The monthly meetings with the District Council begin with two or three members of the Group going through the selected files at Elizabeth House. They spend about an hour examining the files, select the applications they want to discuss and then spend another hour or so examining these plans and discussing them with the officers. The Group may also request additional drawings, or details from the Council and – in some cases – the Group may undertake research on the architectural and/or historical background to the planning application (click here to see a recent example). In the evening, the full Planning Group meets to review these applications. Following the meeting, minutes are prepared to record the decisions taken (see below) and letters of objection, no comment, or support are written by the Chairman of the Group and sent to the District Council. Some of these letters are quite forceful (click here to see a recent example). Members of the Group also try to attend the monthly meetings of the Council's Central Area Planning Committee. The Society’s comments on the applications to be decided by Councillors are included in a special section in their briefing materials and the Group sometimes makes an additional three-minute statement at the Area Planning Committee meeting to support their written comments.

The Group has recently reviewed the above procedures as part of a broader review of the Society's relationship with the Council and the Regional Development Authority in the context of the new planning laws and procedures. One element of the new laws is an obligation requiring local authorities to engage in public consultation before selected planning applications are submitted. It is hoped that this will reduce conflict and speed up the planning process. Inthe past, the Society has been wary of consulting developers before planning applications are submitted, but are now required to do so. During the past few months, the Society has several times been involved in such discussions (e.g., on the College development and the Cattle Market). We expect more changes to take place in the coming months as the new planning procedures come into effect and as the Society continues to adapt.

In early 2005, a private individual submitted a planning application for the main RSC theatre building. The proposed work included stripping out the existing circle, balcony and ceiling, enlarging the proscenium arch; thee galleries, lighting walkways and dome etc. The application claimed that this work would “restore/recreate Elizabeth Scott’s panelling, doors …” etc, and referred to their “amazing detailing”. The Society was unconvinced by this claim and a member of the Planning Group agreed to undertake some serious background research in the Records Office studying the original theatre designs to check these claims.

The conclusion was that the submission bore no relationship at all to the interior that was constructed in 1932, nor to any variation that resulted from the many changes to the auditorium made since then. The scheme was neither a restoration of the original scheme nor, as far as could be established from the published records, a recreation of any proposals that the architect made while preparing the final design. The proposal would be a new auditorium, an un-integrated assembly of ideas – additional circle, side galleries facing in towards a thrust stage, greatly increased proscenium width, seating on the stage, completely altered shape of ceiling and so on – which appeared to be based on a superficial interpretation of the RSC’s needs. The copying of the earlier balustrade panelling would do nothing to conserve the original design, nor improve on the present one. It would not be restoration or conservation, but new build.

The Society also noted that alterations on the scale proposed could not be undertaken without compliance with other regulatory requirements -- provision for the disabled, improved working conditions and rectification of many other problems. The application made no mention of these. Finally, the Society raised concerns about the structural impact of the proposed scheme that involved enlargement of the proscenium arch to about 14.5m. This would be a major engineering undertaking that would have knock-on effects on the rest of the building. The application did not mention such problems and simply showed the enlarged opening as if it was already there. The scheme was neither a solution to the theatre’s current problems, nor a good design for an auditorium. The Society concluded that the scheme was so unrealistic and poorly worked out -- and so misleading as an application -- that it should be rejected. The application was turned down.

2003: Application to Redevelop the Harlequin Site

The Society objected to this planning application on several occasions. The Society’s first objection on 17/05/03 noted that the site was by the entrance to the Leisure Centre at a point identified in the Waterfront Masterplan studies as a crucial junction of routes into the town for both pedestrians and vehicles. The studies argued that the site should be developed to ensure that it formed a unified part of the larger scene along Avon bank and a fitting gateway into the town centre. That was the context. The Society then expressed incredulity that, in such a context, anyone could put forward a scheme which had no place in the built environment unless in a theme park. In form (a coy rural pastiche like nothing else in the town), in detailing (the Society noted with disbelief the specification of "wavy roofline") and in materials (a catalogue of stuck-on Olde Englishe wall materials) which made no attempt to meet the standards for design that are outlined in the Waterfront Masterplan.

On 17/08/2003 the Society expressed further reservations and noted that the applicant was an international brewing company. Someone in their management must surely know something about architectural quality. For them to be putting forward such limp proposals for a site of such importance in a town of international renown was inexplicable. The Society hoped that the Council would refuse the application on the grounds that it failed utterly to satisfy the requirements of the Design Guides and would be seriously detrimental to a part of the town which had been recognised as needing buildings of character and quality in order to make it a worthy part of the Conservation Area in which it stood.

Finally, on 12/09/2003, the Society – in exasperation – again wrote to the planning authority and noted that it remained disappointed that the applicant could still produce nothing better than this characterless scheme. The application was turned down.