Agenda item

(Cllr Francis arrived at the Meeting during this item and did not participate in it.)

The Presenting Officer introduced the report, summarised it for everyone and gave a presentation.

The application is for the construction of 17 apartments following part demolition of building replaced with new build and conversion of existing first floor and loft spaces. Retention of retail at ground floor. (Major).

The following answers were provided to questions:

• It was confirmed that there is a filling station opposite the site on Berkeley Road
• It was confirmed that Bristol Waste have agreed to the proposed arrangements for the collection of waste from the development
• The turning circle for delivery tankers was explained
• It is proposed to provide two additional on street parking spaces, but it may be possible to provide a third one depending on traffic regulations
• The Transport Development Manager confirm that the parking proposals are indicative and are not confirmed, but that any changes under S 278 would be governed by highway safety requirements
• Arrangements for the tanker deliveries are not a planning matter and when the TRO procedures are triggered it will necessitate a road safety audit and it may be necessary to ask the filling station to consider changing its arrangements for the tanker deliveries
• Future residents would not be entitled to any parking permits; there is an Advice Note relating to this
• National Planning Policy is to encourage the use of sustainable locations and this is one of the more sustainable locations in the city; there is a frequent bus service and it is assumed that not every occupant of the flats will own a car, and there is adequate cycle storage within the site
• The units have been assessed and meet the required space standards taking into account the size of the bedrooms; only separate rooms and rooms with ventilation and outlook can be considered as bedrooms; the top floor flats have more space but have sloping roofs; room widths and storage areas are also taken into account; it is accepted that the scheme may not meet every element of the assessment but overall it is considered to be acceptable
• It is difficult in urban locations to always provide dual aspect units so it is accepted that urban developments will often tend to be single aspect units
• In the Urban Living SPD a minimum density of 50 dwellings per hectare is sought; this scheme proposes 95 dwellings per hectare

Debate

• Concerns about space standards and the high density of the scheme (It was noted that the original scheme included a large retail area and the new proposal includes a smaller retail area but more residential units as the chapel is now included in the scheme.)
• As the previous scheme was approved it would be difficult to refuse this on density and floor space
• The non-availability of parking permits for residents will help address parking concerns
• Concerns about the recommendation to approve; area very well known; very busy junction; the filling station with a car wash is opposite the site; this proposal is overdevelopment; the single aspect is not good; will not support approval

In response to questions and comments about the parking spaces that are proposed, the Team Manager, Development Management advised that the scheme is not dependent on the provision of the parking spaces and it would not be refused if the three possible parking spaces could not be provided. It is an acceptable scheme.

The Conditions to be attached to any planning approval were summarised for everyone.

Councillor Stafford-Townsend moved the Officer Recommendation to Grant the application.

There was no seconder for the motion so it Fell without being voted on.

·       Concerns about the density, space standards and the design; however there were also concerns about BCC losing an appeal if the application were to be refused

The Team Manager, Development Management advised that the application has been assessed and the Officer view is that that there are sufficient grounds to grant the application. Officers have been mindful of meeting housing requirements. It is a previously developed site. It is accepted that at times it is impossible to meet all the required standards. The building is unoccupied. The previous scheme was approved. Some employment areas have been given over to residential. There will be other schemes like this that do not meet all the required standards. It is an acceptable scheme. If it is not acceptable, it has to be refused, but Officers would have difficulties in finding reasons for refusal.

·       The space in the new application is more than in the previously approved scheme

·       Although it was suggested that a decision on the application be deferred pending a site visit, it was noted that site visits are not always well attended, it was also not clear what a visit to this site would achieve

Councillor Windows moved Refusal of the application on the grounds of overdevelopment of the site, concerns about road safety and the limited aspect for the residents.

Councillor Hornchen seconded the motion.

On being put to the vote it was

Resolved Voting 3 for (Cllrs Alexander, Hornchen and Windows) and 2 against (Cllrs Poultney and Stafford-Townsend) – that the application be refused on the grounds of overdevelopment of the site, concerns about road safety and the limited aspect for the residents; and

that a further report on the reasons for refusal be brought before the next Meeting of the Committee.