Agenda item

The case officer highlighted the following points by way of introduction:-

1. The application was for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of 40 C3 dwelling houses (33 flats and 7 townhouses) and commercial floor space with associated car parking, cycle parking, refuse, storage and landscaping;
2. There would be a new public route through the site;
3. Noting the concerns expressed in a Public Forum Statement about overlooking it was noted that the flatted block had been designed so that its views were down Ashfield Road;
4. There was a financial contribution of £20,000 towards local cycle infrastructure improvements which would be secured via section 106 legal agreement, along with TRO fees in relation to street lining;
5. He recommended the application for approval subject to conditions and a S106 agreement.

The Head of Development Management commented on the application as follows:-

1. The  8 units in a cluster was standard practice and compliant with the Council’s affordable housing policy;
2. The key principles were that service charges were kept down to a minimum including separate entrances and that the clusters helped the management of the units;
3. In addressing the Public Sector Equalities duties referenced in a Public Forum Statement it was confirmed that the duty had been carried out twice – whilst assessing the application and by the Affordable Housing Practice Note considered at Cabinet in 2018.

The following points arose from questions:-

1. A condition required public art to be incorporated along the public through route though no artist had yet been chosen;
2. It was not clear where the businesses would go in the unit at the rear but the economic development team had not objected;
3. Only one of the affordable housing units did not have a balcony;
4. Concern was expressed as to why there was no lift in the affordable housing unit which could be redesigned next to the stairwell. It was noted that this was feasible but would involve the loss of a parking space. It was important to resist the temptation to redesign the proposal. It had been designed for a particular reason and it was rare to have a lift for three storeys and a lift had been provided for the five storey unit;
5. Including a lift would increase costs and could make the units unaffordable due to increased service charges;
6. There was an inconsistency with the hours for the single yellow lines waiting restrictions and the delivery hours. Officers agreed that one could be amended to match the other;
7. It was noted that the proposal would allow two additional car parking spaces overnight compared to the existing situation;
8. It was noted that the garden at the end of block A was proposed for those residents only but could be conditioned for access for all residents;
9. It was confirmed that the height of properties on Ashville Road is 2  storeys and not 2.5 storeys as set out in the report;
10. None of the 16 car parking spaces had been allocated to the affordable housing units. There was 45% provision of parking so other units also did not have parking;
11. There had been access issues regarding rights of movement so this proposal had removed 4 car parking spaces and some landscaping which had been within the original application;
12. ‘Having regard to equalities duties’ meant recognising what the issues were and weighing them up against many other matters and forming a view;
13. It was confirmed that Block A is proposed as  4-6 storeys  as set out in the report;
14. North Street was a five minute walk away with access to public transport and cycle routes;
15. The daylight assessment showed a slight exceedance but on balance it was not felt that this was sufficient to refuse the application;
16. The practice of having the art plan as part of the application varied over the years. Some developers were more or less advanced when submitting their application. Importantly the matter had been conditioned;
17. The commercial unit was a Class E which covered a wide range of uses which included light industrial but this was felt an unlikely use. It was possible to condition against this if the Committee was minded;
18. It was understood that the fast track approach for affordable housing, set out in the Affordable Housing Practice Note, had now expired  in Bedminster ward. The applicant had submitted well before the period expired and the 30% level was now in place. It was unlikely that a viability process would generate any more than 20%;
19. There were two separate cycle stores for all units independently accessed.  There was also visitor cycle storage proposed.  The proposed cycle storage exceeded current policy requirements.

The following points arose from debate:-

1. Councillor Alexander felt the lack of lift and parking spaces was a poor deal for the affordable housing residents;
2. Councillor Breckels understood the need to keep costs down but suggested that the application be deferred in order for the inequalities of the affordable housing units ie. the lack of lift and car parking spaces to be addressed. He noted that disabled residents were likely to require affordable housing and would need a car parking space and a lift. It was noted that this would also apply to parents transporting prams upstairs. These concerns were echoed by the Chair and Councillor Brown;
3. The Head of Development Management noted the concerns and officers would discuss them with the developer. He cautioned that these matters would all add to the service charge and the developer would need to consider that.

Councillor Breckels moved that the application be deferred so that the matters of access to the affordable housing units and the lack of car parking spaces for the affordable units could be reconsidered This was seconded and on being put to the vote it was:-

RESOLVED – (Unanimous) That the application be deferred for the reasons of access to accommodation and the lack of parking spaces in relation to the affordable housing units.