Modern.gov Breadcrumb
- Agenda item
Modern.gov Content
Agenda item
Planning Application Number 20/02903/P - Land At Access 18 Avonmouth
Minutes:
Officers introduced this report and made the following comments during the presentation:
· Details of the application site were shown edged in red and was near to high ecological designations at the Severn Estuary and Bristol Port
· Replacement planting was proposed as part of three ecological enhancement areas, involving native woodland tree planting. Mitigation was proposed in the form of the cycle path along the Avon Way and bus route and details of financial contributions
· A diagram showing what the hotel would look like was shown
· Details of the transport impact were shown. Analysis had indicated that approximately 460 trips would be generated by the development during the peak hour to the Highway Agency Network
· As mitigation for this, there would be pedestrian crossing improvement along the Avonmouth Way Segregated Route and improvements along the junction to Crowley Road would include a new set of signals
· There were two existing sites where accidents had occurred along Longs Cross Roundabout and Kingsway Lane. There would be increased queueing around Long Cross as a result of this development. As a result, Section 106 works would be drawn up in consultation with the local community, including a £150,000 contribution to look at the Long Cross roundabout and Kings Weston Lane
In response to members’ questions, officers made the following points:
· The applicant had been encouraged to retain trees in the design along Avonmouth Way which would also help ameliorate any flood risk
· The Environment Agency had indicated that they were now happy with the proposals which included an evacuation plan. They were happy that the exceptions test had been passed
· Members’ attention was drawn to the Avonmouth Severnside Flood Mitigation Scheme which indicated that, even though the application was not dependent on it, there was a large regional scheme taking place in this area to address long term problems of flooding in the area which would allow future development without the risk of flooding since the area was at long term risk of this
· Whilst it was noted that the Local Planning Authority had accepted that there was no requirement for a sequential test, the mitigation package addressed this issue. Accepting a more limited approach for sequential testing was an agreed way forward. It was noted that Policy DMC18 required that Avonmouth and Lawrence Weston remained undeveloped. This development fell under the draft policy and as such should be given the necessary weight
· Details of the entire transport mitigation package had been included
Councillors made the following comments:
· The proposal should be supported. The Environment Agency’s support for this application was a very high bar given their expertise
· There remained serious concerns about this application which would build on a medieval flood plain. If the River Severn flood defences were already built, this would be more acceptable
· This was an undeveloped piece of land which was not designated for this type of application. Transport Management recommended a delay which should be considered
· The decision to limit the use of sequential testing set a bad precedent in this application
Councillor Andrew Brown moved that the application be approved as per the recommendations contained in the report, seconded by Councillor Chris Windows and upon being put to the vote, it was LOST (4 for, 5 against).
Councillor Fabian Breckels moved, seconded by Councillor Guy Poultney and upon being put to the vote, it was
RESOLVED (6 for, 2 against, 1 abstention) –
(i) that the Committee is minded to refuse this application which is deferred to be reconsidered at the next meeting
(ii) officers submit a report to the next meeting which will address the issues of sequential testing and why it is not applied to the whole area, provide more clarity on transport plans as well as a more detailed timescale concerning the forthcoming River Severn defences.
Supporting documents: