Development Control Committee
Summary of Comments

Intro

The meeting started with an amusing comedy of errors... but thankfully ended with a seriousness of correctitude!

The venue for the meeting was not the biggest room in the Guildhall, and so it was standing room only.  One of the speakers in the amplification system wasn't working, and so those at the back couldn't hear a word.  When a man came to trace speaker wiring around the room, he managed to cause the Powerpoint projector to go blank, a fact that appeared to go unnoticed until it was needed for a presentation.

Eventually, the chairman decided to carry on regardless of the broken amplifier, and suggested that everyone speak up, so those at the back can hear!

The room was laid out like a parliamentary committee room, with a horse-shoe of committee members, and a table and chair for the contributing speakers to sit and give their presentations.

Interestingly, Cllr. Coombes, Bathwick ward, speaking in favour of the development, was unhappy with this arrangement.  When it was his turn to speak, he thrust the contributor's chair under the table, attempted to pick up the desk-top microphone, found the wire wasn't long enough, and decided to declaim his views on foot, without amplification.  After one sentence, the chairman suggested it would be a good idea if he sat down, which he did.

Each committee member spoke in-turn, and made reference to PPG15 and other criteria under which they are obliged to judge an application.  This text does not attempt to give a minuted account of the meeting, just an essence of what each committee member said.  They spoke as follows...

Cllr. Paul Crossley (Lib-Dem, Southdown) - for - attempted to apply 21st Century values to 19th Century planning issues, with respect to the railways and the canals. 

Cllr. Colin Darracot (Lib-Dem, Walcot) - for - said he disliked the current garden elevation of the Holburne (referring to it as the rear of the Holburne - which it is not).  He also said he disliked modern architecture, but he like this design.

Cllr. Brian Webber (Con, Abbey) - undecided - had not made his mind up yet.

Cllr. Gerry Curran (Lib-Dem, Twerton) - against - said he didn't like having a gun held to his head by The Holburne with their chorus of "without this extension, we're all doomed".

Cllr. Malcolm Lees (Con, Weston) - against - said this was a planning issue, not a Holburne Museum business issue.  He also said that the committee must avoid duel standards, and suggested that if a house owner on The Circus wanted to move his staircase, and build a giant conservatory in the back garden, the committee would refuse him.  Therefore, the committee had no choice, in his view, but to refuse this application.

Cllr. John Bull (Con, Paulton) - for - was convinced by the argument that the ceramic will reflect light and not be a big green/blue cube.  He wasn't keen on the colour, but he "trusts" the architect in his choice.  He suggested that this design was part of the organic evolution of the city's development.

Cllr. Brian Organ (Con, Keysham East) - against - said the design was too tall, and totally obscured the garden elevation of The Holburne.

Cllr. Stephen Willcox (Con, Clutton) - against - just couldn't understand why someone would think such a design was appropriate for the location.

Cllr. Dr. Elleanor Jackson (Lab, Radstock) - against - said it was a challenging modern design, and it would look wonderful in Birmingham.  However, to allow this building and to refuse the Upper Oldfield Park Flats development would be inconsistent.

Cllr. Carol Paradise (Lib-Dem, Kingsmead) - against - was "appalled" by the size of the extension.  It is top heavy and over-powers that which it should enhance.

Cllr. Richard Maybury (Con, Lambridge) - against - said the extension should be sympathetic to its context and surroundings, which this one is not.

Cllr. Les Kew (Con, High Littleton) - against - said the extension should be subservient to the building it extends.  The Parry extension is not subservient.

The decision by the committee is a broad range, and was cross-party.  This is an indication of how sound the decision is.  It will be interesting to see on what grounds The Holburne trustees think they can appeal.