Agenda item

Councillor Shah arrived after Public Forum for this application had been presented and would not therefore be able to take part in the decision.

An Amendment Sheet was provided to the committee in advance of the meeting, detailing changes since the publication of the original report.

The following points were made in the Officer presentation:-

1. Noting the level of detail in the Amendment Sheet, Officers were now satisfied with the design of building A and all but one issue of the highway layout;

2. Historic England submitted comments regarding the harm the development, particularly building C would cause in the setting of heritage assets, including listed buildings. It was therefore necessary to determine whether the harm outweighed the benefits of the application. In terms of building A, given the additional information submitted, Officer’s view was that impact of the building on the historic tower was limited and therefore there was minimal harm;

3. Given the outline nature of buildings B and C, the harm caused was more difficult to determine, although Officers noted the benefits of the development, including Economic Benefits, and improved accessibility, through improved pedestrian routes through the site.

4. The low car parking scheme was supported, given the accessibility of the site although this would have a significant impact on the highway network in respect of pedestrian and cyclist movements and developers had worked closely with officers to improve accessibility for new cycle routes, pavements and pedestrian crossings. Highway officers remained concerned regarding the servicing bay and this would need mitigation;

5. There were additional conditions to add on archaeology,, design strategy, and some amended and deleted conditions were highlighted, including highway works and freight consolidation . Officers recommended approval subject to a S106 agreement and the conditions in the amendment sheet as amended.

The following points arose from debate:-

1. It was confirmed that officers were recommending approval of the principle of building B and C and the detail of the proposal would come at Reserved Matters stage;

2. Councillor Denyer referred to the space between the buildings and the possible effect on the Church and asked whether a shading study had been undertaken. She was informed that this could be added as a requirement at the Reserved Matters stage;

3. It was clarified that on receipt of the Reserved Matters submission officers would assess whether it would need to come before a Committee;

4. The car parking spaces met minimum standards and complied with 5% of spaces including 2 disabled bays and 4 electric vehicles. There was sufficient infrastructure in the area to help with accessibility;

5. The Transport Development Manager stated that 20% cycle parking for a 3000 employee ratio would equate to 600 spaces. The 412 spaces provided met minimum standards. The Travel Plan could be reviewed if inadequate;

6. The Chair expressed concern regarding accessibility and through routes and its ability to impede transport modes. The Transport Development Manager stated that there would be segregated 2-way cycle routes. They would not extend to the north because of the ambulance station development. There would be an off road segregated route to Tower Hill;

7. A Construction Management Plan condition would be imposed to protect the floating harbour and ecology;

8. The Chair, acknowledging the impact of the Reserved Matters application, stated that there was an expectation that these would be considered by Committee;

9. Councillor Mead believed this was a good example of modern architecture and the potential harm to historic buildings was, in his opinion, nil as they were already surrounded by tall buildings. He noted that the location was sustainable with many bus routes and Temple Meads nearby. He did not share concerns regarding the Reserved Matters stage;

10. Councillor Eddy agreed with the preceding comments adding that the development was a job and wealth creator and a high quality building for staff and visitors to enjoy. He believed there was more harm caused by the derelict flats next to the historic buildings than by this development;

11. Councillor Davies agreed with previous comments and supported the recommendation to grant;

12. Councillor Denyer stated that the design was good and she supported the recommendations with the addition of a shading study condition.

Councillor Mead moved the recommendations as amended and this was seconded by Councillor Eddy.

On being put to the vote it was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED –

1. That the application, as amended, be granted subject to a Planning Agreement;

2. That a shading study be undertaken to support the future Reserved Matters application;

3. That the Reserved Matters submission be brought before a Committee for consideration.

            The meeting ended at 3.15pm.

Chair  __________________