Agenda item

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

This is a full planning application for comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide mixed use development comprising 205 residential dwellings (Class C3), 1288sqm of new retail, leisure and commercial space including a cinema (Class A1, A3, D2), refurbishment of existing retail facilities together with parking and amenity space, vehicularaccess, servicing arrangements, public realm, landscaping and associated works. (Major).

The presentation included:

·         Details of the application site, background, planning history and Bedminster Green Framework;

·         Details of the application proposals, plans and visualisations;

·         Details of the key Issues and assessment of the application;

·         Details of the recommendation and reasons for refusal.

Answers for Clarification:

·           High quality play space and public realm is important due to the increase in the local population that will be generated by this scheme

·           The Strategic Transport Assessment has not been completed. This is an assessment of Bedminster Green (all development proposals) with the essential components being: cumulative impact of the developments in terms of multi modal movements and the completion of a General Arrangement drawing for the A38.

·           The STA is to be agreed with developers and the Council what is required.

·           The STA has not been agreed as matters concerning the A38 need to be resolved; an assessment of the whole of Bedminster Green is required; BCC cannot recommend approval until the whole of the assessment been made available and the package of transport mitigation measure is agreed

·           In relation to the flood risk the Environment Agency are maintaining their objection and as a consultee their views have been taken into account by Officers.

·           The applicant requested that the application be brought before the Committee at this Meeting; they could lodge an appeal for non-determination.

·           Although permission was granted previously, this is a different scheme and there are concerns about a number of issues including height, scale, amenity and lack of public realm; the development would also not be acceptable in terms of transport and highways issues.

·           Questions regarding the heights of different aspects of the scheme were clarified in response to some points made in the Public Forum.

·           Clarification over the status of the Bedminster Green Framework was provided in that it is a material consideration, but it is not afforded as much weight as the adopted policies of the Core Strategy and the Urban Living SPD.

·           Clarification was provided over the affordable housing provision and the outcome of the viability process that the proposed scheme is currently unable to provide any affordable housing to be secured via s.106 Agreement.

·           With regards to densities, clarification was provided that the NPPF did not prescribe a typical or a prescribed density, it recommends optimising the density of development in city and town centres and other locations that are well served by public transport.

Debate

·           There were mixed views from Members concerning the application

·           The scheme was not perfect but a good one; a dense development is need and large buildings always bring issues concerning light, etc.

·           There needs to be high rise developments due to the scarcity of land in the UK; redevelopment is vital for this area

·           The area needs improvement

·           Although the area is run down and needs redevelopment, the redevelopment should not be a poor scheme; the application has been brought before Committee prematurely – there are a lot of unresolved issues

·           There is no agreement on the transport issues

·           There are concerns about “over-ruling” the Environment Agency objection

·           There are too many aspects about the scheme that are not liked

Councillor Goggin moved the Officers’ Recommendation that the application be Refused. This was seconded by Councillor Hickman.

On being put to the Vote it was Lost (Voting 4 for, 5 against, 1 abstention).

Councillor Smith moved that the application be Approved. This was seconded by Councillor Windows.

The Head of Development Management advised that should this Motion be Carried, Officers would prepare a statement of reasons for approval and this would be circulated to the Committee Leads for agreement.

On being put to the Vote the Motion was Lost (Voting 3 for, 7 against, 0 abstentions).

Councillor Stevens moved that a decision on the application be deferred until a future Meeting of the Committee to allow time for transport and other minor issues to be resolved. This was seconded by Councillor Smith.

On being put to the Vote it was

Resolved – (Voting 6 for, 4 against, 0 abstentions) that a decision on the application be deferred until a future Meeting of the Committee to allow time for transport and other minor issues to be resolved.