Agenda item

Councillor Paul Goggin did not take part in the debate or decision for this application as he was unable to attend the formal site visit.

No amendments had been made to the application since the publication of theoriginal report.

Members were reminded that this application had been considered at the DC A Committee meeting of 5th October 2022 and was deferred to the 16 November 2022 Committee to allow for Members to conduct a formal site visit.

The Officer summarized the report as follows:                

Since the decision to defer this application, pending a site visit, a revised scheme had been submitted which reduces the height of the southernmost section by 3.4m, removing the gable and one proposed apart-hotel room. As such, the proposal was now for a 19-room aparthotel and an 8no. bedroom HMO (which benefits from an extant planning permission).

The revisions submitted required further assessment of key issues C (Design and Heritage),

D (Amenity) and K (Other Matters) in the original Officers’ Report. This assessment was set out

below.

Following the submission of the revised plan, a 14-day re-consultation was undertaken with

letters sent to all neighbouring properties and citizens that had commented on the

application. The deadline to respond was 2nd November 2022. In addition, the City Design Officer and Economic Development Officers had also been consulted.

A total of 27 objections had been received from members of the public. The majority of the reasons for objection were resubmission of reasons given in the first round of consultations and summarised in the first report.

Additional reasons for objection given during the re-consultation period were summarised as follows:

• Revised plans did not adequately address previously raised issues.

• Should be a story lower.

• Does not offer a substantial contribution to Bristol Infrastructure.

• Non-residential development.

• Lack of light due to trucks.

• Construction hours were too long.

• The area was a key feature in Bristol’s tourism offering due to the concentration of

independent businesses.

• No need for hotel accommodation.

• Loss of light and air to properties adjoining the proposal.

Comments had also been received in support of the proposal within the latest consultation period and these included:

• The continuation of the Johnny Ball Lane arches was appealing.

• The architectural merits were evident in the response to the Victorian arches on Johnny Ball Lane, the pitched roofs of Colston Yard and Street.

The recommendation was for approval and any outstanding issues could be dealt with by Conditions.

The following points arose from questions and debate:

·       During determination of the proposal structural assessments had been made by an external specialist company and had confirmed the structural viability of the development.

·       Condition 2 ensured that as the adjacent structure was within 6 metres of the publicly adopted highway, an agreement between the developer and the Council would need to be secured before any work could take place.

·       The consent for the development was for a hotel only and additional consent would be required for any student accommodation application on the site.

·       A Construction Management Plan (CMP) for building waste removal was yet to be approved following concerns raised by local businesses however any development must ensure safe access, and this would be secured by condition prior to any development work commencing. It was considered that as most waste removal would be via Johnny Ball Lane end this would be minimize the impact on local businesses.

·       The Condition for the CMP would be consulted on with all objectors, but this would not be a reason to raise fresh objections as this could put the Council at risk of an appeal.

·       It was confirmed that the number of objections raised for the development had reduced from 57 to 28 following resubmission of the proposal.

·       There would be two CMP’s one for transport to and from the site and one for environmental aspects such as noise and dust. The Transport Manager expressed concerns about transport arrangements for the site and supported a robust CMP and would welcome an opportunity to comment on it.

·       Concerns about a hotel development on the site could be mitigated by having less options for a greater number of small businesses resulting in reduced traffic movements overall.

·       The CMP was crucial to reduce impact on local businesses and residents, it was proposed that the final version of the CMP be reviewed by the DC A Committee’s lead members. This was agreed. Action

·       The Servicing/Management Plan was a material consideration and would be tightened up to secure access arrangements and ensure equality of access for disabled people. This to include a chair lift at the main entrance to the building and security lighting along Johnny Ball Lane.

·       A member suggested that the application be deferred pending a further transport report following concerns raised by the Transport Management Team.

Having regard to all the comments made Councillor Eddy (Chair) moved that the application be granted, to include a robust CMP being approved by lead members and the provision of a chair lift, this was seconded by Councillor Varney.

On being put to the vote there were 3 for, 3 against and 1 abstention. A decision was, therefore, not made.

In accordance with the Council’s Standing Orders the Chair then exercised his casting vote and voted for the proposal.

RESOLVED –

That the application be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

That a robust Construction Management Plan be approved by lead members, in liaison with the Transport Management team, prior to any work commencing.

That the proposal includes a chair lift at the main entrance to the building.