Agenda item

The representative of the Service Director – Planning made the following points by way of introduction:-

a)      The site was to be redeveloped for residential purposes creating 375 homes of which 20% would be affordable housing.  The development would include the tallest building within the City Centre area at 98.3 meteres.

b)      The development is highly sustainable; links to the District Heating Network; approximately 490 cycle spaces; car parking spaces limited to 36; close proximity to shopping area; proposed public improvements to include creating a gateway to the park; improvements to the public highway and pedestrian areas; additional 18 trees planted to replace the 4 to be removed.

c)      Committee viewed a presentation of photographs with the proposed tower superimposed to allow for the visual impact on Bristol skyline.  22 views shown.

d)      Consideration given to the impact of the development on heritage assets, including the Pip ‘n’ Jay Church and Old Market area.  The impact was offset against the public benefit of the scheme to the wider area.

e)      The degree of harm to the old market area and conservation areas had been considered and it was considered less than substantial. 

f)       The public realm improvement as an outcome from the development was significant.  It includes the improvement to the Tower Hill junction; realignment of the cycle route; resurfacing of the surrounding roads; improvements to the gateway to Castle Park; meets the requirement for regeneration of the area; job creation; positive impact on the shopping area with the introduction of new residents; CIL outcome of approximately £2.5 million.

g)      Committee were being recommended to approve the application in accordance with the S106 requirements and conditions as set out on the amendment sheet.

Councillor’s points of Clarification

h)      Members raised questions on the impact of the culvert that runs through the middle of the site and its impact on the development.  Officers outlined the conditions and designs that satisfied these concerns.

i)       In answer to the questions on the culvert, known as the Castle Ditch culvert that runs through the centre of the development Officers confirmed that the design incorporated this natural drainage system.  That ‘post constructions conditions’ are to be imposed on the developers to check for damage to the culvert.

j)        There would be no harm to archaeology; conditions have been included to secure the recording of the identified archaeological remains.

k)      Members sought reassurance about actions taken to prevent the scheme from being a two tier development in terms of occupancy.  The affordable housing residents would have access to the outside communal amenity space; all blocks have own entrance site; access to the gym and dining facilities were not planned for the affordable housing residents.  Giving access to all would impact the rate of the service charge for the affordable housing  residents.  Officers were able to confirm that a condition could be imposed requiring the applicants to submit information regarding access to membership of the gym facilities and access to the other communal facilities for all residents.

l)       The Amendment sheet conditions the requirement for 2% of the scheme to be adaptable for wheel chair accessibility.

m)    Officers considered the proposed improvements to the surrounding pedestrian walkway compensated for the lack of a thoroughfare across the site sufficient to compensate non-residents.  The central garden area would be for exclusively for the use of residents.

n)      The fire safety issues relating to any outer cladding of the building was a matter for Building Regulations.  In the design and Access statement it is clear that there has been liaison with the Avon Fire Services on this and other fire safety matters.  From an aesthetic point of view the details would be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration.  In addition the mixed material used for the outer structure would be subject to a maintenance strategy that would include actions to manage the aging process.

o)     Clarity was sought on the scheme being linked to the district heating system.  The provision and timing of this is to be finalised through the S106 Agreement given the liabilities of both BCC and the applicant need to be protected.  There is commitment however for the scheme to be linked to the DHN.

p)      There were concerns about the management of over 400 bike stands.  The issue of abandoned cycles taking up usable space was raised.  To mitigate the bike stands would be position at a number of locations across the complex and considered to be safe and secure.

Councillors made the following points:

q)      Cllr Denyer supported the need for a development with affordable housing and the proposed tall building but had reservation about the design.  She took the view that the design could be better but questioned whether it was bad enough to be refused.

r)       Cllr Breckels viewed the design  as ambitious; that it would deliver 20% affordable housing; that avoiding a two tier occupancy situation could be conditioned; had slight reservation about the enclosed central amenity area; took the view that buildings should reflect the era in which they are built; noted that no substantial harm to the conservation area; therefore happy to support.

s)      Cllr Davies enquired whether the colour scheme of the design could be conditioned.  Officers advised that the scheme presented is the one to be considered but conditions are in place to test samples of the materials to be used.

t)       Cllr Bradley supported the development but had reservation about the possible two tier occupation with access to on site amenities being limited to private residents.

u)      Cllr Mead supported the development; considered the design appropriate for a modern building; considered limiting the access to central amenity area to residents would support the safety of all residents; the 2% adaptable for accessibility good but not great; appreciated the assurance given in respect of the fire safety concerns.

v)      Cllr Shah supported the development and applauded the 20% affordable housing provision.

Councillor Shah moved, seconded by Councillor Mead, upon being put to the vote it was;

RESOLVED (unanimously); that the application be approved as per the recommendations contained in the report and including the conditions as set out in the Amendment Sheet with the additional condition regarding access to on site facilities by all residents.