Agenda item

The Chair noted that Councillor Lesley Alexander had attended after the start of Public Forum for this item so would not be able to participate in the debate or vote on this application.

The representative of the Head of Development Management introduced the application with the following points:-

1. The application was for the demolition of a retail unit and construction of 9 apartments (4 number 1 beds and 5 number 2 beds) with associated bike and bin storage;

2. The site of the application was considered a transitional location between the more traditional buildings and more recent new developments;

3. The design was modern and in keeping with new developments to the north of the site;

4. It was before the Committee due to the number of objections received during consultation. Of the 40 comments received 38 were objections. Consultation with BCC’s City Design Group (CDG) and Transport Development Management (TDM) has resulted in revised plans which were re-consulted on and attracted 23 objections. The key issues were transport, design and impact on residential amenity;

5. In the revised plans the applicant had proposed further transport and access measures including off-site highway improvements, car club membership for future occupants and a Travel Plan to encourage the use of sustainable forms of transport;

6. The site was not within a Residential Parking Scheme and an Advice Note had therefore been attached to the consent stating that should a scheme be introduced the occupiers of this development would not be eligible for the scheme;

7. TDM were now satisfied with the application;

8. The design used modern materials. The CDG had some concerns regarding the scale and massing on the Balfour Road elevation and these were addressed by the applicant. The CDG therefore considered the design, scale, height and massing acceptable;

9. Amenity – Balconies have been recessed into the building and privacy screens would be included on all balconies to mitigate the potential for overlooking. Any windows facing north would be conditioned to be non-opening and obscured glaze in order to mitigate risk to neighbouring amenity. Officers were satisfied that overbearing was not significant. Shadow studies had been undertaken to evaluate overshadowing and some increased overshadowing was found to the gardens along Smyth Road but this was only in the garden and on Winter evenings. There was some limited overshadowing during Spring equinox on Balfour Road but officers found that on balance this did not warrant refusal;

10. In conclusion, officers were satisfied that that the key issues had been addressed by the applicants and recommended that the application be granted.

The following points arose from questions and debate:-

1. TDM were happy that there was sufficient space for the refuse access area. All bins would not be on the street but located behind a latched door. There was a traffic plan to access the site and it was intended that Bristol Waste Company would access the area to collect the waste;

2. it was not possible to completely enforce the Travel Plan condition as there would not be any active policing of the area but if officers were informed of breaches they could take enforcement but there was a limit to what could be done;

3. It was possible to condition the exploration of possible anti-graffiti/tagging measures to building elevations;

4. It was not possible to guarantee that the development would be car free and officers were aware of the local pressures in such a high density area and of a recent residential survey concerning issues of new development and the Mayor’s Office had been briefed on this subject. Yellow lines would be in place to deter unsafe parking. It was very difficult to ensure sufficient disabled bays on street;

5. Councillor Sergeant had reservations on the design and that it was not in keeping with the area and concerning the issues around parking and she was inclined note to vote in support of the officer recommendation;

6. Councillor Breckels was content with the design but shared concerns regarding parking. He commented that it would be preferable to have one less flat on the ground floor and provide some parking instead;

7. Councillor Hance approved of the design. She appreciated the residents’ concerns regarding parking but the arrangements were in line with BCC policies and could not therefore be turned down on that basis. She was inclined to vote in support of the officer recommendation;

8. Councillor Mead approved of the design shape but not of the colour. He supported the inclusion of a condition regarding tagging/graffiti and would vote on balance for the officer recommendation;

9. Councillor Carey observed that public transport journeys from that location to the City Centre took too long;

10. Councillor Denyer was concerned regarding the parking arrangements and the obvious solution was a Residents’ Parking Scheme for the area. She approved of the front face but the Balfour Road face was not good and could perhaps be improved with conditions. There were not sufficient grounds to refuse so would vote for it along with a condition regarding disabled access for bin storage and Bristol Waste Company confirming that they would collect;

11. Councillor Mead moved the officer recommendation with additional conditions regarding waste access and collection and consideration of possible anti-graffiti/tagging measures and this was seconded by Councillor Hance. On being put to the vote it was:-

  Resolved – (7 for, 1 against, 1 abstention) that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as    set out in the report and the following additions:-

1. To amend the wording of the Refuse Storage and Recycling Facilities condition to require details to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval including access and waste collection;

2. To note that through the consideration of details submitted pursuant to the submission of samples condition, to explore possible anti-graffiti/tagging measures to building elevations.