Agenda item

The representative of the Service Manager (Development Management) made the following points:

(1) Details of the site and the 5 separate applications were shown (including 4 separate building plots and 1 site wide landscaping). The outline planning parameters were set out

(2) The proposal included provision for 25 affordable housing units (with at least 15% of the housing mix to include family sized dwellings with 3 or more bedrooms)

(3) The parking framework set out a requirement for: Residential – 1 space per 4.3 dwellings; and Employment – 1 space per 250 square metres

(4) Plot B – this would include 68 residential dwellings and some ground floor retail use. There would be obscured glazing adjacent to a neighbouring welding yard with angled louvres to screen views and with noise insulation measures agreed in the design of the cladding

(5) Plot C – There were 92 residential dwellings proposed with office and retail floor space. Details of the site were shown

(6) Plot D – There were 60 residential dwellings proposed. Details of the site were shown

(7) Plot E – there were 10 town houses proposed. Details of the site were shown

(8) Car Parking – details of the parking provision for residential and employment use across all of the plots was set out

In response to Councillors’ questions, officers made the following points:

(9) It was considered that there were sufficient measures to protect against noise from adjacent industrial use designed into the cladding of the scheme (Plot B)

(10) The average density of dwellings across the site would be 134 dwellings per hectare (on average 230 dwellings per hectare across all plots not including the road and landscaping). It was noted that the issue of density was determined at the outline stage

(11) A condition required 15% Carbon Dioxide reduction – this parameter had been set as part of the outline permission

(12) There is a commitment within each building plot to ensure that a future connection to a district heat network is future proofed. However, it was noted that the Committee could request an advice note  to ensure the applicant consults Bristol City Council’s Energy Services to ensure the space heating and hot water services plant for each plot would be of a suitable quality for a future connection to a district heating system

(13) Officers were satisfied that the window glazing would be sufficiently obscured to protect peoples’ eyes and advise tenants so that they are aware of the situation. This would also form part of the condition of any lease agreement for tenants that they could not amend or remove the obscured glazing

(14) Viability testing had formed part of the previous outline planning permission, which was subject to a decision by a Development Control Committee.

Councillors made the following points:

(15)      This was an impressive development

(16)      This was an interesting development. Since the approval had been made in 2012, developers were urged to progress the site as soon as possible.

Councillor Richard Eddy moved, seconded by Councillor Olly Mead and, upon being put to the vote, it was Resolved: (11 for, 0 against) – that each of the applications be approved as follows: Plot B, Plot C, Plot D, Plot E and Landscaping and including an additional advice that the applicant consults Bristol City Council’s Energy Services to ensure the plant for each plot would be of a suitable quality for a future connection to a district heating system.