“I have commented many times on Castle Park stories and will cotinue to do so.

I objected to Castle Park becoming a Town Green soley to kick start the much needed (and yes, it is much needed, despite the short sighted views of some greenies!) redevelopment of the most historic area of our city.

Before the war, there were many interesting streets and buildings on the site, and the eyesores currently there do not do it justice. Bristol needs to delvelop this historic area properly - end of.

If this means losing some of the park then so be it - maybe losing a part of the park would force the development of the rest of the park to a more open and family friendly area of properly planned green spaces (and take advantage of the remains of the castle properly).

If I can go to the public enquiry I will - perhaps the supporters of the town green have under estimated the feelings of the majority of Bristolians?”

“Paul,
If what you say is right then the problem is that the current lease holders know they can get more money for their leases if the land is used for part of a larger development and have no doubt been waiting in the hope that it will happen.
The effect of getting Town Green status will be that the current lease holders will have to accept that such a development won't happen. They will then have to either accept a lower buy out price or continue to own buildings which they can't let but have to keep structurally safe.
Any developer will have to negotiate with the Council over contributions to community facilities. If some of this can be used in Castle Park all the better, but it is wrong to suggest that this is the only way that improvements can be funded. Bristol Parks have recently completed schemes at Blaise and Ashton Court with £4.3m and £4.4m of Lottery funding respectively. They are also currently consulting on proposed improvements to Eastville Park which will also be Lottery funded. If the Town Green application succeeds and the threat of development is lifted then there is no reason why the same can't be done at Castle Park.”

“Tess. In answer to your question Is it impossible for this to be done without sacrificing a valuable bit of green donated to us by the Luftwaffe? I believe the answer is probably No and their are three reasons for this:

Firstly the majority of the derelict site is covered by two long leases. (Strand Street Properties and Morley Fund Management). These were probably for 999 years which means the license holders still have the right by law to occupy the site for about 950 years. For any development to go ahead the leases must be bought out. A major problem with this site is that they want quite alot of money.

Secondly people have spoken about council's plans to improve the park. The Council has limited resources so trys to secure improvement through new development by insisting that developers contribute to improvements. This is right but again has a big effet of viability. This is the case with Castle Park.

Thirdly, development of the site is going to be complicated to provide appropriate foundations, service access, parking without a detrimental effect on archaeological remains and interesting features such as vaulted ceiling basements below Bridge street.

I'm speculating but if the Council insisted on no improvements to the park and some deal could be done with the long lease holders then maybe the development would be financially viable without using the park.

People keeping saying its about the council making money but this is simply not the case. Its very important that what goes on this site is interesting and the current proposal for effectively an extension of the market area sounds great, but Interesting doesn't generate the greatest development value, so reasons 1,2 and 3 outlined above mean that the developer will simply walk away becasue their is no money in the site. once the costs of building the scheme is off set against what they can sell it for!

The only money the Council will get is for the improvement to Castle Park. I can imagine to actually make this development happen the Council are actually offering the land for free. Hardly the actions of a Council desperate for money. More like the action of a Council keen to make an exciting development happen on this site.

If the development really did need part of the park to make it viable then town green status will leave this dead in the water!”

“As a regular user of Castle Park for over 20 years I am keen to keep the green space there but also to see the derelict buildings either renovated and reused or pulled down. Is it impossible for this to be done without sacrificing a valuable bit of green donated to us by the Luftwaffe? If not why not?The most civilised and appreciated cities seem to incorporate far more green space than Bristol City Council think we need and the developers cannot be expected to protect our long term interests but the council should!”

“Fraser says "the Town Green application does not include the land that is currently occupied by the derelict buildings" but Mary Bannerman, the campaign spokeswoman, has said "an application has been made for Greater Castle Park, defined as the castle area plus all this land to the west of St Peter's between Wine Street and the Floating Harbour up to High Street and including St Mary-le-Port, to be registered as a Town Green." No mention of excluding the derelict buildings there.

So which one is telling the truth?”

“Well said Rob. Exactly the case. To clarify, the Town Green application does not include the land that is currently occupied by the derelict buildings. The Town Green application was lodged as we know that the developers will continue to attempt to encroach on the park as much as they can. Their new set of plans have not yet been released though we have indications that they still extend significantly into existing park land. I believe that this will continue to be unacceptable to those who originally objected. We await Option 3.5 to be revealed - and remember that Option 3 took up a substantial part of green space.”

“In February 2008 Bristol City Council adopted the Parks & Green Space Strategy. This says that there should be 18 sq metres of green space per person in each area of the city. The Neighbourhood Partnership area that includes Castle Park currently only has 10.8 sq m per person. If the council is going to follow its own policy it should be trying to find areas to create additional green space, not allowing building on limited ammount of green space that we already have.
Everyone seems to agree that the existing buildings should be redeveloped and if the site had been adjacent to other buildings the developer would just have got on with it. It seems to me that this whole row has come about because the developer and the council in 2006 thought they could make more money by taking some of the park to make their site bigger.”

“Obviously Geoff in your eyes, the "ordinary" people of Bristol don't include those like myself and the majority of those who have commented on this story who would like to see some form of development going ahead. For your information, Town green status has been requested for all the area up to and including the derelict buildings. If granted, we will have another 40-50 years of an historically urban quarter of the city being left as an eyesore. If the plan was to protect Castle Park, why didn't the town green application limit itself to those areas that are currently parkland? In my opinion, you are the one showing remarkable shortsightedness, unable to see the difference between speculative 1970's style development and new sustainable urban design that can add extra vitality and diversity to a key city centre space. Give us back our High Street! Give us back St Mary in the Market! Give us an urban quarter we can be proud of. Give us back 1,000 years of townscape!”

“How shortsighted some people are. Nobody doubts the existing buildings need refurbishment (if they can't be demolished). But there is absolutely no justification for building on any of the existing green space in order to do so - unless of course you count the money the vested interests (including the city council) hope to make out of it, to the detriment of the ordinary people of Bristol. Castle Park is the only real green space in the centre of Bristol. Lots of people use it to eat their lunch on a nice day as well as a pleasant walkway - especially the 'green triangle' which would be built on (next to St Mary-le-Port ) under the proposed development. We already have massive shop and office redevelopment in the city centre with Temple Quay phases 1,2 & 3, not to mention the new vast Cabot Centre next to Broadmead. Why on earth do we need yet more shops and offices in the city? Especially when it means encroaching on yet more green space. I hope town green status is granted.”

“How shortsighted some people are. Nobody doubts the existing buildings need refurbishment (if they can't be demolished). But there is absolutely no justification for building on any of the existing green space in order to do so - unless of course you count the money the vested interests (including the city council) hope to make out of it, to the detriment of the ordinary people of Bristol. Castle Park is the only real green space in the centre of Bristol. Lots of people use it to eat their lunch on a nice day as well as a pleasant walkway - especially the 'green triangle' which would be built on (next to St Mary-le-Port ) under the proposed development. We already have massive shop and office redevelopment in the city centre with Temple Quay phases 1,2 & 3, not to mention the new vast Cabot Centre next to Broadmead. Why on earth do we need yet more shops and offices in the city? Especially when it means encroaching on yet more green space. I hope town green status is granted.”