Modern.gov Breadcrumb
- Agenda item
Modern.gov Content
Agenda item
18/00386/F Land To Rear of Tec House 6 Marsh Street City Centre Bristol BS1 4AX
Minutes:
The representative of the Service Manager – Development Manager made the following comments:
· This planning application had been referred to committee by Cllr P Smith, for consideration, as Cllr Smith considered that it fell within the guidelines of the ‘Urban Living’ Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), and Officers had not recommended approval of the application.
· The proposed development would create new housing on a site located to the rear of Tec house, in an area that bordered Marsh Street and Baldwin Street in the City Centre.
· The Officer outlined the concerns about the development;
o It would fail to provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers and would harm the amenity of existing neighbours
o There are concerns about the poorly defined entrance and unclear distinction between public and private space. The Police advised that there is a possibility of tailgatingand that it would be usual to see strangers on site, because the owners of Tec House have a right of access through the site and the businesses on Broad Quay store their bins to the rear of their buildings, facing into the site. This could allow intruders anonymity to commit offences.
o The future levels of daylight and sunlight for future occupiers are of a major concern, based on the applicant’s daylight and sunlight assessment which showed that many rooms in the proposed flats would fail tests relating to daylight and sunlight. The outlook of future occupiers would be poor
o The proposed development would also be unacceptably overbearing and would unacceptably affect the outlook of neighbouring properties.
· Overall, the proposals would not create a good quality living environment for future occupiers and would harm the amenity of neighbours. Therefore Officers recommended refusal.
Councillors question of clarification
· Councillors asked if with the addition of lighting and CCTV to the entrance whether that would satisfy the safety concerns raised by the police, who were concerned with the possibility of non-residents passing through the site. Officers advised that whilst this may improve the situation, police concerns would still remain.
· Further explanation was provided on the access to daylight and sunlight into the development, based on the guidance document produced by the ‘Building Research Establishment’, with Officers referring to the detailed tests that proposals should pass in order to provide adequate daylight and sunlight. The officer read out the conclusion of the daylight and sunlight report: “The nature of the confined site will restrict the daylight and sunlight amenity to any scheme. However, the scheme architect has sought to optimise the amount of natural light by maximising the amount of glazing and positioning the main rooms so that the windows have least obstruction.” Clarification was sought on whether the waste collection would be done by a private contractor or Bristol City Council Waste services kerbside collection scheme. Officers advised that either would be acceptable.
Councillor’s debate
· Cllr R Eddy supported Cllr P Smith view of the development. That to meet the needs of the housing crisis as many infill sites should be development before any further construction took place on Green Belt land around the city. The Council had adopted proposal ULH3 ‘Urban Living – making efficient use of land to meet our needs’ therefore on that basis this development should be consider favourably as in its design it had met and answered many questions on arising issues.
· Cllr M Davies supported the need to utilise land in a creative way and believe that this development would be built to a high quality standard; that it was ambitious in its design and that he would support.
· Cllr F Breckels advised that he had taken the time to visit the site and considered that if lighting and CCTV was conditioned and fitted to the properties neighbouring the development it would satisfy safety concerns. This brownfield site was unusual and would benefit from this quality development as any alternative was limited. Approving this development would set a good precedent.
· Cllr T Brook agreed with the comments already made and wanted to add that waste collection should be done by private contractor to avoid the issues arising from kerb side collections.
· Cllr F Hance agreed that what was proposed was a well-designed building but had concerns about supporting ‘housing at any cost’ especially where officers had highlighted the issues around daylight and sunlight levels and distance between existing properties.
· Cllr C Denyer supported the comments made by Cllr Hance and added concerns about the possible future issue of residents wellbeing being impacted by the low levels of daylight and sunlight and the link to poor mental health.
· Cllr H Clough reminded all that they should be mindful that there was a national standard for daylight and sunlight for a reason. The design for the building fit the difficult site layout. She wondered if consideration had been given to the addition of skylights.
· Members discussed approving the scheme with added conditions to cover the requirement for; appropriate lighting; CCTV in the entrance strategically placed on neighbouring buildings if necessary; and private waste collection.
· Cllr R Eddy proposed that the application be approved subject to conditions, Cllr M Davies seconded.
Resolved (7 for approval and 3 against) that the application be approved subject to the following conditions
Supporting documents: