Agenda item

Officers introduced this report and made the following points during their presentation:

·       The Committee was advised of details of the application including an aerial views of the existing dwelling

·       He explained that this was a terraced property built in the early 1970s in a predominantly Georgian area

·       There are a number of Listed Buildings around the site and a number of protected trees

·       Number 90 roof was built in the 1970s with the roof of a nearby dwelling being approved by Bristol City Council in 2017

·       Photographs of the rear dwelling were shown

·       The development proposed 3 front dormers and two at the rear

·       The roof would be finished with slate tiling and finished with EPM (a rubber membrane), with the front and rear windows finished with slate and with timber windows

·       The rear windows and one of the front windows would have opaque glass

·       The dimensions of the roof pitch and the setback from the front and rear elevations were shown

·       Following the standard consultation process, a number of objections had been received. Taking these into account and following discussions with the City Design Group, discussions took place with the agent and changes were made to the application. Following this, further objections were received (46 in total).

·       Of these objections, 11 were from outside Bristol. Most of the objections related to concerns about a precedent to the area and also that it would not be sympathetic to the character of Princess Victoria Street

·       Objectors were also concerned with the amenity impact of the roof being overbearing on the front and rear elevation, as well as overbearing and over shadowing neighbouring gardens

·       Officers considered variety of roof shapes and pitches and materials in the area and believed that the design would be sympathetic to the roofscape of the area. Also, it would be materially subservient as materials are available elsewhere in the area.

·       The street scene and amenity would not be unreasonably affected

·       Officers also proposed a condition requiring the rear windows to be permanently glazed

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

·       Whilst the roof heights for 90 and 92 were generally taller, officers did not believe that the hierarchy would be detrimentally affected

·       The impact of the height would be mitigated by the impact of the roof. It was important to consider the technical plans in determining what would and would not be seen

·       Some height and pitch would be much more angled away from the property.

·       Most people living in Clifton Village who had objected commented on the character of the property in the village

·       Whilst Number 92 could be seen with the development, the impact was not very big

·       The distance between the back of the house and the Caledonian was approximately 21 metres

·       It was likely that you would be able to see into the property across the road from the top floor. However, the impact of this was reduced with the pitch sloping away in the additional property

·       The property next door had raised objections to the amenity from properties affected

·       The scheme was assessed on its merits. Since Number 88 would have higher eaves, it was not believed that this development would cause any more overbearing than currently existed

Councillors made the following comments:

·       Whilst the number of objections needed to be taken into account, some of the out of Bristol responses should be questioned

·       The scheme was unlikely to do harm in the Conservation Area and did not appear to affect neighbours and residents

·       The proposed conditioning which requires opaque glass would also help the situation

·       The scheme had been appropriately amended to address the objections. The officer recommendation should be approved

·       The application did not cause any substantive harm and the change in the application following negotiations had ameliorated most of the objectors’ concerns

Councillor Richard Eddy moved, seconded by Councillor Andrew Varney and upon being out to the vote it was

RESOLVED (unanimously of those present) – that the application be approved.