Agenda item

Officers made the following key points during their presentation:

(1)   Details of the application were provided

(2)   Although the scheme was designed with Engine Shed 2 in mind, the Council had no control over it

(3)   Officers had balanced the benefits and harm to the heritage asset and were recommending refusal for both applications

(4)   If the decision to refuse was not accepted, the application would be referred to the Secretary of State. Therefore, if this decision was made, the Committee would need to be specific in their reasons for their decision

(5)   There was no CIL in respect of the full application. Whilst there would be some CIL for ground floor commercial space in the outline application, it would not be calculated until the reserved matters stage

(6)   Whilst the air quality issue could be resolved in the event that the application was approved, additional details would be required from the applicants before approval

(7)   Details of the site were given

(8)   There was only one route that was considered safe for vehicle access which would require careful management

(9)   Whilst some parts of the retained fabric of the building would be kept, officers believed that more could have been retained by the applicant. Case law was clear that the Committee needed to give great weight to the retention of the historic fabric. The applicant had not demonstrated that the works were necessary

(10)                       Pictures of the current interior of the building was shown and a visual representation of the completed development

(11)                       There would be significant harm to the heritage assets which could not be overcome

(12)                       Whilst the desire for Engine Shed to expand was noted, the application could not be recommended for approval

(13)                       Officer did not accept the applicant’s argument that the retention of the historic fabric was not possible as it was already beyond repair and that it was also not viable to retain it

Officers responded to Councillors’ questions as follows:

(14)                       Whilst it was acknowledged that Paragraph 133 of the national guidance provided exceptions to approve in appropriate situations, officers did not believe that the harm or loss caused would be outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use

(15)                       Whilst officers would have liked more time to further discuss the development with the applicant to see if an agreement would be reached, the applicant has insisted that they wanted the scheme determined by Committee

(16)                       Very little of the floor features would be kept – the roof needed to be removed and replaced to line it up with a new extension

(17)                       The Local Plan Policy states that the development of offices was acceptable in this area (ie the Enterprise Zone).

(18)                       Officers conformed that the applicants had radically reduced the height of the original scheme and sought to retain more fabric than the original scheme – however, they had not addressed a number of significant concerns, such as the retention of the staircase. In addition, there were significant issues with loading which also could not be resolved

(19)                       Whilst officers were guided by Historic England in their recommendation, they did not believe the application could be supported

(20)                       Officers acknowledged concerns about the lack of adequate disabled access at the current Engine Shed and the harm caused to historic assets by other previous applications other similar applications (ie Metro Bus). However, it was pointed out that each application was considered on its own merits

Councillor Afzal Shah moved, seconded by Councillor Richard Eddy and , upon being put to the vote, it was

Resolved – (unanimously) ) that officers be instructed to refer both applications to the Secretary of State with the view that the Committee is minded to support them on the grounds that they feel the benefits of the schemes outweigh the harm with regards to Paragraph 133 of the NPPF. The Committee provided the following reasons in respect of their decision:

(1)  they note Historic England’s concerns in respect of Heritage Assets but note that, if the building was left neglected much longer, it could fall down through lack of repair

(2)  delivery of Bristol Core Strategy Policy BCS8, by contributing to a sufficient and flexible supply of employment land and promoting the city as a place to invest

(3)  delivery of Bristol Core Strategy Policy BCS2, by creation of employment and active ground floor uses in wider mixed use development in the City Centre;

(4)  delivery of Bristol Central Area Plan Policy BCAP6, by delivering employment space and bridging Temple Quarter with the rest of the City Centre

(5)  delivery of Bristol Central Area Plan Policy BCAP35, by delivering employment led development, creating an exemplar for new initiatives and a hub for creative minded businesses on the site

(6)  the Committee believe that the proposal is a high quality design

(7)  there is a need for disabled access provision since the provision of accessible venues for the whole of the population is something that should be the Council’s aim, as well as noting that there could be a breach of the Equalities Act

(8)  the Committee particularly noted the comments received from the Walking Alliance  to ensure sufficient clearance to allow pedestrians and vehicles to interact and recommend that this be addressed by condition

(9)  there was no commercial demand for the existing old hotel building at the George and Railway

(10)            it was not reasonable to refuse a development to re-use a building which is almost completely beyond repair

(11)            the Committee also noted that a report concerning air quality would need to be provided prior to determination of the application