(1) Planning Application Number 16/02349/F – Land Bounded By Redcliff Street, St Thomas Street and Three Queens Lane, Bristol BS1 6LJ - Redevelopment of site to provide 274 Residential Dwellings (Class C3), 186-bed hotel (Class C1), 3,018 sq m of café/restaurants (Class A3) and a 2,199 sq m food hall (Classes A1 to A5), 1,547 sq m of office space Class B1), including associated infrastructure, plant, basement car parking, highway and pedestrian access and public realm works
(2) Planning Application Number 16/02964/F – 16A St Thomas Street Bristol BS1 6JJ - Redevelopment of site to provide 274 residential dwellings (Class C3), 186-bed hotel (Class C1), 3018 sqm of café/restaurants (Class A3) and a 2199 sqm food hall (Classes A1 to A5), 1547 sqm of office space (Class B1), including associated infrastructure, plant, basement car parking, highway and pedestrian access and public realm works (Major application).
Officers made the following points during their presentation:
(1) Detailed illustrations of the proposed developments were set out, including an aerial photo
(2) The proposed tower would be 82.7 metres tall, whilst Castle Mead was 80m tall and the Spire at St Mary Redcliffe was 89 metres tall
Councillors made the following points:
(3) The £5.2 million of CIL payable if this scheme was approved was likely to be the largest the Council had ever received since this form of funding was introduced;
(4) It was not acceptable that the CIL from this scheme, due to the Council’s existing policy, would be given to only one NP. The CIL policy needed to change;
(5) The proposed tower was contrary to the Council’s Tall Buildings Policy and the policy was likely to require amendment if this application was approved;
(6) There will be licensed premises on the site. Therefore, adequate soundproofing would be required for residents;
(7) It was important that the status of the new thoroughfare through the site was clarified to establish if it was pedestrianised, one way and whether or not it fell within the private or public realm;
(8) Garden access seemed a good idea. There was a good use of trees on the site. It was not unusual for modern cities to have tall buildings as part of their skyline;
(9) The design of the buildings was a big improvement on what had previously been suggested. Whilst the amount of affordable housing was acceptable, it was not ideal but it was acknowledged that it could increase subject to the archaeological requirements;
(10) The site was good for storage of bicycles;
(11) This scheme should be supported. It was a development in an area which badly needed it and which provided 12% affordable housing with £5 million CIL. It was not overshadowing or altering the character of the area and was supported by the local Ward members;
(12) Whilst there was acknowledgement of the concerns previously expressed about the way in which CIL was allocated, it was noted that Councillor Holland (Cabinet Member for Place) was examining this;
(13) This development would be very good for the city and should be supported. The concerns about the process for allocating CIL were noted and had recently been raised by a question to the Mayor;
(14) This site could deliver much more than 12% affordable housing. In addition, the Tower was not very impressive. A better design would have been the Eclipse Tower at Castle Park. However, there were other good elements to it and it had local Ward Councillor support;
(15) Officers should investigate whether an agreement could be made with the developer to provide apprenticeships. It is disappointing that 40% affordable housing could not be provided as per existing policy;
(16) Bristol has a low sky line compared to other cities so a building on the scale that was being proposed should not be opposed on these grounds alone. It was a functional and utilitarian design. The rest of the development was good and it was long overdue for the area;
(17) The affordable housing was not good enough. However, the proposed BREEAM rated District Heating Scheme was excellent;
(18) It was disappointing that, despite extensive discussions with the developers, more affordable housing could not have been offered;
(19) The PRS scheme was encouraging;
(20) Although it was disappointing there was not more affordable housing, the developers had made an effort in this area.
In response to Councillors’ comments, officers stated that:
(21) There were a number of conditions (5, 11 and 12) which had been included in the recommendation to address concerns about any potential risk from flooding;
(22) The proposed amount of CIL was a material planning consideration by virtue of the Localism Act;
(23) Government regulations are clear that the local component of CIL goes to the local community in which the development that pays the CIL is located. It enables those communities that are affected by development to financially benefit from it;
(24) Cross Street had not been offered for adoption as part of the public highway. Officers would need to establish if the public would be able to pass through this area. However, it was not intended to be used for vehicular access. A measure of control would be retained through the use of Condition 16;
(25) It would be possible to add a condition stating that apprenticeships should be offered as part of the development.
Councillor Stevens moved, seconded by Councillor Eddy and upon being put to the vote, it was
(1) (9 for, 0 against, 2 abstentions) that Planning Application Number 16/02349/F (Redcliff Quarter - Land Bounded By Redcliff Street, St Thomas Street And Three Queens Lane) be approved subject to the additional conditions outlined in the amendment sheet and an additional condition concerning the provision of apprenticeships;
(2) (10 for, 0 against, 1 abstention) that Planning Application Number 16/02964/F (Land Bounded By Redcliff Street, St Thomas Street and Three Queens Lane, Bristol BS1 6JJ) be approved subject to the additional conditions outlined in the amendment sheet and an additional condition concerning the provision of apprenticeships.