Modern.gov Breadcrumb
- Agenda item
Modern.gov Content
Agenda item
Application Number 16/04561/F - Linear Park, Avon Street, Bristol
Erection of a 8-11 storey building comprising 255 no. residential units, 536 sq metres of flexible commercial / community floor space (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A4, B1a, D1 or D2) at ground floor level, basement car park and associated development, including access, landscaping, bin storage and cycle parking. (Amendment to planning permission 14/03133/F) – Major Application
Minutes:
Item 7 (b) – Application Number 16/04561/F – Linear Park, Avon Street, Bristol – Erection Of An 8-11 Storey Building Comprising 255 No. Residential Units, 536 Square Metres of Flexible Commercial/Community Floor Space (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A4, B1a, D1 or D2) At Ground Floor Level, Basement Car Park and Associated Development, Including Access, Landscaping, Bin Storage and Cycle Parking (Amendment To Planning Permission 14/03133/F) – Major Application
Officers gave a presentation for this item and made the following key points:
(1) Since the item had been to Committee on 22nd February 2017, it was noted that the bill period had been extended to 37 months, not to the shorter period that had originally been referred to by the applicant during Public Forum at the last Committee;
(2) Since the applicant’s acknowledgement that there had been an error in the calculation of CIL as a result of the incorrect original viability assessment, this had now been corrected;
(3) The applicant had now indicated that he would provide a minimum of 26 affordable units (10%), together with an offer of a further viability review on completion of the scheme. This was on the understanding that, if they could afford to provide more affordable units, they would do so. This offer was a significant concession by the applicant as they were not required to do this. Nevertheless, it was acknowledged that the report indicated that the applicant could afford to provide 34 units – which the applicant did not agree with;
In response to Councillors’ questions, officers made the following points:
(4) There was no risk of less than 26 affordable units being provided – this was the minimum figure that the developer would have to provide;
(5) Values and build costs were estimated to increase. Therefore, it was fairly likely that any review would result in units being built having higher rental values. There were only a small number of these PRS schemes in operation. It was, therefore, difficult to assess it until the work was completed. The review of the viability of a PRS scheme like this had not been done before and this was therefore breaking new ground;
(6) The wording of the Section 106 Agreement had been agreed to ensure the yield was set at the beginning and with finance factored in. The applicant would need to incorporate the sales value of rented flats at the end of the scheme;
(7) The figure of 90% occupancy had been set at the relevant stage of the review as by this stage the scheme would be mostly built and rental values could be assessed.
Councillors made the following comments:
(8) In future schemes, consideration should be given to allowing the developer to retain 25% of the excess profit of such schemes to provide motivation for them to build schemes as quickly as possible;
(9) The method by which the scheme’s viability had been assessed was a cause for concern.
Councillor Olly Mead moved, seconded by Councillor Chris Windows and, upon being put to the vote, it was
Resolved (9 for, 0 against, 1 abstention) that the recommendations contained in the report, together with the Amendment Sheet, be approved.
Supporting documents: