Agenda item

The case officer for this Planning Application introduced this report. He explained that this item, whilst separate from the subsequent Planning Application listed as Agenda Item 9(b), was dependent on its approval.

He made the following points during the presentation:

·       This site will provide a wide range of community benefits which would justify building on the Green Belt in the exceptional circumstances which applied

·       It would only be viable if it was part financed by the subsequent Planning Application 9 (b)

·       The details of the demolition of the existing site and the proposed application were set out in detail

·       It was noted that the proposal was set out in 6 blocs, with details of Plot 1 comprising a multi storey car park with 36 parking spaces and some wheelchair accessible, as well as Plot 2 comprising a 4 Star Hotel and 232 Guest Rooms. Details of Plot 4 and Plot 6 (comprising 2 residential blocks) were also provided

·       It was noted that there would be three access points to the site and details of these were provided

·       Different viewpoints of the proposed development were provided to members

·       There had been 53 letters of support and 16 objections mainly relating to concerns about traffic congestion, the lack of affordable housing and some negative aspects of the design

The Committee noted that officers were recommending approval of the scheme due to the benefits it would provide including the commercial space and the 31% biodiversity net gain.

In response to Councillor’s questions, officers made the following comments:

·       In relation to the concerns expressed by the Walking Alliance relating to provisions for walking, it was explained that there were green sections within the development and referred to the biodiversity net gain. There were no longer any official road safety objections. The walking concerns were more closely linked to the site at Agenda Item 9 (b)

·       The Winterstoke Road crossing required significant modelling to satisfy road safety issues. Since the applicant had deemed the proposed super crossing too expensive, an alternative approach had been adopted which met these concerns

·       The day parking figures did not currently merit any objection but these would be reviewed and could reach a cumulative trigger point in future. However, the current evidence was not sufficient to challenge the assessment and a result the developer’s proposal had been deemed worthy to pursue. There would need to be a complete re-consultation once activity had been observed involving an origins and destination parking survey on both match and non-match days and if necessary some form of parking controls introduced following this.

·       Viability of affordable housing – This was an unusual scheme of large mixed use with a range of components. It would generate a lot of revenue since the land value was reasonably high. The landowner would need to have a reasonable return and there would high bill costs and high public realm costs. It was important to understand that planning viability was not the same as general viability since it was predicated on planning guidance stating that developer’s profit should be 15 to 20%

·       Plans around traffic congestion included an improvement in the pedestrian crossing and Section 278 works

·       Sustainability of the proposed 125 Residential Units – The non-residential units achieve a BRIAM excellence score and the priority for the site is a District Heat Network connection with a back-up of air source heat pumps. Any approval could be conditioned to ensure that the appropriate energy source is provided. No controls were currently available as to who buys the housing as this would be available on the open market

·       Since the scheme was not viable without the application under Agenda Item 9 (b), there was a good reason for this application not to require the minimum level of affordable housing. Therefore, there was no mechanism to offset the scheme with the other application

·       The proposed development is approximately 10 metres taller than the existing building

·       There was likely to be a community access plan to allow access to the gym for local people and school children. The multi storey car park will be available for everyone

·       The delivery of the development will be through Section 278 works as per the normal process. It remains negotiable until the exact works of all the costs are made available and the technical processes take place, following which the bond will be created to ensure the works are safe

·       The viability Review will be a clause within the Section 106 agreement

·       Privacy Screens – the condition will require these on the side of certain balconies

·       There will be conditions for noise mitigation. On match days, the arena will be closed off for security reasons which will prevent supporters swamping residential development

Committee Members then made the following points:

·       The city and people of Bristol owed sporting bodies an enormous debt of gratitude for their support over the years and provided a local and sub-regional degree of excellence. Bristol sport had provided business confidence. The proposed convention centre, basketball court, gym, parking and housing would complete these objectives. The issue of viability appeared to have been addressed. Whilst the transport issues were the most difficult, the arrangement concerning the Winterstoke Road crossing appeared to have addressed many of these, albeit further work was needed in respect of residents parking. The application should be supported

·       This development would bring jobs and skills to the city and should be supported. It was a brownfield site and would enhance and improve the biodiversity net gain

·       A lot of people were employed within the stadium in question. This is a completely brownfield site. Bristol Sport was a really good employer locally and this would provide a greater footfall and trade. This will also contribute to a healthy biodiversity net gain

·       There remained concerns about the lack of affordable homes, the height of the tower block but some of the responses from officers had been reassuring. The development provided good opportunities for jobs, community engagement and leisure facilities

·       There was a great deal that was positive about this application including the regeneration of jobs, the cultural aspects of it and the proposed housing. However, there remained some concerns such as the very dense and high levels of housing and the impact of operations on match day through the Section 106 agreement. In addition, there needed to be a more direct walking route on the design lines. It was important to commit to affordable housing and not offset it against the other application

·       Whilst the transport arrangements were disappointing, Historic England did not oppose it. The scheme should be supported

·       The application should be supported

Councillor Richard Eddy moved, seconded by Councillor Paul Goggin and upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED (8 for, 0 against, 0 abstentions) – that the application is granted subject to referral to the Secretary of State, conditions and Planning Agreement (8 for, 0 against)

Councillor Farah Hussain was unable to vote in accordance with Standing Orders as she has arrived after the commencement of the item.

·        

·        

·        

·        

·