Agenda item

The case officer introduced this report and made the following points:

·       Details of the proposed scheme were provided and the existing location from a range of different views. Aerial views were also provided

·       It was noted that the scheme was within the Redland and Cotham Conservation Area

·       The proposal included a change in the boundary to widen the pavement

·       Different views of the proposed scheme was provided with layout indicating that ground floor flats would have separate entrances and that access to the property would be through a central staircase via Eastfield Road

·       20 people had written in support of the scheme, citing the need to renovate the building and to provide housing in the area with 5 objectors citing concerns about designs, parking and a lack of mix of development

·       The Committee was shown a diagram comparing the appeal scheme dismissed by the Inspector with the proposed scheme

·       Officers remained concerned about the impact of the development on the Conservation Area

·       Sustainability – the applicants had agreed to provide heat pumps to address concerns raised by the Inspector about this issue on the previous scheme which was welcomed

·       Due to officers’ continuing concerns about the Conservation Area and the visual impact of openness, it was recommended that the application is refused since it has not overcome the previous reasons given by the Inspector as part of the original appeal

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

·       Whilst the issue of bike storage on the site had been an objection, there would be no grounds to refuse the scheme on this basis since the location was in a sustainable area close to major routes in Gloucester Road and Cheltenham Road and also close to a railway station

·       Any resident would need to apply for a parking permit. Since the proposed development was small and there were already parking restrictions in the area, the criteria for further restrictions would need to be severe. It was noted that the site of the development makes it hard for any transport objection to be upheld and it should not form the main part of any refusal

·       Whilst the proposed units were smaller than the previous scheme, they still met the minimum space standards (between 40 to 47) for one person and would only need to be increased to 50 if they were to be used by two people. However, the applicant had indicated the units would only be for one person each

Councillors made the following points:

·       There is a real housing crisis and a residential housing problem in the city. Since this was a viable application and not excessive with support from local residents, the local amenity society and the local Councillor, the application should be supported

·       There was support for the scheme from the local community, support from Councillors, a wider pavement and additional trees. Whilst there were some concerns about parking, these were not strong enough to refuse the scheme. Therefore, the application should be approved

·       The scheme would enhance the area and should be supported

·       The scheme should be approved but should also include a requirement for a residents parking zone

·       Whilst officers’ concerns about visual amenity were noted, this scheme should be approved

In accordance with the constitution, Councillor Richard Eddy moved, seconded by Councillor Chris Jackson that the application be refused in accordance with the officer recommendations.

Upon being put to the vote, this was LOST (unanimously).

Councillor Richard Eddy then moved, seconded by Councillor Chris Jackson that the application be approved subject to the drawing up of conditions delegated to officers in consultation with Councillor Eddy in his capacity as Chair.

Councillor Ed Plowden moved an amendment, seconded by Councillor Fi Hance and upon being put to the vote, it was CARRIED (6 for, 2 against) “ that this development is not eligible for any residents’ parking”.

The Committee noted that any member of the public with a disabled driver permit would be automatically entitled to exemption following confirmation of their residence status.

Councillor Richard Eddy then moved, seconded by Councillor Chris Jackson and upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously) – that the application be approved subject to the drawing up of conditions delegated to officers in consultation with Councillor Richard Eddy in his capacity as Chair and that this development is not eligible for any residents’ parking.