Agenda item

The case officer for this Planning Application introduced this report and made the following points as part of the presentation:

·       This was an outline application with all matters reserved except access and egress to the site

·       The development proposed 510 dwellings

·       The proposed development area was within the Green Belt and was within a site of special scientific interest

·       The Long Ashton Park and ride was near the site

·       The view of the proposed development was shown from various locations

·       It was noted that this had been the subject of careful negotiations with the applicants

·       Details of the size of the development and its access arrangements were provided. It was noted that future pedestrian links could be brought forward

·       Potential commercial spaces were indicated

·       The issue of the location of the site within the Green belt had been a key aspect of the objections. However, it was noted that the site only made a limited contribution to the Green Belt and that under the very special circumstances which applied, it could be removed from it.

·       There would be pedestrian and cycle lanes on the site

·       A biodiversity net again assessment had been made and a further assessment would be required at the next stage if the application was approved

·       Historic England had raised some concerns about the impact on the Ashton Court site, this was unlikely to be substantial. Neither Historic England nor the Environment Agency had raised any objection to the site

·       Only cumulative effects needed to be considered as part of the assessment of the application. Officers believed that the benefit of the site outweighed the les than substantial harm

The Legal Officer in attendance for this planning application made the following comments:

·       In reaching its decision, the Committee needed to do so in a legally correct way. Only material considerations needed to be taken account of, not immaterial ones

·       Legal advice had been provided for this application by Bristol City Council Legal Team and Counsel

·       The report reflects legal advice received from Counsel. There were four areas subject to legal input

·       Green Belt Test – Since this application would normally be deemed an inappropriate development, it requires special circumstances to apply and a substantial weighting in favour of it with the benefits clearly outweighing the harm. Both legal advice and Counsel confirm the community benefit to meet the requirement of special circumstances

·       Relationship with the Previous Application – Earlier advice had been received from Counsel. It would not be sufficient simply to deliver a financial contribution. The benefits for both applications (this one and Agenda Item 9(a)) would have to be real. Advice had been received in respect of this

·       Section 106 Agreement – The Planning obligations were listed in the report. Whilst this was yet to be finalised, Counsel had stated the appropriate mechanism to finance the development and provide practical provision

·       Noise Issues – The application needed to be an agent of change to improve the living conditions for future occupants and integrated effectively within the community facilities that were created. There was a requirement to produce a suitable mitigation before the development is completed. A pre commencement condition was set out in the report. Counsel was satisfied that this was the appropriate way forward concerning the agent of change principle

·       The Tree Forum’s concerns were noted as part of their late submission to the Committee. However, these were expanding on the existing information and had already been addressed within the report

The Service Manager (Development Services made the following additional points:

·       The outline planning permission identified the site and provided a description of the development which would be subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment.

·       The parameter plans have an indicative layout which indicate where the development will take place

·       If this application was successful, the applicant would need to make a further application in respect of reserved matters. There were requirements to address issues of noise and dust, biodiversity and proximity to the ETM site

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

·       The two sites are intrinsically linked since the proceeds of this site are needed to fund the site at Agenda Item 9(a). However, this was not in itself a reason to approve the application. There were improvements to the site which were judged to outweigh any harm that would be caused by the development.

·       A legal agreement in respect of Metrobus would be an important part of the phasing

·       Any financial loss suffered by the developers on Agenda Item 9(a) to help ensure approval of this application was at the developers’ own risk

·       Since the ETM site took commercial skips, smell on the site was not a major concern

·       The Planning obligation would secure approval of the required 30% affordable housing on the site at Stage 2. Government guidance clarifies that 30% affordable housing would have to be secured before reserved matters  were agreed

·       The concerns of the Friends of Suburban Railways were noted concerning the recent announcement for the Portishead line and their concerns that this development might imperil it. However, there had never been any plans for a station at Ashton Gate and the outline design of the application did not prevent future consideration of various options. This situation would be closely monitored and any design for this would have to be in place prior to any reserved matters being agreed. In addition, confirmation was still awaited from the Government as to whether or not the hourly service would be agreed to so further issues needed to be resolved on this issue

·       A Community Access Plan would link two sites and would form part of Section 106 negotiations between various partners

·       North Somerset would only be considering the issue of access arrangements in any forthcoming application linked to any future Portishead rail service

·       Any Stage 2 application from the ETM would need to await any decision relating to the Portishead rail line but this would be a long time in the future and was not a material consideration in respect of this application

·       Whilst previous planning applications on this site were noted, officers confirmed that the only Planning Inspectorate ruling related to the issue of the Town and Village Green

·       It was noted that the assessment during noise had been made under some COVID restrictions but not during the full lockdown. Officers were satisfied that a proper assessment had been made

·       It was noted that one option for the Portishead Railway Line might be provision of different road access to the industrial site. Whilst this was one alternative, there was currently no provision for this

·       Subject to the appropriate conditions being implemented, the living conditions near to the ETM site would be acceptable. This issue would need to be addressed in detail at the reserved matters stage. Pollution Control had raised no objection to this application

·       It was noted that there were different professional opinions between the report and the Tree Forum concerning Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG). However, the most recent assessment had confirmed a BNG of 5%. A further assessment of this would be made at the reserved matters stage

·       The ecologist had provided conditions following concerns raised by England about arrangements to protect horseshoe bats at the development. Any further issues relating to this would be addressed at the reserved matters stage

·       Whilst the issue of 30% affordable housing was one element for this application, there were others for the Committee to consider such as the linkage of this application to the viability of the application for Agenda Item 9(a).

Committee Members then made the following points:

·       The key issue in this application was that of land use. The existing plan indicated that special circumstances applied in relation to the Green Belt and the proposals for housing. There remained a housing crisis in the city and unless brown field sites such as this were developed, a green field site would need to be approved albeit that some sites did need to be safeguarded from development. The objections relating to flooding and Natural England had been removed. In addition, I was clear the 30% requirement for affordable housing could not be removed for the scheme to proceed. Furthermore, the development would be subject to approval by the Secretary of State.

·       This application would not set a precedent as there were special circumstances that applied

·       There were too many loose ends with this application to support it

·       The application should not be supported as there was not enough information to do so. Recent legal advice has been received very late. There remained concerns about noise and biodiversity and was still a lack of clarity on access. In addition, it was possible that North Somerset Council would object following the announcement of the Network Rail proposal

·       Special circumstances did not apply in this case. However, there was an urgent need for housing and therefore the scheme should be reluctantly supported

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

RESOLVED (5 for, 1 against, 3 abstentions) – that the application is GRANTED subject to referral to the Secretary of State, conditions and Planning Agreement.