Agenda item

IMPORTANT NOTE:

Please be advised that, due to the appeal against non-determination of this application, the Committee is not able to make the decision on this application and will have to confine itself to confirming the Council’s case at the Public Inquiry taking place early next year. For example, the Committee could not technically decide to grant planning permission. We would be grateful if you could bear this in mind when considering whether to submit a public forum statement.

Officer’s presentation:

a.       Officers advised that this was a high profile application that was subject to an appeal against non-determination.  The public inquiry was set to start on the 31^st January 2023 and would run for 11 days over a 5 week period.

b.       Committee were asked to consider the grounds for refusal; Officers provided a brief overview of issues arising from the application.

c.       The application was for Outline Planning Permission in the Brislington East ward and comprises an irregular shaped parcel of land extending to 9.6 hectares; development of up to 260 new residential dwellings (Class C3 use) together with pedestrian, cycle and vehicular access, cycle and car parking.

d.       The public consultation resulted in; 6 letters of support; 575 objections; 3 neutral to the development; In summary the concerns covered; impact on biodiversity and ecology; loss of open space for recreation. Health and wellbeing; loss of important/ancient hedgerows; loss of trees; impact on highway network.

e.       Officer’s recommendation to Members was to resolve that if Committee had the power to determine the application, it would ‘refuse’ planning permission. The reasons for refusal had been amended following input from the Council’s expert witnesses and were set out in the Amendment Sheet. These were:

1)      The proposed development is considered to result in significant harm to biodiversity, for which it provides neither adequate mitigation nor compensation (whether on or off site). The application is therefore considered contrary to the development considerations of allocation BSA1201 of the Site Allocations and Development Management (2014), policy BCS9 of Bristol Development Framework Core strategy (2011) policies SA1, DM17 and DM19 of the Site Allocations and Development Management (2014), and paragraphs 174, 179 and 180a of the NPPF (2021).

2)      The proposed development fails to retain important hedgerows and trees within the proposal site and is therefore considered contrary to the development considerations of allocation BSA1201 of the Site Allocations and Development Management (2014), policy BCS9 of Bristol Development Framework Core strategy (2011) policies SA1, DM15, DM17 and DM19 of the Site Allocations and Development Management (2014).

3)      The proposal would lead to the loss and deterioration of Irreplaceable Habitat without either a wholly exceptional reason or a suitable compensation strategy. It is therefore contrary to the development considerations of allocation BSA1201 of the Site Allocations and Development Management (2014), policy BCS9 of Bristol Development Framework Core strategy (2011) policies SA1, DM15, DM17 and DM19 of the Site Allocations and Development Management (2014) and paragraph 180c of the NPPF.

4)      The proposed development fails to adhere to the landscape and urban design policy considerations by virtue of excessive damage to the existing features on the site. The proposed plans and supporting documents present unsympathetic responses to the natural assets on the site and surrounding context and would prejudice the future design and delivery of an appropriate scheme. The proposal will fail to meet the requirements of the NPPF; policy BCS21 of the Core Strategy 2011; and policies SA1, DM26, DM27, DM28 and BSA1201 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies 2014.

5)      In the absence of an appropriate agreement under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the proposed development fails to make provision for the following:

·       Affordable Housing,

·       Ecological Mitigation (including BNG Biodiversity Off Setting),

·       Financial Contributions towards Fire Hydrants, Public Transport Facilities, amending Traffic

·       Regulation Orders, Tree Planting, Training and Employment Initiatives,

·       Management and Maintenance of on-site Public Open Space,

·       Travel Plan Audit Fee and contribution,

·       Highway works including cycle and pedestrian works though Bonville Trading Estate.

·       These are required in order to mitigate the impacts of the development. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies BCS10, BCS11 and BCS17 of the Bristol Local Plan: Core Strategy (2011) policies DM15, DM16, DM17, DM19, DM23 of the Bristol Local Plan: Development Management Policies (2014) and the Planning Obligations SPD (Adopted 2012).

f.        Officers request Members to agree that the Head of Development Management in consultation with the Head of Legal Services be authorised :-

(a) To draft and sign the Council’s Statement of Case for the appeal

(b) To agree and sign the Statement of Common Ground for the appeal

(c) To negotiate and complete any s106 obligation that can be negotiated with the applicant that mitigates the impact of the development

(d) To prepare and present the evidence on behalf of the Council based on the recommended reasons for refusal outlined in this report

(e) To take all necessary decisions arising during the course of the Inquiry proceedings relating to the presentation of the Councils case.

Debate

a.       Cllr Brown: expressed disappointment that the decision on the application is with the Planning Inspector; thanked Officers for compiling reasons for refusal.

b.       There was general consensus on the frustration of having a major application removed from the decision-making remit of committee.

Councillor Stafford-Townsend moved, seconded by Councillor Poultney and upon being put the vote, it was:

RESOLVED  - (For (7); Against (0); Abstain (0) )to accept the grounds for refusal as set out above, (e)1 – 5 and, the Delegated Authority set out in section (f) a-e.