Agenda item

The Development Management, Team Officer presented the application, summarising the key issues, and confirmed the Officer’s recommendation for refusal as set out in the report. 

In response to Members questions, the following points and clarifications were made:

1. With respect to the public consultation, a common feature of the objections received  were with regard to constraints of trade or contractual issues in respect of ZaZa Bazaar, which were material planning considerations reflected by officers comments in the report.
2. Neither the number of objections received nor the time the objections had been received during the public consultation should determine the weight the Committee gave to them.  Members should be cognizant of the quality of the reasons rather than the quantity received.
3. With respect to the objections that related to the impact of the height of the proposed development on neighbouring views it was noted that the aquarium was significantly higher than the proposed development. However, the aquarium was shielded from view by U shed and V shed.  The key matter was that the proposed development interrupted the consistent 2 storey maritime shed view on the waterfront and would be significantly taller.
4. The conservation character appraisal considered that the view of the Grade 1 listed cathedral was important and that the harm that should be attributed to the development was great.
5. Historic England considered that some of the issues could have been addressed by a smaller scale development and deferred to the conservation officer to determine the harms and impacts on the conservation area.  The conservation and planning officers were clear that the development would harm the conservation area and in this instance there were insufficient public benefits not to recommend refusal.
6. Referencing relevant policies in the report pack, it was noted that the submission from the council’s economic development team considered that the proposal would create new jobs.  Economic Development Officers were not in attendance and Planning officers were not in a position to provide further information on the research or assumptions that supported the submission.
7. The economic development team had commented that the development would contribute towards addressing the lack of grade A office supply in the city centre market. Heritage and Planning Officers were required to consider the development’s impact within the conservation area, on several listed buildings and the setting of 2 other conservation areas.  Officers weighed the public benefit of increased office space against the impact, noting that whilst there may be a need for office space there may be more suitable locations in the city centre which had less of an impact on the heritage assets. Overall in this instance there was not enough public benefit to outweigh the harms identified.
8. An equalities assessment had been carried out to ensure level access was available to the new units and offices.  The representations received in relation to Za Za Bazaar had outlined that a diverse range of groups were using the building, however officers had no further information regarding this.
9. There was no data available at the meeting to understand the level and proximity of empty office space in that location.
10. The entrance to the walkway under the building measured 3m to the ceiling, passed the entrance, the measurement to the ceiling increases to 3.7m.
11. Comments from the urban design team regarding adaptive reuse, referred to the ability of the building to be adapted and reused in its current form.
12. It was understood that options to retrofit the building had been investigated by the applicant but due to the building construction it could not be retrofitted.  The frame of the existing building would not have been suitable for the size and scale of the development. The way the floors inside of the building were designed did not make it possible to retrofit it to the ceiling height of grade a offices and have four floors within it.
13. This was a car free development with sustainable transport options available.  The Transport Team had not raised objections noting that there are 2 large carparks and various bus stops nearby.
14. There is a demand for high quality office accommodation which has held up post covid and is reflected in comments from the Economic Development Team
15. The conversation area character appraisal is clear that this area has had an important leisure function for many years.  It was key to attracting tourists and to the area remaining vibrant.  It is a dedicated leisure frontage which means that the policy assessment is looking to see leisure use and active use situated on the ground floor. 

During debate, Councillors made the following comments:

16. This was a critical area for city with a large number of jobs linked to its day-to-day operations as well as the knock-on impacts to supply chains. As heard from public forum statements received from local businesses a number of jobs hang in balance.  This is a key tourism site and part of the key local offer, one of the few premises that draws people in from all over the city from a huge range of backgrounds. The data supporting the economic development benefits were unclear and it was not clear what the economic impact of working from home had done to office supply.  The economic promises this development made versus the significant loss of jobs in short term was of concern.
17. This was a fairly new 30-year-old building and the reasons for taking it down were unsubstantiated. The heritage of the area should be supported and didn’t need another luxurious office block.
18. The representations heard with regard to the public realm at the rear of V shed were that this was a dismal place to be, and improvements there would be welcome.  There was agreement with officers’ presentation that the series of buildings that made up the waterfront conservation area profile deserved to be retained.
19. The only reason to demolish a 30-year old building would be due to structural damage. A significantly larger building would be disruptive to the area. There was no reason why the landscaping suggested couldn’t happen anyway, with pavements widened and trees planted to create a welcoming presence.  It was not clear that the leisure area was the right place for new office space. The footfall that Za Za received was significant and the loss of this would have an impact on surrounding businesses. The recommendations and reasons for refusal were sound.
20. Similar concerns had been flagged by officers on conservation and heritage grounds about the development of the Arc and We the Curious and Members had unanimously supported the side of progress deeming that there was zero to  marginal damage to the conservation site against the economic cost benefit to the leisure industry.  This decision would be a key precedent. It was important to honour Bristol’s rich history whilst acknowledging that Bristol was a living, breathing city where people needed to work rest and play. It was important to house people and create jobs and acknowledge that this was not a working commercial dock. The enhancements to the public realm and landscaping were all positive things and 500 jobs would be preserved in the long term.
21. Others deemed that this proposal was very different to the Arc which would have been a movable structure and with significant contribution to the leisure offer.  The proposed development was considered a static office building.
22. It was important to support the leisure industry at this time. There was a need for a range of jobs, not just office-based jobs.  The draw to the area the current business provided was considered significant in comparison to that of an office.

Councillor Stafford-Townsend then moved the officer recommendation in relation to PA No. 22/00933/F  and this was seconded by Councillor Brown. On being put to the vote it was:- RESOLVED (7 for, 2 against) that the officer recommendation for refusal be upheld.