Councillor emails reveal behind-the-scenes effort to reverse Broadwalk planning decision
Role of planning committee Chair, Richard Eddy, under scrutiny for working with Mayor's Office to secure planning permission for developer.
A Freedom of Information request to Bristol City Council has revealed a series of emails that shed light on how the unanimous decision of Development Control Committee A to refuse the ‘Redcatch Quarter’ planning application was overturned at a subsequent meeting. In particular, they show the central role Conservative committee Chair Richard Eddy played in working with the developer and the Head of the Mayor’s Office, Kevin Slocombe, to achieve that end. They also reveal how the council’s Development Management department provided differing advice about the role of the second meeting to the developer and the local community group that have been opposed to the scheme.
At the initial Development Control A meeting on 31st May, the cross-party committee of nine councillors voted unanimously to refuse the application for the proposed scheme to replace the 1970s Broadwalk shopping centre in Knowle. Central to the objections of the committee members was the ‘hyperdensity’ of the development. With up to 850 dwellings proposed at 428 units per hectare, the plans were almost four times the optimum density level for that area specified in Bristol’s Local Development Plan. The largest of the buildings would rise above the area’s Victorian terraces up to 12 storeys in height. And although not a material consideration in itself, the offer of 9.8% ‘affordable’ housing was also roundly criticised.
As this refusal went against the council officer’s recommendation for approval, the standard procedure is for the officer to come back to the committee at the next meeting with reasons for the refusal - making reference to specific development policies - which the councillors then ratify. But at the second meeting on July 5th the reasons provided by the officer for refusal were voted down by the three Labour members and Eddy, with fellow Conservative councillor John Geater abstaining. With three Greens and a Liberal Democrat councillor voting to accept the reasons for refusal, this created a 4-4 split, meaning that Eddy had the casting vote as Chair. A second vote to approve the application was then proposed by Eddy, and again the same voting pattern gave him the casting vote and the application was approved in line with the original officer recommendation. All that had changed from the evidence heard at the initial meeting was a promise from the developer that they would try to seek grant funding to enable an unspecified increase in the percentage of affordable housing. This was used by the three Labour councillors as part of the justification for their U-turn, which Councillor Philippa Hulme read out from notes in front of her to a sparsely populated council chamber, predominantly made up by development professionals.
This volte-face led to the resignation of Green councillor Ed Plowden from the committee at the next meeting on August 9th, who stated that, “the misleading and dishonourable actions of members of the committee before, during and after our last meeting mean that the people whom I am proud to represent and live amongst no longer have trust or confidence in this committee”. Councillor Eddy spoke over Plowden’s resignation speech and threatened to have him removed from the chamber by security guards. The Green councillor also challenged planning manager and case officer for the application, Peter Westbury, over the accuracy of the draft minutes provided for the initial meeting, which stated inaccurately that members had resolved to defer rather than refuse the application.
“The appropriate determination”
The emails released through an FOI request show how some of this orchestrated reversal unfolded behind-the scenes. Firstly, it can be seen that the developer contacted Eddy on the 8th June to request a presentation to committee members before the next meeting on 5th July, “with a view to clarifying a number of key points that appeared to have been misunderstood by the committee last week.” Head of the Mayor’s Office, Kevin Slocombe, is copied in to the email. Replying, Eddy says he will seek advice from two council officers (whose names are redacted), “over whether DC Members can legitimately receive an applicant’s briefing after having made an initial determination”.
Then on 20th June, Eddy receives an email from Cratus Communications, the developer’s PR consultancy, referring to what they call “the review of the decision” at the next meeting:
“Following the vote at Planning Committee a couple of weeks ago I wanted to get in touch and see if we could put five minutes in the diary to discuss next steps, including the review of the decision on 5th July.
You have been very kindly speaking to my colleague previously, however, she is away this week and I was hoping to catch-up with you at the earliest possible opportunity now that the decision point is past. Can you let me know if there is a date / time which would work for you?”
They arrange an online meeting for the afternoon of Friday 23 June.
