Agenda item

An amendment sheet was provided to the Committee in advance of the meeting, detailing changes since the publication of the original report. 

 

The Head of Development Management made the following points by way of introduction:-

 

1. The wider planning context when considering the application was set out. The Call-In Public Inquiry relating to proposals at Cribbs Causeway in South Gloucestershire had taken place towards the end of last year. Whilst the Inquiry hearings ended back in September, the Inspector held open the Inquiry until the new year (primarily to consider new transport modelling evidence) and the Inquiry remained open until early February. The Callowhill Court application had last been considered in September and a decision was deferred. The Committee now had an opportunity for Bristol City Council as Local Planning Authority to take a view on this application and express its support whilst the Call-In Inspector was able to receive further evidence and representations before making a recommendation to the Secretary of State on the Mall expansion planning application.

2. It was commonly recognised that there would be one major investment in retail-led development in the west of England sub-region during the next 10-15 years. This was likely to be either at Cribbs Causeway or at this application site. The retail-led mixed use redevelopment of the Bristol shopping quarter was supported by policies within the adopted Bristol Local Plan which was our development plan, particularly:

 

 

Ø  Policy BSC2 of the Core Strategy (Bristol City Centre’s role as a regional centre to be promoted and strengthened)

Ø  Policy BCAP 13 of the Central Area Plan (major retail growth to be focused on sites in the Bristol shopping quarter)

Ø  Policy BCAP 36 of the central area plan (the Horsefair & Callowhill Court allocated for major retail-led mixed use redevelopment)

 

It was very important that the Secretary of State’s Planning Inspector received a clear message from the City Council about its support for the redevelopment of the site in central Bristol, so that the Inspector could weigh this up when advising the SoS on the proposals at Cribbs Causeway.

3. The Committee in September resolved to defer as follows:

“…the Committee strongly supports the redevelopment of the site but considers the car park access via Brunswick Square to be unacceptable; therefore the car park must be reduced and possibly moved or eliminated to allow for a more sensitive solution. If this is achieved, the Committee would be disposed to grant outline planning permission, subject to detailed air quality assessment.”

4. Since then the Applicants have amended the application in the following respects:

Ø  Revised customer vehicular access arrangement is proposed – access was still to be taken from Bond Street, but no longer included circulation access via Brunswick Square. Access to the proposed multi-storey car park would be via a new signalised junction from Bond Street, with a right-in/left-out arrangement

 

Ø  A reduction in car parking spaces from 580 to 380 spaces.

 

Ø  The controlling parameter plans to be approved have been updated and included a reduction in height for the blocks on Bond Street and Merchant Street. The detailed design would follow in subsequent reserved matters application(s) which would evolve the illustrative ideas included within the application documents.

 

Ø  A new pedestrian link from Bond Street had been included.

 

Additional information relating to this had been submitted, including the submission of an addendum to the Environmental Statement, and a further round of consultation had been undertaken. Also, Air Quality had now been fully assessed.

5. The Transport Development Manager set out the revised transport arrangements. The recommendations were based on evidence derived from network-wide traffic modelling using the Council’s microsimulation program. The originally submitted scheme was not supported as the impact of 1,000 parking spaces and an all-movements junction was unacceptable;

6. The revised scheme that came to committee in September was for a reduced car park of 580 spaces with vehicle entry via York Street only and exits (in both directions) to Bond Street. The applicant and officers had taken account of the Committee’s decision and a number of changes were now proposed. The fundamental changes were: the right turn lane into the car park from Bond Street; the removal of the right-turn out onto Bond Street and the reduction in spaces to 380, of which 292 were new spaces (88 being relocated from elsewhere). Bond Street;

7. There is an existing pedestrian Toucan Crossing to the east of the access which is part of the SCOOT system and therefore, the signal access to/from the car park would work in conjunction with the crossings to minimise the amount of red time for through traffic. The SCOOT system prioritises major routes over side roads and therefore officers were satisfied (with associated management of the right turn lane) that this would not have a detrimental impact upon Bond Street. There was a condition requiring this lane to be closed on occasions to prevent tail backs to St James Barton. The applicant had modelled the junction and the queues were not forecast to overrun with the 380 spaces;

8. The amount of green time on the left turn out was 8 seconds in an 80 second cycle time;

10. Contributions had been obtained for works between Stokes Croft and York Street in order to get cyclists safely across the dual carriageway and this had been reflected in the condition, as there were still a number of outstanding matters before the design can be finalised in detail.;

