Bristol city council is under fire from developers for a capricious approach to planning that has put the city at risk of losing In January, the council’s planning committee refused plans for a £10m stadium for Gloucestershire County Cricket Club, which had been recommended for approval by the planning officer. In March last year, the committee also disregarded planners’ advice and approved plans for a 96,800 sq ft Sainsbury’s store – which would be the region’s biggest – on Bristol City Football Club’s ground. Two years earlier, the committee had thrown out proposals for the supermarket, after planners had recommended them. What raised eyebrows when the committee considered the second Sainsbury’s application was that five out of 10 members stood down and were replaced a few days before the meeting. Four of the five who were replaced had previously voted against the supermarket, while the fifth had abstained. “The political system in Bristol suffers from uncertainty,” says former RIBA president George Ferguson, who is considering standing in the first elections for a Bristol mayor. “It is plagued by annual elections and consequent petty party politics. As far as planning is concerned, this is not conducive to strategic thinking.” The Sainsbury’s development would help fund a new £92m stadium for the football club at nearby Ashton Vale, but the scheme has been put on hold while the council awaits the outcome of a judicial review. This will decide whether it was entitled to go against a planning inspectorate decision that the 42-acre site of the proposed new stadium should be designated a town green. The council decided to make only half of the site into a green, leaving the remainder available for stadium development. In a measure of the city’s heated political scene, the local parish council is putting up £20,000 from its precept to oppose the city council in court. But politics form only part of Bristol’s problem, says Craig O’Brien, Savills’ head of planning for the South West and Wales. He says there is also a shortage of experienced planners capable of defending their recommendations at committee. “Zoe Willcox [Bristol’s head of planning] is probably one of the best leaders of planning around, but some of the planners don’t seem to have the skills or authority to deal with the committee,” O’Brien argues. Jo Davis, senior planning director at GVA in Bristol, agrees that planners need to work harder to explain their recommendations to committee. “There is a question mark over the responses that are given to a consultation,” she says. “If planners haven’t changed an application in response to a consultation, they have to explain why.” The unpredictability of the planning process means developers have little confidence in the pre-application process, and there is much frustration over the length of time taken to make decisions, says O’Brien. Bristol city council is unapologetic about its planning record, saying in a statement: “Democracy is central to the process. The law demands that all important decisions are made by quasi-judicial planning committees, and the officers’ role is to advise. If this advice were unassailable, there would be no need for committees, and all development would be subject to the letter of the law only. “Political decision-making ensures the voice of the people is heard. Refusals sometimes lead to challenges at appeal. But more often, they lead to revised applications – more sensitively-designed and thoughtful applications that better serve the community.” Meanwhile, the council has provided Gloucestershire County Cricket Club with a £400,000 bridging loan in a bid to dissuade it from leaving Bristol.
two major cash-raising sports venues.
A survey showed that if the club were to leave, the city could lose around £1.5m for each international match, and more than £5m for each Test match. The club has revised plans for its stadium Ð having reduced the height of the residential block that would finance the development – and is carrying out a consultation before submitting a new application.
Anger over consent delays
Developers are exasperated over the length of time Bristol city council takes to make planning decisions.
Verve Properties waited two years to gain consent for 350,000 sq ft of workspace on a derelict site near Temple Meads train station, even though there were no objections.
The pre-application process took more than nine months, followed by a further nine months of wrangling over section 106 contributions.
Deeley Freed had similar problems with its proposals for a development of hotel and student flats on the site of the old magistrates court, a building widely considered to be one of the city’s greatest eyesores.
Although the proposal was in line with planning guidelines for the site, it took the company more than two years to gain consent, with the negotiations including a drawn-out battle over the £1m the council wanted in developer contributions.
As a result, Deeley Freed no longer has funding for the scheme, according to sources. Travelodge is lined up as tenant for the hotel but, having run into financial trouble, is unable to offer a covenant lenders will provide funding against.
The council points to its comments on its planning record (see above) but one frustrated developer says: “Bristol should be working with a presumption in favour of development. Instead, we have to prove that it should give us a consent.”
