Cafe plan for old public toilets on the Downs resurfaces but with a smaller size

A plan to turn old public toilets on the Downs into a cafe has resurfaced, but the proposal is much smaller this time round. 

The toilet block off the Circular Road near the Sea Walls would be converted into a small cafe with four toilet cubicles kept open to members of the public.

Earlier this year a previous plan to build a much larger cafe there hit an obstacle when it emerged that a 160-year-old Victorian law would stop the development.

Now the group in charge of running the Downs have come back with a new plan for a smaller cafe instead.

The Downs are jointly owned by Bristol City Council and the Society of Merchant Venturers, and are overseen by the Downs Committee — made up of seven councillors and seven members of the business group. The committee will discuss the new cafe plan next week.

A report to the Downs Committee, due to meet on Monday, November 13, said: “Given council spending constraints, the only way to have decent toilets in this location, including disabled facilities, would be to include a small cafe and require the operator to maintain the toilets as part of their lease obligations.

“At present, the toilets need constant maintenance and repair, using resources that could be better spent on other activities on the Downs. Planning permission should only be required for change of use of part of the existing building from toilets to cafe, and one would hope this would be uncontentious.”

The plan for a larger cafe would be blocked by the Downs Act of 1861, a controversial law protecting the parkland. Lawyers advised the committee that they would need a ‘derogation’, meaning special permission from parliament, to build the cafe as it would breach the ancient Victorian law.

The law protects the Downs from development, and the original cafe plan would have seen a new building on the site with a much larger footprint than the current toilet block. The new plan would have the same size footprint as the current building, potentially overcoming the previous obstacle.

The report added: “We were told that a request for a derogation would not be viewed in a positive light by members of the House of Commons, as it would be seen as a vexatious attempt to get around the limitations of the act. The lawyers’ advice was that if the act isn’t fit for purpose for the 21st century, then we needed to have it revoked and redrafted.”