DM31 states that development within or which would affect the setting of a conservation area will be expected to preserve or, where appropriate, enhance those elements which contribute to their special character or appearance.

6.46. These policies should be read in context with the flexible approach to development control within the Precinct as set out by SPD11, BCAP43, and BCS20.

6.47. NPPF Paragraph 193 states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, ‘great weight’ should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraph 194 goes onto state that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification.

6.48. NPPF paragraph 196 states that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

6.49. In terms of the weight which should be attached to heritage enhancements, NPPF Paragraph 192 states that local planning authorities should take account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation.

6.50. As set out in Key Consideration 3, the design of the new and replacement guardrailing is considered appropriate within this historic setting. As such, and coupled with the above conclusions, it is considered that no heritage harm would be generated by the proposed development and, therefore, there are no heritage grounds to refuse these applications.

6.51. In addition, it is possible to show enhancement and public benefit through the maintenance benefits the development will bring compared to the current situation, and through the removal of the existing guarding bars surrounding the cruciform extension which should be given positive weighting in the decision making process in accordance with s.72(1) of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act, local planning policies, and the NPPF.

www.csj-planning.co.uk 15

Planning and Heritage Statement – Fry Building, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG

7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

7.1. As described within this statement and supporting documents, the installation of the proposed edge protection system is required to ensure the University remains a safe place for its staff to work and perform the necessary ongoing maintenance to the Grade II listed Fry Building. Therefore, the development is an important part of ensuring the University operates effectively.

7.2. It is possible to conclude that there will be no heritage harm caused by the proposal and, in many ways, there will be heritage and public benefits, and enhancements, delivered through design choices and the ability for this historic building to be maintained properly and safely. Such benefits should gather supportive weight in decision making as per local planning policies, the NPPF, and in accordance with s.72(1) of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act.

7.3. The proposed development lies within the designated University Precinct. There is clear and significant support across all relevant Development Plan documents for development which facilitates the University’s needs – notably SPD11, BCAP11, BCAP43, and BCS2. This is through clear recognition that the University in turn contributes significantly towards the sustainability profile of the city as a whole.

7.4. The proposed development is therefore found to be highly sustainable, and in accordance with the Development Plan. When taking into account all other material considerations including national planning policy, the proposed development should be supported and approved without delay.

www.csj-planning.co.uk 16

www.csj-planning.co.uk

1 Host Street Bristol BS1 5BU

Telephone: 0117 927 2224 Email: [email protected]