Councillor Afzal Shah arrived after the start of the Public Forum statements for this item. Therefore, in accordance with Bristol City Council’s Code of Practice for Councillors in respect of planning matters, did not participate in or vote on this planning application.
The representative of the Head of Development Management presented this report and made the following points:-
· Details of the previous history of the site were set out. Permission was granted by Committee in 2005 for a 10 unit scheme of 3 storeys. Members attention was also drawn to the neighbouring Scout Hut scheme which was granted permission by members in 2016 (which was also 3 storeys)
· Views of the proposed development were shown
· The development had been reduced from a 3 storey scheme (previous application withdrawn in 2017) to a mix of 3 and 2 storeys. The numbers of units had been reduced from 9 to 7
· There would be a condition concerning the rear boundary treatment with properties along Wells Road
In response to Councillors’ questions, officers made the following points:
· In respect of the 2016 Scout Hut Planning permission, this permission lasts for 3 years. It was expected that work would start on the site before the expiry date of the permission
· The application would be the subject of a TRO for highway safety improvements (yellow lines, 2m pavement and uncontrolled pedestrian crossing points).
· Whilst this was a small scheme, approval of a number of such schemes would help BCC to deliver its targets in the Local Plan by making the best use of urban land in an acceptable way
· There was a Planning history on site. Whilst planning permission ( for 10 units) had expired and emerging policy was not yet adopted (Urban Living draft SPD), the Inspector would need to have regard for in any appeal decision
Councillors made the following comments:
· There were a number of aspects of the development that were not satisfactory. For example, there seemed a desire to cram as much footage as possible into the development site – placing it close to the pavement was not a good idea. In addition, the corner building would clash with other buildings
· Some members raised concerns that the pavement facing corner of the scheme was not in keeping with the area as the opposite have front gardens
· More room was needed for this development
· Councillors needed to bear in mind the previous history on the site and the fact that a developer was about to build houses on the neighbouring site which has a similar 3 storey development
· The application was policy compliant and meets the relevant standards for the development. There were a large number of houses in the Totterdown area with small gardens and some directly abut the pavement
· This was a very modest application which should be supported
Councillor Richard Eddy moved, seconded by Mike Davies and, upon being put to the vote, it was
Resolved: (6 for, 2 against – all present voting) that the recommendations contained in the report be approved subject to the completion of a legal agreement set out in the report, together with the amendments contained in the amendment sheet.