Agenda item

An AmendmentSheet wasprovided to the Committeein advance of themeeting, detailing changes since   the publication of theoriginal report.

This application had been considered by DC Committee A on the 22 September 2021 following the receipt of a Member Referral from Councillor Grant.

The Officer summarized the report as follows:

1.      Members had resolved to grant planning permission and following the completion

of a Section 106 Agreement to secure 13 affordable houses (split 77% Social Rented and

23% Intermediate affordable housing) and planning permission was granted on the 28th

February 2022.

2.      On the 24 March 2022, the Local Planning Authority received a Pre-Action Protocol Letter

Before Claim from Leigh Day, solicitors, on behalf of the Clifton & Hotwells Improvement

Society, challenging the grant of planning permission. Following the receipt of legal advice, the LPA conceded the prospective claim.

3.      The process of Judicial Review of planning permissions related to the process undertaken rather than the merit of the scheme. In this case the grounds of the review related to the way in which Heritage and Sustainability matters were presented to the Committee.

4.      On the 14 June 2022 the High Court quashed the decision of the Local Planning Authority to grant planning permission, principally on the grounds that the report as presented to Committee failed to properly consider the level of heritage harm; undertake a planning balance in relation to harm and public benefits; or set out a clear and convincing justification for the heritage harm in accordance with the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework that it was purporting to apply. A related error concerned an inaccurate summary of the views of Historic England with regard to the heritage effects of the development.

5.      The Local Planning Authority was now required to reconsider the application and to look at all matters afresh with no reliance on the earlier report or on the previous quashed decision. The current report included a required assessment weighing the public benefits of the application against the assessed harm to heritage assets surrounding the site.

6.      The Conservation Advisory Panel strongly objected to the new proposal on grounds of sustainability. Case officers remined members that the new proposals had been assessed on existing polices, when the policies were updated, the proposal would be assessed again.  

Having regard to all the material planning considerations, it was considered that the application was acceptable as it brought new housing on a brownfield site and included affordable homes in a sustainable location for the benefit of Clifton and the city. The harm to identified heritage assets was outweighed by the benefits. The heritage tests in the NPPF were satisfied and had met legal duties under the Listed Buildings Act 1990 in relation to listed buildings and conservation areas.

It was emphasised that the current application proposals had changed significantly, and members were therefore asked to disregard their previous views and only consider the application before them.  

The following points arose from questions and debate:

·       A biodiversity report had not been done as at the time the Application was submitted, April 2021, there was no legal requirement, in planning law, to undertake one. The NPPF requirement to do so came into force after the application date, aiming to be introduced in November 2023.

·       The application was assessed by the Council’s ecologist as this was a requirement of the NPPF, and no objections had been received on biodiversity grounds. The biodiversity objectives were supported by the requirement for a landscaping scheme and on-site tree planting.

·       A net gain biodiversity report would be a legal requirement in future arising from the Environmental Act 2021 whereby all planning permissions granted in England would have to deliver at least 10% biodiversity net gain, it was anticipated that this would come into effect in November 2023. No guidance on this had been received at the current time however there was an ongoing debate with stakeholders about net gain biodiversity to obtain the minimum 10% as would be required by the NPPF going forward.

·       The key date of decision for this application was today (16 November 2022) and only policy requirements currently in force now could be given due weight, however the proposal could be reviewed again in a year’s time for further assessment when the new legislation was enacted.

·       Sustainability had been assessed on the existing adopted plan policy and core strategy and the proposal was in full compliance with the policies. It was acknowledged that the policy framework had changed recently but the LPA was legally bound to consider under existing polices. The process for tis was undertaken with probity and transparency.

·       Requirement for Air Source heat pumps was included under Conditions.

·       It was confirmed that the planning application for the main site had been received however members were reminded that the application before them must be considered on its own merit without reference to the application for the main site.  

·       It was anticipated that as the main site would retain existing buildings the confluence with the current proposal would not be significant as the new application would not be a ‘mirror’ site to this proposal.  

·       The requirement to design in renewables eg solar pv, was restricted because of heritage and conservation grounds, this was unavoidable and illustrated the classic balance of all the issues raised by the proposal. There were no grounds to refuse permission on scale and massing of the proposal.

·       The committee noted that the Tree Forum disagreed with the number of trees proposed to be planted citing that 30 more should be planted elsewhere. The case officer felt that the correct number had been identified and this had been assessed by the Council’s tree officer, noted that the scheme would replace all trees lost on site.

·       Regarding height scale and massing the case officer confirmed that there were no grounds for refusal however it was members to decide on the application before them.

·       The key positive aspects of the development was that it was on a brownfield site, contributed to the chronic shortage of housing, including 20% affordable housing, was on a sustainable site with positive conservation measures and was fully policy compliant.

Having regard to all the comments made Councillor Eddy (Chair) moved that the application be granted, this was seconded by Councillor Goggin.

On being put to the vote there were 7 for and 1 against.

RESOLVED - That the application be granted subject to the completion of a planning agreement and the conditions as set out in the report.