Agenda item

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

The site is a back land location in Clifton Down. There are currently 7 garages on site for storage and maintenance of cars. It has no allocated land use but is in a conservation area. The site has no recent planning history, but in 1985 planning was granted for a 2 storey dwelling. The application seeks the demolition of the garages and building of a 1.5 storey building with rooms in the eaves. This is a 3 bedroom 6 person dwelling with one parking space. Construction is a mix of slate and light brick with aluminium windows and doors and a green roof.

a)     There have been some amendments to the application, including a reduction of roof height and pitch, change to a slate tile roof, the windows at first level are repositioned to the centre to avoid overlooking and the property has been moved back from the other property’s boundary.

b)     There were 2 rounds of consultation. 20 responses in May all objecting, then 13 responses in July, with 12 objecting. There have been no objections from consultees.

c)      The principle of development is acceptable, as the site is previously developed land in a sustainable location and contributes to the housing mix as it is 3 bedroom dwelling in an area with below the Bristol average of 3 bedroom dwellings.

d)     The garages are currently being used to repair cars so this does not present a parking issue. There are no objections from officers on transport issues.

e)     The site is within a conservation area and concerns were raised about the scale, appearance and siting of the proposed building. The applicant has amended the plans and there are now no objections from the City Design Group.

f)      There were some concerns from the public regarding overlooking. There has been a review that shows there is no direct overlooking. The bathrooms include obscured glass and other windows are parallel with the road. The south windows do look towards 25 Westbury Park property but there are outbuildings in this part of the large rear garden. The proposed building would be surrounded by 3 to 4 storey dwellings. There are objections from the nearby Coach House dwelling, but they are 14m from the proposed building with obscuring trees in between.

g)     The shadow study shows that the property presents a very minor increase to shadowing, which does not warrant refusal.

h)     There were concerns about adjacent trees, but the impact assessment has shown this development will not remove any trees. The applicant has the right to cut back branches to the property line if required. 7 trees are to be planted at the site with a 26% reduction in carbon.

Questions for clarification:

i)       The committee asked for shadow studies at different times of year, which were supplied.

j)       Some public forum submissions give an artist impression of the proposed dwelling, however they do not have accurate scaling. Members should refer to the drawings in the report pack. 

k)     The 21m rule is a rule of thumb in planning for the distance between habitable rooms. It was considered in this case, but there is no overlooking between habitable rooms.

l)       Under common law, you may cut branches of overhanging trees to your boundaries. However, within a conservation area you still need to file a notice before cutting back. If the tree has a Protection Order it would need planning permission.

m)   The committee should have some regard to the 1985 planning approval, but this should not be given heavy weight due to the amount of time that has elapsed and the policy and geography changes.

n)     The foundations and relationships to trees was discussed, while planning conditions and building regulations can cover some of this, it is not the role of planning to make guarantees on structure for potential buyers. The property is not on unstable ground. 

Discussion:

o)     Members appreciated that genuine amendments to the plan were made prior to the meeting, especially the height reduction, which was a critical objection.

p)     Members appreciated the need for more housing stock in the city more generally and housing diversity in this area in particular.

Cllr Chris Windows proposed, seconded by Cllr Paul Goggin, to vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant the application.

RESOLVED: (9 For / 0 Against / 0 Abstain) that the application be granted as set out in the Officer recommendation.