Agenda item

Officers presented this report and made the following arrangements:

·       Details of the site were outlined, including photos showing the site from various directions

·       One of the slides showing the site had been referred to in one of the Public Forum Statements

·       The site was split into two units – Unit A consisted of 3 to 9 storey buildings and a 33 student cluster, together with 145 square metres of social distancing and study space; Unit B consisted of 4 to 9 storey buildings with 49 student clusters and a social meeting space

·       There would be a biodiversity gain due to planting within the south of the property (40 trees of additional planting)

·       Details of the changes to the original application were shown

·       Consultation – there had been 79 original responses including 70 objections to the original proposal. There were 85 objections to the revised application

·       As part of the Bedminster Green framework, there was a humanised avenue along Dalby Avenue with enhanced cycle developments

·       Ground Floor – it was envisaged that there would be flexible ground floor space available

·       Building Heights – the Bedminster Green Framework gave indicative parameters for the Bedminster area

·       There would be no loss to existing employment from the proposal

·       The Environmental Health team expressed no concerns about the proposal

·       Housing was identified as of high demand in the area

·       University of Bristol supported the scheme

·       City design supported the proposed layout. It was noted that there would be tree planting and improved walking and cycling

·       The height, size and massing for the revised application was considered acceptable. Views from different locations were shown

·       Details of the various separation distances between the application and neighbouring buildings were shown

·       Historic England had raised some concerns about the proposal

·       Details of the proposed Section 106 agreement were set out, as well as the CIL funded works along Dalby Avenue. These would also include transport improvements

·       Daylight and Sunlight Amenity Study – All 9 areas assessed BRE guidelines. Rooms that did not meet the guidelines showed minor or very minor loss of sunlight. If there had been any concerns about the impact of the property on the neighbouring Windmill City Farm, officers would have required changes to the application

·       Flood Risk Drainage and Air Quality – these were all considered suitable subject to conditions

·       Sustainable Design and Construction – all requirements had been met

Therefore, officers recommended that the application is approved subject to a Planning Agreement, to officers being given delegated authority as required to finalise the wording of any conditions and to progressing the Section 106 agreement.

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

·       Details of Historic England’s objections were set out in further detail on Page 78 of the report. The organisation did not believe that it delivered the contextual approach that was required and that a more positive approach was needed to the historic environment in the area

·       Changes made to the original proposal were set out on the screen. These included the introduction of colour and cladding to reflect a modern design and include a choice of materials. There had also been changes to increase the fenestration and level of daylight and sunlight

·       Whilst members concerns were noted  that a nearby similar scheme led to serious concerns being raised by the Planning Inspector relating to height, scale and massing, each scheme needed to be considered on its own merits. This was a larger site in which work had been carried out to improve particular aspects of the application, such as the separation distances and increased variation in height for upper levels

·       Officers pointed out that the same team had dealt with all plots on this site which had enabled a consistent approach to each one. Developers had taken more time to work with officers on this project and as a result, they were confident that the benefits now outweighed the harm

·       It was noted that there were references in the report to less than substantial harm but that these did not indicate whether the harm was significant and demonstrable. However, members’ attention was drawn to the report which indicated that Historic England did not believe there was unacceptable harm to the Conservation Area

·       In relation to proposed student numbers on the site, officers stated that there were no exact numbers on that. However, the issue of student accommodation had been addressed in Page 72 of the report and was considered a suitability issue

·       BRE guidelines were used to assess the impact of daylight and sunlight amenity. A consistent approach had been followed in this using detailed modelling to see the impact on adjoining properties. There had been a high level of compliance with existing guidelines

·       The number of required accessible units was in line with the 3 to 4 % policy

·       Whilst officers noted members concerns that the number of student beds would not reach the required numbers set out in the Student Plan, there were differing views on the significance of this since this was the first introduction of students into the area. However, any future plans for more students would need to be considered on their merits. The Spatial Framework for the area would need to take these into account. Under 1,000 was the indicative figure at the moment

·       There was a mix of housing areas on the site which was the purpose of the framework and allowed an approach with greater holistic planning. Different applications could then hold different types of developments

·       The issues of sound and refuse had been considered. Each building had a refuse store servicing through the development before being removed off site. The waste and transport teams had indicated that the proposed development was acceptable

·       The amount of land available had grown substantially and were driven by affordability. Planning officers had been strongly advised that a connection was needed to ensure transport and cycling improvements. Officers had avoided creating gaps wherever possible

·       The site would include a Management Plan which would require the Management Company to remove any litter which fell into the River Malago

Councillors made the following comments:

·       Whilst they had been exacerbated by the COVID pandemic, there had been a general decline in the High Street since Wills had gone from the area. There was therefore a need to look at regeneration and restoring property there. Therefore, a framework to provide a policy context for development in the area should be welcomed.

·       Whilst this application would be of more concern if it was for a  wider scheme, since it was for only one part of it and supported by the policy context, it was acceptable.

·       The height and massing had been carefully examined and only provided a very minor loss. The scheme should be supported.

·       There were many environmental reasons to support this scheme – BREEAM buildings, enhancement of the River Malago area, sustainable transport and the fact that it was zero car led. Therefore, it should be supported.

·       This scheme was excellent news for East Street. As well as opening up the river area, it achieved a net positive in terms of biodiversity gain

·       The officers should be thanked for their hard work in helping to improve this scheme. Whilst there was significant opposition, particularly in terms of height and the impact on GPs, there were some good aspects of it. these included the fact that it was located on a brownfield site and that there were economic, cultural, housing and biodiversity gains. However, there remained some concerns about the proposed finger design and architecturally it was not good.

·       Regardless of the wider development, there remained concerns about the number of student beds proposed for one location, as well as the height of the buildings. The improvements to the River Malago area were, however, to be welcomed.

·       Whilst officers had carried out great work improving this application, the benefits were likely to have been achieved without this development. The viability of the Bedminster Plan needed to be revisited to ensure it was not a catalyst for unsustainable development

·       A very similar nearby scheme had been deemed unacceptable by the Inspector. It did not seem realistic to suggest that this scheme would not create light issues for the Windmill Hill Area. The proposed fingers were also not sufficient. Therefore, the application should be opposed

·       Whilst there remained some concerns about this application, the benefits outweighed the impact and the area needed investment. The scheme should be supported

·       The biodiversity gain from this scheme was to be welcomed. The area badly needed this development and it should be supported.

·       Whilst there remained some concerns about massing with this scheme, it should be supported as it provided good accommodation for students which could help to free up family homes elsewhere

·       Whilst the area had great potential, the proposed application should not be supported on the grounds of height and massing. Whilst the principle of development on this site should be supported, this application should be opposed

Councillor Richard Eddy moved, seconded by Councillor Don Alexander and upon being put to the vote it was

RESOLVED (5 for, 3 against, 1 abstention) – that the application be approved with a request to the appropriate Cabinet member to fast track the proposal for an RPZ for Windmill Hill.