AN ambitious multi-million pound scheme to bring one of Bristol's most historic buildings back to life has been thrown out.
The Post reported on Tuesday that community supported proposals to redevelop the General Hospital in Redcliffe were in danger of falling apart because of a row between the developers City & Country and the city council over money.
The plan was to redevelop the hospital building and transform it into luxury flats, demolish later additions to the building and to build a new block of flats. The scheme would also include new shops and bars overlooking the Harbourside and the creation of new public squares.
The original plans included three options for a block of flats of either 16 storeys, nine storeys or six storeys but the council claimed that the two taller buildings would have been out of keeping with the area.
As a result the developers said they would have to cut back on the amount of cash they were prepared to pay the council to improve areas where development is being carried out under a deal known as section 106 agreement.
Last night city council development control meeting committee members voted 5-1, with one abstention, to refuse the scheme.
Now a final decision on the project will have to be made by an inspector at a public inquiry.
During the meeting planning officer Alison Straw told the committee that the council had requested the developers gave £1.2 million towards education and recreational facilities, as well as making 20 per cent of the properties affordable housing, available for people on low incomes to rent.
She said the company had offered just £120,000 and no affordable housing for their six-storey core scheme.
Miss Straw said City & Country paid £6.2 million for the three-acre site the University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust moved out from earlier this year, when an independent consultant suggested the land was worth less than £2.5m.
Recommending the plans be refused, she said it seemed the company had failed to take their obligations regarding section 106 agreements into account when buying the land.
But after the meeting Helen Moore, the managing director of City & Country, said: "The NHS confirmed, in writing, they would not have sold the land for any less than we paid for it.
"We are very disappointed and it is a very sad day for Bristol. I think it signals that Bristol is closed for business. We offered to arbitrate and review the numbers but our concerns have been rejected, despite there being overwhelming support for the proposals in the community.
"We have total confidence, when this goes in front of an inspector and there is a proper review of the numbers, we will be successful."
John Ashford, addressing the committee on behalf of community group Redcliffe Futures said: "The current application is a joy to behold.
"It has always been our view that this site should not be permitted to remain empty so it can be damaged by vandals and arsonists.
"Any delay might mean we lose the developer as well as the building."
A statement from the chairman of the development control central committee, councillor Alex Woodman, said: "The developer purchased the site last year, within the current market conditions, and any planning authority would expect them to reflect on their ability to deliver a scheme within the development brief before negotiating a price.
"The design of the scheme is clearly a good one, incorporating the sensitive re-use of the most important parts of the listed complex plus the introduction of well-designed new elements. But affordable housing is too serious an omission to overlook.
"The committee is very enthusiastic about the scheme as a whole.
"Ideally we would like to see a revised proposal that addresses the identified weaknesses in the current plans. However, we respect the developer's right to appeal.
"We are confident that the council's position will be supported by the Inspector to be appointed by the Secretary of State for the forthcoming planning inquiry."
0 comments:
Post a Comment