Agenda item

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

a)     The application has received balanced consultation responses, with most objections being related to the safety of the access road and some about the quality of the design and impact on neighbours. Contrary to these comments, comments of support have suggested the access is safe, and complimented the proposal’s design and impact on neighbours

b)     This is a back land site accessed via an access lane, which is also shared by a playschool, church, church hall and 5 extant houses in New Kings Court. The principle of the development is acceptable given the sustainable nature of the site.

c)      The existing site has a varied character. It presents a staggered layout that minimises impact on neighbours. Any significant overshadowing falls into the north car park. There will be some minor shadow on existing property but this is considered minimal. The living space is above average and there is a garage for cycles and a car. The height is similar to extant properties at 4/5 New Kings Court. A simple pallet of materials is proposed, the proposal’s distinct design is considered normal for this backland area.

d)     There will be considerable planting in the gardens. The property achieves a 66% saving on residual carbon dioxide, which exceeds policy.

e)     The access lane is approximately 50m long and 3m wide. The access is well managed with good visibility and signage. It is not an adopted lane and TDM has advised it will not be adopted in future. There were some initial objections from transport officers and revised plans and further details were submitted in order to resolve concerns, so transport officers have now withdrawn objections. Bristol Waste has confirmed they could service the property. A car can pass a pedestrian and it is wide enough to fit emergency and delivery vehicles. A new house would result in 5 more journeys per day on average. There is an absence of recorded incidents of accidents on this lane.

f)      Officers’ advice is different to a refused application in 2006 for 3 houses where nos. 4 and 5 New Kings Court are located. This application would have resulted in 6 houses being served from the lane. The reason for the difference in advice is that guidance has changed, as has local planning policy and national planning policy/guidance.

Questions for clarification:

g)     Members asked about the amount of traffic on the lane at peak times, e.g. during drop off and pick up for the playschool and during church services. This information was not available, but the 5 additional movements from the proposed dwelling would have negligible impact. 

Discussion:

h)     One member is personally familiar with the area and agreed with the officer assessment that one additional dwelling would have a negligible impact on lane traffic.

i)       Members were reassured by submissions showing support for this application.

Cllr Fabian Breckles proposed, seconded by Cllr Steve Smith, 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.