Agenda item

The Head of Development Management and his representative gave a presentation and summarised the report for this item including the following:

1. The application is for the demolition of existing buildings and construction  of new building forming 50 units; 2 flexible commercial units on a site that would set the context for future development in the area.
2. The site plans and overview of the setting was shared with Committee.
3. The Old Market Quarter Neighbourhood Planning Forum had objected to the development and Officers sought Committee’s views on the proposal.
4. Officers presented the design of the development explaining that due to certain contextual features personal to the site and its surroundings, it is acceptable for elements of the proposal to not meet the Design Guidance included within Appendix to the Old Market Neighbourhood Quarter Development Plan.
5. Members attention was drawn to aspects of the report notably that; the ground floor flats were near to street level; the intention was for the development because of its location to be car free; the area had existing restricted parking areas; the intention is to provide two disabled car parking spaces; two car club spaces; and to secure a financial contribution to support the improvement to existing bus stops.
6. Officers explained why the mix of accommodation offered was acceptable as it would meet an existing need for 1 and 2 bed affordable units.
7. The recommended planning obligations were set out to Members.
8. Officers requested that Committee grant the application as it was of a good standard providing 100% affordable 1/2 bed units and would be the start of the overall improvement to the public realm.
9. Officers explained that the proposal would meet the majority of the policies included within the Old Market Neighbourhood Quarter Development Plan, apart from policies T2 and C5, and this was acceptable due to the reasons set out within the presentation and report.

Questions of Clarification

10. Members queried the percentage of affordable to social housing;  30 units affordable rent and the remaining 20 would be shared ownership.
11. Members were aware of the demand for 3-4 bed properties in the Lawrence Hill Ward and therefore wanted to know why the development did not include bigger units.
12. Officers advised that on the decision was based on the advice of the Bristol’s Housing Delivery, that there was a high demand for 1-2 beds units.
13. The design indicated that the exterior façade would compose of red brick that when compared with the design of the Dings estate, made the development appear dark.  Members asked whether other materials could be incorporated to lighten the appearance of the build.
14. Officers referred to the power point presentation to illustrate that the design did incorporate different colour bricks to give character.
15. Officers confirmed that the Neighbourhood Plan operated independently as the area although close to central Bristol, was deemed to be a separate entity.

Member Debate

16. Cllr Wright applauded the developers for taking on board comments and making adjustment to the design.
17. Cllr Mead supported the provision of a development with 100% affordable units that made good use of land and had windows that allowed access to good lighting into each unit.
18. Cllr Carey was concerned about the lack of public transport and his research showed that bus no.506 operated in the area but not on Bank Holidays or Sunday; bus route needed to be improved; the cycle route was close to the junction of the development and looked to the developers to protect the safety of all road users.
19. Cllr Breckels suggested that the development should allow for the commercial space to included food supermarkets to keep residents local and reduce unnecessary travel.
20. Members agreed that the scheme provided affordable housing and met the requirements set out in the urban living SPD.
21. Councillor Davies moved to approve Officer recommendation to grant with  conditions & amendments, Councillor Stevens seconded.
22. When put to the vote

Resolved (For 10 with 0 against and 0 abstentions) that the application be approved subject to the recommendations detailed in the amendment sheet and agreed conditions.