Agenda item

The Case Officer introduced the report, summarised it for everyone and gave a presentation.

The application is for the demolition of Croftdale and other industrial buildings on site and redevelopment of 86-92 and 96-102 Stokes Croft and Croftdale to provide 9no. residential units (Class C3), 2no. workshop units (Class E(g)) and 59no. bedrooms of student accommodation with associated development, including retention of existing ground floor retail units on Stokes Croft and the existing student accommodation at 86-92 and 96-98 Stokes Croft.

The following answers were provided to questions:

•            Some of the information relating to Refusal Reason No. 3 was not received in time so could not be considered

•            The reasons for refusal were clarified and confirmed; if the application was granted the developer could develop the site; the application had been assessed in accordance policies

•            Historic England had not objected to the demolition of Croftdale as it only comments on proposals affecting Grade 1 and Grade II* listed buildings; comments on other buildings are normally delegated to the BCC Conservation Team who considered that this building should be retained due to its heritage value

•            Neither the applicant nor agent were present at site visit earlier in the day as the visit was to allow the Members to view the site

•            The loss or harm to a heritage asset has to be justified before public benefits can be considered

•            There is no affordable housing provision; 9 flats are proposed and the minimum threshold for affordable housing is 10 units

•            No viability information was requested or provided

•            If the scheme was to be approved by the Committee, Officers could draw up appropriate conditions including any that Members particularly wanted included

•            The alleyway beneath number 92 Stokes Croft is to be gated so that only residents could use it, although this arrangement could be reviewed in the future

•            A lot of work went to agreeing the arrangements for access and servicing the site from the rear

•            Safety aspects relating to transport were the subject of technical approval and there are minimal transport concerns

•            Since the committee report and recommendation was finalised the applicant has stated that the proposal can achieve a BREEAM Excellent rating, but there not been time to assess whether or not this claim is valid; if the application was approved by Committee it may be possible include BREEAM Excellent as a condition

•            It was confirmed that there are concerns about existing residents and future occupants being overlooked by the proposed development

•            It was noted that there could be more improvements to the site than the developer is proposing

Debate

•            The site visit was very helpful

•            Something needs to done to this site, there is huge potential

•            Most of the scheme is very good, but there is a trade off between losing the historic building and improving the site for the local community; there are a lot of benefits for the local community with this scheme

•            There is lot of support for the scheme from local Members and the local community; the scheme provides housing and employment; it is on a brownfield site and it will help regenerate the area; it will also help reduce crime; do not support reasons for refusal

•            Local support for the scheme was noted; the positives for the scheme outweigh the negatives

•            Scheme is not perfect but is good for the community

•            It would be good to see the shop fronts restored

•            Scheme could be better in a number of ways, but not convinced by the Officer reasons for refusal

•            It was suggested that should the Committee approve the application, the choice of appropriate conditions be delegated to Officers

Officers stated that they would need time to come up with the appropriate conditions and noted that Members wanted to see conditions relating to the BREEAM Excellent rating and the choice of materials; there will also need to be a S106 Agreement.

Councillor Stafford Townsend moved the Officer recommendation that application be Refused.

Councillor Eddy seconded the Motion.

On being put the Vote the Motion was Lost – Voting 0 for, 7 against.

Councillor Eddy moved that the application be Granted with the choice of appropriate Conditions and an S106 Agreement delegated to Officers.

Councillor Breckels seconded the Motion.

On being out to the Vote it was

RESOLVED (Voting 7 for, 0 against) – that the application be Granted with the choice of appropriate Conditions and an S106 Agreement delegated to Officers.