Scheme received hundreds of objections from residents and local heritage and planning groups
The planned Princess Street tower seen from the New Cut(Image: Liz Lake Associates)
Controversial plans for South Bristol’s tallest ever building have been approved after councillors were told they would lose an appeal, costing city taxpayers £1million.
The city council’s planning committee granted permission for 434 flats, of which one-fifth will be ‘affordable’, and 400 student beds, in four blocks including a 23-storey tower on a site south of Princess Street between Victoria Park and the New Cut.
Members vetoed the development in January amid concerns about the height and number of apartments, along with harm to views of important buildings, and asked officers who had recommended giving the go-ahead to come back with reasons for refusal.
But despite 468 objections from residents and local heritage and planning groups, the updated report to the committee said rejecting the scheme would not withstand an appeal from developers Galliard Apsley, and the advice remained to approve.
Councillors voted 6-3 in favour after a marathon three-hour debate on Wednesday evening (March 11).
Among those who objected were Historic Buildings and Places, Avon Gardens Trust, Bristol Civic Society, the Conservation Advisory Panel, Totterdown Residents Environmental and Social Action (TRESA), Windmill Hill and Malago Planning Group, BS3 Planning Group, Victoria Park Action Group, Windmill Hill City Farm, Learning Partnership West School, St Mary Redcliffe Primary School, and Structural Soils.
Historic England did not object but expressed concerns about the impact on views of St Mary Redcliffe.
During public forum, Cllr Ed Plowden (Green, Windmill Hill) said: “The officer report fails to respect this committee’s instruction to write a report that justifies refusal.
“The committee should reject this report, renew its instructions and then insist on a report that does not sabotage its own decision.”
Former Bristol mayor George Ferguson, an architect and adviser to Historic England, said: “Of course we support more homes.
“We remain strongly opposed [to the plans].
“I ask you to stick to your guns and refuse.”
He said a late engagement exercise undertaken by the developers, which resulted in 36 letters of support and just four against, was ‘suspicious’ and appeared to have been written by ‘hostages’.
Mr Ferguson said the development ‘fails dismally on design, environment, heritage, landscape, and social grounds’.
He said: “It is quite wrong for the officers to try to override the democratic process in this way by threatening a lost appeal, especially when there are a host of reasons why this scheme should never have seen the light of day.”
Asked by Cllr Andrew Varney (Lib Dem, Brislington West) what the financial risk was to the authority if the plans were refused, Bristol City Council chief planning officer Simone Wilding said: “I would estimate the costs awarded against us to be in the region of three-quarters of a million pounds.
“Plus on top of that, if we chose to defend, we would have our own costs, so in total we are probably looking at about £1million.
The proposed Princess Street tower seen from Victoria Park(Image: Liz Lake Associates)
“There would be a high risk of costs being awarded against us.”
But Cllr Guy Poultney (Green, Cotham) said: “We’ve now had a figure put on the table which is not in the report, and is not something that can be substantiated or challenged.
“The one thing we do know is that we’re not meant to take it into account at all.”
He said the law stated that the cost of an appeal was not a material planning consideration.
Cllr Poultney said: “This committee should be really clear that it asked officers to go away and provide robust reasons for refusal.
“I hate to say it but that time has been used to try not to build those reasons for refusal but to strengthen those reasons to grant.
“If that’s the case, this should be the final nail in the coffin of this cooling-off policy because it is clearly not doing the job that councillors agreed in the first place.”
Cllr Serena Ralston (Green, Clifton Down) said: “We have not been given much choice in the matter – the officer report has been tilted in favour of development, it doesn’t seem a very democratic process.
“We’re under the cosh here. There is no other choice but to approve it.
“I am very uncomfortable because this is not a high-quality development.”
Committee chairman Cllr Rob Bryher (Green, St George West) said: “I don’t like the height of this building, I don’t like the design.
READ MORE: Bid for 400 homes near M5 clears first hurdleREAD MORE: Michelin-starred Midlands chef Aktar Islam to open new restaurant in Bristol
“I don’t know whether it’s better to hear the substantial community voices who have made very clear your objections to it, or whether to go with the very clear policy guidance within the constraints of the system that will continually ask us to do these things in planning communities over the next few years and decades.
“To be honest, it’s part of the reason I’m going to give this up [as committee chairman].
“It’s just too demoralising. I don’t like making these decisions any more.”
But Cllr Varney said: “Bristol is not a museum piece, it’s a commercial, dynamic city – it changes.
“Yes, the tallest building is tall but it is by no means the tallest building that’s been consented in Bristol.
“We have buildings with planned consent of 28 storeys, and that is still quite small-fry compared to other comparable cities around the UK.
“Yes, there will be an impact on views but it is not as important as the need to deliver housing.
“We have 20,000 families on the housing waiting list.
“It’s a disgrace that we are even considering not approving this scheme that will deliver housing for people on the housing waiting list.
“What is more important – a view or a house? I am voting for a house.”
Cllr Richard Eddy (Conservative, Bishopsworth) said the project would provide more than 800 homes and millions of pounds of developer contributions for improvements to transport, public spaces, a medical facility and employment space, including food and drink outlets.
He said: “It is a scheme worthy of support. I beg members to support this.”
Cllr Patrick McAllister (Green, Hotwells & Harbourside) said: “We have a crippling housing crisis.
“I don’t like the tower block but homelessness is uglier than a tower block and I don’t see where this doesn’t get built through an appeal where the council will be subject to substantial costs, but I’m not happy about it.”
Voting in favour were Labour Cllrs Lisa Durston, Kye Dudd and Louis Martin, Cllr Eddy, Cllr Varney and Cllr McAllister, while Green Cllrs Poultney, Bryher and Ralston were against.
To find all the planning applications, traffic diversions, road layout changes, alcohol licence applications and more in your community, visit the Public Notices Portal.
View original content to download multimedia:
