Agenda item

Officers introduced this report and made the following comments:

·         The site location was a disused railway line

·         The plan was to bring it back into use on the eastern side. On the western side was Ashton Gate, to the south is Bedminster Cricket Club and other open areas, to the east is the city and Brunel overpass with the River Avon running along the eastern side of the site

·         A Public Right of Way surrounded the site but the site itself had been disused for some time and was previously occupied by Avon and Somerset Police. A footbridge allows access to the city

·         The southern part of the site was undeveloped – various images were shown of the buildings inside the site

·         The caravan club operates an alternative site at Baltic Wharf including 62 pitches (58 were all weather), 4 grass pitches and a proposal for the erection of 3 buildings. There was one single access area to the central part of the site lowering the boundary wall

·         The site was in the green belt and in Flood Zone 3 adjacent to the Ashton Court Estate which was a Grade 2 listed building

·         The application was similar to the 2016 application that had been refused on the grounds of the Green Belt, Impact on the Conservation Area, Highways Land and Flood Risk. Officers’ view was that there had been little change in the proposal apart from the highways situation

·         Since the area of land was in the Green Belt, an exception could be made if it was a brown field site. However, the policy was to keep the area of land open for use. Whilst part of the site was brown field, the southern part of the site including the Caravan Site was not included in any of the exceptions and any exception would be noticeable. The policy stated that an application could therefore only be approved in very limited circumstances

·         Whilst it was noted that there were no other sites available and that there were economic and tourism benefits to the site since the caravan club was popular, none of these factors overrode the issue of the impact on the Green Belt

·         The Conservation Area and City Docks were noted. The purpose of this area was to retain a buffer between the city and Ashton Court Estate

·         An image of the proposed 58 pitches was shown. These would be materially different to the rest of the site and would be prominent

·         Officer’s view was that the caravans were not discrete and would operate almost to full occupancy all year round which would conflict with the Conservation Area and Green Belt

·         Whilst officers noted the comment from the applicant that the parcel of land could be used for the Bristol to Portishead Railway Line, it was noted that this had not yet been approved.

·         The proposed 57 lights would create an illuminance from the caravans themselves. Therefore, officers were recommending refusal on heritage grounds

·         There was a high probability of flooding on the site. The Flood Risk Assessment from the applicants was noted

·         The other test was an exception test. Criteria A considered the wider sustainability and benefits ie economic and tourism, whilst Criteria B considered the assessment of the Government Agency and BCC’s Flood Risk Team assessing a risk to life and property. The Flood Map extended to the south and since Clanage Road had a steep hill evacuating 62 caravans would be difficult. Therefore, refusal was recommended on these grounds

·         There were 9 individual trees on the northern and western side of the site. Officers objected to the loss of two trees (T9 Sycamore and T19 Silver Birch). The advice from the Tree Officer was that neither the tree canopy nor the tree itself should be removed

·         Whilst the previous application had been refused on highway safety grounds, following the applicant’s submission of details of access and turning areas, officers considered that this was now acceptable provided this was widened and the wall reduced in height

·         Ecology – there was no objection from the Ecology officer or from Natural England

·         Sustainability – the proposal was policy compliant

·         Officers therefore recommended refusal of the application on the grounds of the Green Belt, Heritage Assets, Flood Risk and removal of category B trees

In response to members’ questions, officers made the following comments:

·         Whilst BCC was not obliged to treat the concerns of the Environment Agency was a veto of the application, they should be given greater weight as they held greater powers than the Local Planning Authority. If Councillors were minded to approve the application, it would need to be referred to the Secretary of State on the grounds of their objection and as a departure from Green Belt Policy

·         The application needed to be assessed on its merits. The role of the green belt was to create an area where there was no development and had to be assessed against an increased harm to openness

·         The Avon Green Belt was designated in 1957. Whilst the Environment Agency did not record when this area was last flooded, it was recorded in the planning database as an area of high risk. Officers’ view was that it was not appropriate for it to be considered an exception. The date of designation was unimportant since it was a key material consideration. Since it was designated in Flood Zone 3, this was the highest level of flood risk and was likely to increase

·         Whilst the rationale of support as being of benefit to the city was noted from organisations such as Destination Bristol and Business West, the Committee needed to balance this against the impact on the site

·         No objection had been received to the proposal on a heritage basis or from Natural England

·         The site was approximately 1 mile from Baltic Wharf which was also in Flood Zone 3. Officers assessed the site according to policy for each site. It was noted that there were different flood defences around Spike Island. In addition, the application being determined was a live application, not a historic one like Spike Island. The existing flood risk remained a problem for the Spike Island site

·         Even if the application was refused, there remained potential at the site since the Green Belt policy does allow exceptions

Committee Members made the following comments:

·         Whilst officers recommendations concerning the site were noted, it was needed for development due to the existing situation at the Baltic Wharf site. It was not oppressive and should be allowed with officers being delegated authority to negotiate conditions including the retention of the two trees identified by officers

·         A study had shown the significant impact the 70 pitch caravan site made to the economy. Since the Caravan Club had managed the risk despite a Flood 3 risk on the site, this site should be acceptable even within the Green Belt area. There had been no damage to Ashton Court or Heritage Assets and therefore should be supported

·         The compromise made by the applicant in respect of the original highway concerns should be noted. Whilst there were flood risks, these were unlikely to impact enormously on the development. It was important to support businesses such as this. The application should therefore be supported

·         Whilst there was an economic benefit to the city, the application should not be supported in view of the flood risk and the Environment Agency’s objection

·         The business community were likely to support this application in all circumstances. In view of the flood risk at the Spike Island site, members should consider whether they would support an application there if it was made now. Whilst the site could be evacuated promptly, it should not be supported if any housing was proposed for the site. Officers needed to provide an assurance that the issues of ecological damage to the site and the reduction of ASB could be addressed. However, the report was very thorough

·         The issue of flood risk and green belt could be addressed through the referral to the Secretary of State in the event of the application being approved. However, the issues of the retention of the two trees identified by the officers and the disturbance from the lights at the caravan site needed to be addressed

·         Whilst this application was in a historic site, there were other instances elsewhere in the country where this worked. It would be short-sighted not to approve this application which would help the economy of the city. However, the issue of the loss of the two trees identified by the officers needed to be addressed

·         The issues of the Green Belt and Flood Risk could be dealt with by reference to the Secretary of State. However, the two trees needed to be safeguarded.

Councillor Tom Brook moved and it was seconded by Councillor Fi Hance that the recommendations contained in the report to refuse this application be approved. Upon being put to the vote, this was LOST (2 for, 7 against).

It was then moved by Councillor Mike Davies, seconded by Councillor Richard Eddy and upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED (8 for, 1 abstention) – that the Committee is minded to approve the application and officers are requested to refer it to the Secretary of State due to the fact that it is a departure from the Development Plan and due to the Environment Agency’s objection on flood risk and that officers be delegated to prepare appropriate conditions subject to a condition to ensure trees T9 (Sycamore) and T19 (Silver Birch) are retained and that there is a mitigation strategy for the lighting from the caravans on the site.