º£½ÇÊÓÆµ

Oops.

Our website is temporarily unavailable in your location.

We are working hard to get it back online.

PRIVACY
Commercial Property

Campaigners ‘disappointed’ after Bristol school redevelopment decision delayed

Bristol City Council had been due to consider plans to transform the five-acre site at Westbury Park into an £85m retirement community and leisure hub

Aerial view of former site of St Christopher's school in Bristol.(Image: FORE Partnership/Amicala)

Campaigners have said they are “massively disappointed” after a decision was delayed on proposals to redevelop the former site of a Bristol school, when it appeared set for refusal.

Councillors had been due to meet on Wednesday (May 31) to consider plans to transform a five-acre site at Westbury Park, once the location of St Christopher’s School before its closure in 2020, into an £85m retirement community and leisure hub.

In an update sent out on Tuesday afternoon (May 30), Bristol City Council’s Development Management team said consideration of the application had been postponed “at the request of the applicant”.

Read more: South West charities struggle with rising operating costs amid cost of living crisis, study finds

It came after planning officers recently recommended that councillors refuse the development, called St Christopher’s Square, with a report saying it would be “unacceptable in terms of design”.

On Wednesday (May 31) bosses from the group behind the scheme, which includes investment firm FORE Partnership, care operator Amicala and development manager Socius, told BusinessLive it had requested for the decision to be delayed, “to allow officers more time to review their report”.

CGI impression of proposed St Christopher's Square development in Bristol.(Image: FORE Partnership/Amicala)

They added that the companies had received confirmation that the plans were now expected to go to Bristol City Council’s planning committee a month later, on July 5.

St Christopher's Action Network (SCAN), which is opposed to the project, accused the companies of “filibustering”, and described the postponement as a waste of council resources.