Modern.gov Breadcrumb

Modern.gov Content

Agenda item

21/01331/F - Caravan Club, Cumberland Road Bristol BS1 6XG

Minutes:

The Presenting Officer introduced the report, the application was on the Baltic Wharf Caravan site, currently a brownfield site, adjacent to the floating harbour to the north and Cumberland Road to the south. The site was on a piece of land that was currently occupied by a caravan park and consisted mainly of hardstanding, with some grass areas, a toilet block, Warden’s accommodation, and parking.

 

The Chairman asked for clarification regarding the comment made in the Tree Forum statement about new information being published contrary to the requirements of section 100B of the Local Government Act 1970. The Council’s legal representative commented that as the officer’s report had been published in line with the requirements of the Act and there had not been any material changes to the application the deadline had been fully complied with.

 

The following points arose from questions: -

 

a)      Proposed replacement trees amounted to 68 on site and 162 outside of the application area. There was a view that more trees should be placed close to the site however this would be consequent upon the outcome of the Council’s parks development team finding sites as part of the S106 negotiations. A full mapping of tree planting sites would be inform the S106 negotiations and be taken into account as part of the s106 agreement. The Council’s ecology officer had confirmed that the proposed replacement trees fully complied with council policy. Noted that there was no distinction between council and privately owned land and that the SPD regarding this was guidance not policy.

b)      The flooding concerns had been fully mitigated and that was why the Environment Agency had withdrawn its objection. It was noted that the residential properties were all above the predicted future flood level and the LFA had confirmed that access/egress on the site would be safe and would give a lifetime of certainty to residents on the site.

c)      Although views were not normally a material consideration, this was taken into account if it involved a heritage asset. Noted that overshadowing and distance between buildings for the proposal were within the standards necessary for the development.   

d)      The overlooking aspects of the development were policy compliant, mitigation measures had been put in place and included screening on balconies and raised sill heights.

e)      CIL funding regarding this development would change if the affordable housing element changed, it currently stood at 40% which amounted to £1m. Noted that if affordable housing was 100% there would be no CIL funding (except from the commercial elements of the scheme) due to current regulations.

f)       The contribution toward flooding mitigation had yet to be agreed, this would not form part of the S.106 agreement. If affordable housing became 100% interiors of properties might need to be changed and if significant could result in an additional S.73 planning application being made to vary the consent. Net biodiversity had been gained via a hedgerow on the site and additional off-site proposals. 

g)      Residents should not have difficulty obtaining home insurance for flooding as the properties being built were above the flood plain level and it was understood that other homes in the area already had home insurance.

h)      The committee could approve the application prior to replacement tree sites being confirmed on the basis that this formed part of the S106 agreement which would be concluded prior to planning permission being issued.

i)        Regarding the 40% affordable housing it was confirmed that this was the maximum that existing planning policy seeks. If the developer was able to get grant funding to provide 100% affordable housing, then this may require an additional S.73 planning application to vary the consent.

j)        Enforcement of tree planting would be under the remit of planning enforcement officers. It could be assumed that the service would operate effectively as two new officers had been recruited recently. The Chairman suggested that a condition be added that as many replacement trees be located within a one-mile radius of the site as possible.

 

The following points arose from debate: -

 

k)      The original objection about the flooding risk had now gone due to mitigation solutions.

l)        The tree replacement proposal was acceptable subject to it being finalised by the S.106 agreement. 

m)   The development was on brownfield site and therefore compliant with planning policy.

n)      The development was not seeking to maximise financial gain and safety concerns around flooding had been mitigated.

o)      The proposed level of affordable housing was acceptable and might increase.

p)      Loss of mature trees was regrettable, but the development provided much needed affordable homes in Bristol.

q)      Enforcement of the application was recognised as being important and members were assured that all would be done as far as practicable.

 

On being put to the vote it was unanimously -

 

Resolved – That the application be Granted subject to a Planning Agreement and conditions.

 

Supporting documents: