Agenda item

Officers introduced this report and made the following points as part of their presentation:

·       Details of the site were provided. It was noted that it was accessed via Redland Hill and was allocated within the Whiteladies Road Conservation Area

·       The proposed development would include 12 affordable dwellings and 2 blocks both 5 storeys in height

·       Vehicular access would continue to be via Redland Hill with pedestrian access also from there

·       Following three rounds of consultation, the scale and massing of the blocks had been reduced

·       The majority of responses so far received were objecting to the proposal

·       The original referral by Councillor Carla Denyer had been withdrawn subject to the applicant agreeing to the provision of the pedestrian path

·       The development was considered acceptable and was a brownfield site

·       City Design welcomed the development as causing less than substantial harm

·       A number of concerns had been raised by St Vincent residents concerning light, noise and transport. However, the impact was considered acceptable. Conditions would be provided concerning the Asda Petrol Filling Station

·       Officers were recommending approval subject to a Section 106 agreement

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

·       The majority of the site was owned by the applicant. Whilst there remained an issue concerning access, this was a land ownership issue which would need to be resolved between two private landowners but this was not a Planning matter.

·       Officers could confirm that the applicant had served notice on Pegasus Life and another party and that therefore the application was valid. Whilst it was clear that access to the site by the developer would require access to the land, this was not a material consideration for this application

·       Private property rights run alongside the application as long as the notice is served. Full legal control over the land would be required to pursue the development through property law and to enable the development to be built

·       Access to the site was confirmed as being from Redland Hill and pedestrian access was by steps

·       The three rounds of consultation had been in February 2020, December 2020 and May 2021. A site notice had also been erected and adverts in a newspaper as part of the consultation. Statutory notices had been issued to all individual residents

·       The concerns about construction management were acknowledged by officers. However, it was difficult to attach a condition relating to this to any approval of the development. Members’ attention was drawn to Condition Number 7 which would exercise as much control as possible across the site during the development

Councillors made the following comments:

·       If this application was approved, it could cause significant friction between the parties concerned. The developer needed to consider access through the adopted road

·       The developer needed to work with existing residents on this issue

It was moved by Councillor Ani Stafford-Townsend that the application be approved in accordance with the officer recommendations. This was not seconded.

Councillor Fabian Breckels moved, seconded by Councillor Amirah Cole and upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED – (6 for, 0 against, 0 abstentions) that the application is deferred and that the Committee is minded to refuse this application on the grounds of the unsuitable proposed vehicular access through an existing car park. There was a need for appropriate consultation, access for other parties and the need for the applicant to provide their own vehicular access to the site.