11. The Local Plan maximum standard for a car park for the net additional uses proposed is 1250. The 380 space car park was therefore a 70% reduction. There are 88 existing parking spaces being relocated to the new car park from Horsefair, Penn Street, Callowhill Court and Cabot Circus Car Parkand Penn Street. The undercroft at Cabot Circus has 42 of the above spaces and is proposed to provide space to accommodate the relocation of coaches boarding and alighting facilities which would be subject to a new application;

12. A Parking survey was undertaken on 25 November 2017 and considered the worst case scenario when the highway network and parking provision is at greatest (worst-case) demand. Accepting the high peak, there were other occasions when the car parks filled up;

13. A key issue to consider with regard the increase in parking was that the development would bring expenditure to Bristol and with increased leisure uses dwell times would increase, therefore leading to existing car parks remaining full for longer;

14. The trip generation was set out in the report. Additional activity would mean additional traffic and without an additional car park, there would be additional traffic congestion caused by motorists circulating the central area to find parking spaces to that already being experienced;

15. The impact forecasts were set out in the report. There would be a very small increase in queuing from the car park and modelling supported that and it was not therefore possible to justify refusal on that basis;

16. As a Regional Shopping Centre there would be significant contributions to CIL which could be channelled towards the wider public transport improvements specified in the Joint Spatial Plan and its accompanying Joint Transport Strategy such as Park and Ride, Rapid Transit and improved rail facilities.The application provided a balance for motorists but safeguarded other modes. If the Horsefair and Penn Street is to benefit from pedestrianisation, traffic movements, including deliveries, disabled parking and public transport has had to be relocated elsewhere;

17. Detailed analysis of public transport had been undertaken and concluded that the scheme was workable and therefore compatible with the emerging City Centre Movement Strategy, which is also considering the potential of a right turn from Lewins Mead into Union Street, which would reverse the current one-way order to become southbound for buses only, freeing up further kerb space for additional bus stops.

18. Work was still needed on the East to West cycle routes. 3-4 cycle hubs providing 670 cycle parking spaces were proposed. It was proposed to make a feature of these hubs to stand out and attract users;

19. In summary, the following key aspects to the proposal were highlighted:

 

Ø  There was more detail to come regarding delivery service and waste strategy, subject to a condition;

Ø  Signage and Wayfinding would be conditioned;

Ø  A Construction Management Plan was conditioned;

Ø  Off-site works would be phased;

Ø  Potential access from Lewins Mead into Union Street (southbound);

Ø  A cycle route on Bond Street and Horsefair;

Ø  A full Travel Plan for all users;

Ø  There would be zero parking for the residential development save a car club and disabled residents;

Ø  TV screens and digital advertising would be subject to a condition to prevent glare / distraction to motorists;

Ø  A Section 106 obligation for bus shelters, RTI and raised kerbs;

Ø  Section 106 contributions identified for cycle routes;

Ø  A section 106 contribution for VMS/driver information;

Ø  Travel Plan monitoring which could now be done in-house, and requires a section 106 contribution;

Ø  CIL contributions had not yet been quantified.

20. The Head of Development Management concluded that the Committee would need to give weight to the following:-

 

 

Ø The proposals were Development plan and NPPF compliant and there was a S.38(6) statutory duty on the Council to determine in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise.

Ø The impact upon heritage assets was in a form consistent with legislation and in particular NPPF i.e. none/enhancement or ‘less than substantial harm’ with significant public benefits balance.

Ø The environmental impacts of significance and their mitigation was acceptable.

Ø The benefits that would flow from the development.

 

The following points arose from discussion:-

 

1. All Reserved Matters would come before a Committee;

2. The S106 agreement required a 40% level of Affordable Housing. The outline application could not be more than 150 units in total but this was often amended in a subsequent application so could be higher;

3. Councillor Davies noted that the Bristol Cycling Campaign found the scheme unacceptable at the Horsefair. The Development Transport Manager reported that the junction had been designed next to a Toucan crossing in order to address where cyclists crossed. Work was underway on getting cyclists off Stokes Croft and onto quiet routes such as York Street and Brunswick Square and through to Penn Street which would be safe and traffic free. Fairfax Street was also being considered for a cycle route given the flat nature of this route;

4. A west facing car park was best suited for the geographic spread of customers and kept traffic on the major road network and provided better access from the west and kept traffic off of the network;

5. There was no change to the application with regards to the retention of 5 trees. These trees would either have a TPO or other mechanism to protect them;

6. S106 arrangements would ensure that the land was maintained by the new developer;

7. Councillor Stevens referred to the flows of traffic into the car park at different times of day and calculated that it would only be 40% full from 12-3. The Transport Development Manager replied that this car park would have longer dwell times and forecasts indicated it would (at busiest times) be full by 11am, drawing on the survey data collected. Councillor Stevens questioned the robustness of the traffic flow modelling and referred to BCAP 29 paragraph 7.15. He believed this policy had not been adhered to in this proposal as this was more than an element of car park. The Transport Development Manager stated that more work was needed in respect of accumulation at early times, but again referred to the evidence collected in November that car parks fill up and this is to the detriment of the free flow of traffic around the City Centre. It was important to be clear on classifications – 7/8 hours for long stay and 2/3 for short stay. The Head of  Development Management added that this proposal was not contrary to BCAP 29 which referenced a ‘sustainable means of transport, particularly short stay but not exclusively’ and had an ‘important part to play in supporting retail policy particularly leisure’; The Transport Development Manager added that the proposal was not comprising private long-stay parking, but public short-stay parking. Current dwell times at Cabot Circus are between 90 minutes and 3 hours which, If subject to an increase raises the issues of additional congestion due to traffic circulation.

8. Councillor Mead appreciated the importance of the development. He asked whether the developer could guarantee that the development would go ahead prior to Cribbs Causeway as he had seen a press article regarding the merger of the two developers. He asked whether the S106 agreement could include road improvements to enable buses to navigate new routes. He felt that the car park being used only as an overflow for Cabot Circus discriminated disabled users as it would not be accessible at times when not required, given the number of spaces provided for disabled users within the car park. The Chair asked the developer’s representative if they would wish to respond. The representative commented that the press article referred to an intention, a number of steps would be required before a merger. At this time both corporate entities remained separate;

9. Councillor Sergeant referred to the zero parking for residents but noted that residents were often assured that this could be overcome. She was informed that the advice included on this development would request that parking permits were not to be issued and that the RPS orders were being updated to reflect new developments. She also referred to the lack of diversity in the units which would be large chains only, how difficult it would be to compete with Cribbs Causeway because parking was free and the pressure for the Council to improve on air quality, the possibility of increasing car parking charges if public transport improved and the waiting times on lights of 8 seconds. The Transport Development Manager responded that the cycle time modelled was 80 seconds from start to finish, 62 seconds to the main road, 8 to turn left. Modelling had been undertaken on air quality and its impact and the proposal could not be refused for the reason of traffic congestion. He added that it was well documented and modelling compared to Cribbs Causeway demonstrated how the same level of net additional development at The Mall at Cribbs Causeway was forecast to generate ten times the amount of net additional traffic of the Callowhill Court scheme (using The Mall’s own figures)

The Head of   Development Management added that there was no specific policy on diversity for A1 units for this site, however this could be influenced in other localities;

10. Councillor Stevens referred to disabled parking in the overflow car park and asked whether this could be overcome by shifting access to the goods vehicle route. He was informed that this would raise concerns regarding the operation of the bus lane when waiting for the bollards to be lowered and would lead to regular blockage of buses in addition to the requirements of delivery vehicles to access the premises;

11. Councillor Eddy welcomed the proposal noting it had been awaited for years. He hoped the Committee would fully support it. He feared that if any element was not supported it would send out a message that Broadmead was closed for business and the public should go to Cribbs Causeway;

12. Councillor Wright believed that that the proposal was now good enough. He had considered the suggestion of the car park as an overflow but believed this was much worse as a prime piece of land in the City Centre would be left empty for 90% of the time. He would vote in support of the proposal;

13. Councillor Mead supported the proposal, and in particular the Quakers Friars enhancement. He asked that consideration be given to the concerns of the Cycling Campaign’s concerns, the routing of buses for easy access, disabled access in the car park;

14. Councillor Davies acknowledged the compromise in this application and the applicant’s constructive response. He would vote for the application;

15. Councillor Clarke supported the proposal except for the car park and believed the car park as an overflow was a good solution. The car park would lead to even greater air quality and congestion problems than currently experienced;

16. Councillor Brook noted the compromise and the applicant had taken into account the Committee’s concerns. On balance, he would vote for the application;

17. Councillor Stevens acknowledged that the development needed to go ahead but wanted improvements in modelling, stating that air quality would lead to more deaths;

18. Councillor Mead moved the officer recommendations to grant and this was seconded by Councillor Eddy;

19. Councillor Clarke moved an amendment that the car park be used only as an overflow in the event that Cabot Circus is 90% full and this was seconded by Councillor Stevens. The amendment was put to the vote and it was lost (3 for, 6 against, 1 abstention). The substantive motion was then put to the vote and it was:-

 

Resolved (8 for, 2 abstentions) – That planning permission be granted subject to a legal agreement and conditions as set out in the report.

 

Councillor Hickman left the meeting during the debate for this item.