Scheme for luxury flats on former hospital site is given the go-ahead
PLANS to transform the former Bristol General Hospital have been given the go-ahead by councillors.
A scheme to convert the site, which closed to patients in April after more than 150 years in operation, was turned down in August following a row over affordable housing and payments to the council.
-
General Hospital
An independent report prepared for the council had said developer City & Country should pay £1.2 million towards local projects and make 40 per cent of housing affordable – available for rent or purchase to people on low incomes – in return for permission to convert the hospital into flats, shops and restaurants.
But the developers claimed that would have made the scheme uneconomic in the current climate and insisted mistakes had been made in the report.
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.uk
View detailsOur heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.
Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Wednesday, May 22 2013
The developer appealed against the decision not to grant permission and also offered to pay for a second independent report on its scheme by a different team of experts. The second report agreed with the developer and recommended that the scheme as it stood should be given planning permission.
Councils regularly draw up deals with developers, known as Section 106 agreements which see developers making payments to local authorities to help fund public schemes.
A public inquiry was due to be held before the end of the year but following last night's decision to grant permission, it is likely to be called off.
If the decision had gone against the council at the appeal it would have been liable for hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of legal fees.
City & Country bought the listed building in a deal worth an estimated £6 million at the start of the year and had been holding talks with council officials on the scheme for months.
The new planning deal means that payments to the council will be based on how much profit the development eventually makes. It is expected to be worth about £120,000.
After the council's central area planning committee approved the scheme at the second time of asking last night, chairman Alex Woodman (Lib Dem, Cabot) said: "For this particular application we had no option but to approve it but that doesn't take away our disappointment that there is no affordable housing."
City & Country managing director Helen Moore said: "This is a clear validation of City & Country's argument that the council's original decision to refuse our proposals in August was based on a fundamentally flawed and inaccurate viability report produced by a third party on behalf of the council, which made unrealistic demands as to the level of developer contribution and affordable housing required from the scheme."
The hospital site is one of the last parts of the Harbourside to be redeveloped. The main building is Grade II listed, although parts of it were badly damaged during the Second World War.
Comments
by nogbutt
Saturday, October 20 2012, 5:31PM
“also- there are lots of hulks of buildings around there. the council should be busting a gut to get some of those empty, listed buildings back into some sort of use. those opposite castle park, on the riverside, are a crying waste. are there not powers to purchase these?”
by nogbutt
Saturday, October 20 2012, 5:26PM
“after the credit bubble land is unaffordable for many people, and so it makes sense that local and national govt would try to tax some of these inflated prices in some way or another. more important, though, is that high quality homes get built, and the price will find an "affordable" level in the course of time.”
by bristolreded
Saturday, October 20 2012, 12:53PM
“Council owned homes is what is needed not "luxury" expensive flats. There is plenty of empty expensive homes already there.”
by jdd1977
Friday, October 19 2012, 4:25PM
“As an observation, I'd say that people buying 'luxury' flats probably don't want to live next door to 'affordable' housing.”
by bris28
Friday, October 19 2012, 2:21PM
“As I understand it,the council called in an independent inspector to look into the S106 issue after the developer announced it would appeal the city's decision. The developer said the council's decision was flawed. That must have shocked the councillors, and council officers. After all they'd appointed the inspector. Who will pay his/her fee. Yes, you've got it. The taxpayer.”
by PJ1979
Friday, October 19 2012, 11:59AM
“S106 may appear like ransom, but if London and Country paid to much for the site then they only have themselves to blame.
Council tax and business rates will be paid by the occupiers of this scheme to pay for the Council services, not by the developers. S106 is supposed to address the off site impacts of the scheme, e.g new developments facilitate an increase in population, e.g an increased impact on primary school places in the city and the number of children rises. London and Country have basiscally got away with not providing a contribution to ensure the there are sufficent primary school places in for residents, Good for them, but not great for us.
Thank heavens the Council has adopted a Community Infrastructure Levy, finally the majority of these negotiation can be put to one side and developers will actually have to address the unrealistic expectations of land owners. Hopefully it will also lead to the government starting to fund affordable housing rather than using the S106 mechanism (which will remain) because it wasn't designed for this purpose.”
by Joke_Bristol
Friday, October 19 2012, 11:41AM
“I wonder what the council will waste the money on.”
by smoosername
Friday, October 19 2012, 11:38AM
“A new building over 1 story high, that close to St. Mary Redcliffe Church. Are they mad!!!!!”
by Spiggett
Friday, October 19 2012, 10:27AM
“-That Tower's a bit high!”
by tomcribb
Friday, October 19 2012, 9:28AM
“Commonsense prevails for once - the s106 ransom demands are often very cynical and this one was showed up for being just that. The "gain" made by the city council is the domestic rates revenue it will receive compared to jack right now.”