On Monday 26 June, notification of the next Development Control Committee A meeting - at which the reasons for refusal would be presented - was sent from the council’s planning department to Savills, the developer’s agent. The letter provided details of how their clients could make representations at the 5th July meeting and stressed that “it is important to note that this recommendation does not mean that the decision has already been taken”:
“The case will be considered again at the upcoming Development Control Committee A meeting where a further report will be presented reviewing the reasons for refusal given by Members and setting out possible wording for these refusal reasons…Whilst this report will have a recommendation to either grant or refuse permission, it is important to note that this recommendation does not mean that the decision has already been taken, as the decision now rests entirely with the elected members.”
This was different to the information provided on the same day (26th June) by planning manager Peter Westbury to co-founder of the ‘Broadwalk Redevelopment Community Group’, Laura Chapman. Understanding that the decision of the councillors had been determined at the 31st May meeting, she contacted Westbury querying why the application was returning to the committee and whether the community would need to attend as they did the previous meeting. The email she received in response gave the clear impression that the meeting was a formality and their presence wouldn’t be necessary. He wrote:
“Dear Laura,
The role of the Committee on the 5th July is to confirm the wording for the reasons for refusing this application. The original report will be appended.
While technically the Committee could decide to reverse their decision on the 31st May, I think that this is unlikely.
Kind regards”
On the evening of 26th June, Chapman told the ‘Broadwalk Redevelopment Community Group’ on their Facebook page:
“I’ve just had this clarification from Peter Westbury… as Cllr Brown said earlier, this is a formality so there’s no need for us to attend or speak again.”
Liberal Democrat Councillor Andrew Brown had advised on the Facebook group: “It’s a standard process…I wouldn't anticipate the committee would be minded to row back on previous decision given that that was unanimous and that (bar any absents/substitutions) it will be same councillors looking at it again.”
On 29th June, Savills notified the council that the following people would be making spoken statements at the meeting, which they all did:
Nick Spencer, BBS Capital (owners of the site).
Simon Coles, Keep Architecture (architects).
George Baffoe-Djan, Galliard Homes (developer and co-partner of the Redcatch Development Partnership joint venture alongside BBS and Melburg).
Craig O’Brien, Savills Planning.
Jonathan Lambert, Savills Development.
Meanwhile, Richard Eddy had been having meetings with the developer’s representatives. The previous day he had written to Savills:
"It was good to see you on Monday and on Friday regarding the above.
I have confirmed my requested Teams meeting with Kevin Slocombe for tomorrow afternoon.
In order to firm up my position in advance of next Wednesday, I would appreciate confirmation of the following:-
1. I recall you mentioning that "most" of the retail tenants in the Shopping Centre were benefitting from a 'rent-holiday'. Is this commercially-sensitive information or can I use the information in some form in my 5th July speech?
2. I seem to recall you saying the car-park was not currently being fully-utilised. Is this because of H&S/insurance concerns?
3. Any other "last-chance-salon" (sic) key points?”
On 1st July, having been sent a video and presentation about the proposed scheme by Savills, Eddy replies to them:
“Thanks; very useful.
I also had a productive meeting with Kevin Slocombe on Thursday. I’m expecting (I hope not forlornly) to see the positive fruits of that chat early next week before Wednesday’s DC ‘A’ Committee.”
Late on 4th July, Eddy wrote to Savills: “I am considerably more confident about the appropriate determination for Broad Walk than when I spoke to you today.”
The redacted sections of the email make it hard to determine why exactly that increased confidence had emerged. One plausible reason would be confirmation that the three Labour councillors had confirmed that they would U-turn, or that the Conservative Councillor John Geater had said he would abstain on a new vote - a move that created the 4-4 split which gave Eddy the crucial casting vote as committee Chair.
’Blessed Margaret’ and The Smack of Firm Government
Like his performances in the Council Chamber, Eddy’s correspondence is peppered with stodgy attempts at humour and allusions to his self-image as an unabashed, straight-talking Thatcherite. For example: “Thank you for your email of today regarding the above - which reaches me on my sick-bed. (I don’t know what the ‘Blessed Margaret’ would think of Private Sector sorts raised in the 1980’s who succumb to sickness).”
Stressing his “Private Sector” credentials to the developer’s agent once again, he enthuses over receiving an email from them on a Sunday, which has been sent to ask about the possibility of a meeting the following day. He combines this expression of enthusiasm with a jibe against council officers, characterising them as lazy:
"You’re so Private Sector! It would be exceedingly rare I’d receive an email from a Council Officer early Sunday lunchtime. (It may amuse you that at licensing Committee on Thursday a Conservative colleague asked me, “Post-Covid, roughly how many people work at the Counal (sic) House?” Quick-as-a-flash, I answered: “Surely you mean are based or paid. And some work too!”)”.
This is contrary to Bristol City Council’s Member Code of Conduct, which prohibits derogatory criticism of officers by councillors.
Maintaining the bantering tone, the Savills employee replies: “don’t really know what goes on behind closed doors at the Council but, apart from some notable exceptions, I’m afraid your (sic) probably confirming our suspicions!”
Thanked for replying on a Sunday, Eddy responds: “You doubt (sic) need to thank me: All my career, I‘ve been Private Sector too, so we’re never ‘off-duty’!”
There is a final reference to the Golden Years of Thatcherism following the 5th July meeting, in response to a late endorsement emailed by Savills.
“Thank'.,m, (sic) but a bit late in view of DC 'A' Committee's determination this evening And we finished before I predicted we'd conclude at 7.30 pm. Ah, the 'smack of firm government', as we [said] in the 1980's!
Onwards and upwards)”.
Bristol Nightmares, California Dreaming
Since July, Eddy has again made headlines in the local media by branding opposition Green Party members “demented lentil-eating amateurs”. This was for their opposition to a proposal from the city’s new Chief Planner, Simone Wilding, to restrict councillors from being able to ‘call-in’ individual planning applications to committee, rather than having them assessed solely by officers.
The councillor for Bishopsworth - a suburban south Bristol ward with the highest percentage of white inhabitants in the entire city (93.7% at the 2021 census) - has a long history of making controversial and offensive public statements and clearly enjoys upsetting the sensibilities of Bristol progressives. In 2001 he was forced to resign as deputy leader of the Conservatives on Bristol City Council over his public defence of golliwog dolls, proudly placing one in his office following the decision of Robertson’s jam to remove the figure - widely-held to be racist - from its labelling.
In 2020 he made national headlines following the toppling of the statue of Edward Colston, expressing outrage at the manner the statue was taken down and calling the slave trader - long feted by some in the city for his philanthropy - a “hero”.
Whether such a deliberately provocative figure is a suitable person to chair a council planning committee - particularly at a time of such intense pressure on the planning system and such heated debate around the city’s future development - is another question raised by this episode, alongside the specific accusations over his obviously partial and unprofessional conduct in relation to the ‘Redcatch Quarter’ application.
A petition started in July that states, “We, the undersigned, have lost confidence in the effectiveness and impartiality of Bristol City Council’s planning system” currently has, at the time of writing, 2949 signatories. 3500 will trigger the right for the issue to be debated at Full Council.
A request to the Secretary of State, Michael Gove, for the ‘Redcatch Quarter’ decision to be called-in and decided by the Planning Inspectorate is currently under review by the government and a legal challenge has been mounted by members of the Knowle community.
Meanwhile, planning manager Peter Westbury has departed from the scene. An Elder at Hope Chapel in Hotwells, the church the Mayor Marvin Rees attends, he has been tasked in recent years with working as case officer on the city’s most contested planning applications. These are generally earmarked as development priorities by the Mayor’s Office and feature in their regular ‘Driving Development’ meetings. Westbury is now on a year long sabbatical and, according to Councillor Eddy’s closing remarks at the 9th August committee meeting, is about to head off on a trip to sample the delights of California’s vineyards. As he paid tribute to the council officer, Eddy jovially claimed to wish he was travelling with him on his trip to the States. And as much as he enjoys being at the centre of attention, that desire to be somewhere far away may be growing by the day.