Agenda item

Officers presented this report and made the following comments during the presentation:

·       This was an outline application – issues related to appearance, layout, landscape and scale were not relevant

·       Key issues for consideration at outline stage were access, loss of existing uses, proposed new uses, quantum development, flood risk, contaminated land, ecology and the impact on trees

·       The location of the site in Fishponds was shown, together with an aerial view of the site

·       The site was currently vacant but had been previously occupied by Graphic Packaging

·       The Committee was shown the different types of industrial development currently located on the site

·       Views of the site from different locations were shown including Filwood Road

·       The application was for a housing development for business uses subject to relocation of existing businesses within the Bristol area and was one of three large industrial sites in Fishponds identified for development. The other two sites were still at the pre-application stage

·       There had been two rounds of consultation with 7 new objections following the new development

·       The planning team were satisfied with the employment floor space

·       The retail facilities could be used for E (e) use concerning “Provision of Medical or Health Services (Except the Use Of Premises Attached to the Residence of the Consultant or Practitioner). However, officers noted that if the development was restricted to health care use, it could be unviable for NHS use and on that basis the site does not need to include them

·       There will be two vehicle access points with a further pedestrian access and a dedicated cycle lane structure

·       This development would benefit the local area and was deemed acceptable subject to conditions. It was therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions

In response to Councillors’ questions, officers made the following comments:

·       E(e) use could be used for medical services not attached to the practitioner. Whilst this could be made a restriction, any requirement would need to be carefully phrased to avoid it being too great a restriction

·       There would be a dedicated footway and a dedicated cycle route. In future, more detailed change could be made to transform it into a more accurate design and ensure routes for both modes of travel were separated

·       A great deal of resource had been put into this development. Based on previous discussions, it was highly likely that the other two schemes would be coming forward shortly

·       It was likely that the vision document for the sites would be approved within the next two years as required – Graphic Packaging had been very engaged in the process

·       Discussions had taken place with the transport team – it was likely that there would be an improvement of key aspects of it such as sight lines for the next stage

·       There will be a designated cycle structure in certain designated roads  to be delivered as part of the Master Plan and with additional cycling connections to the other sites

·       The issue of increased funding for policing for cycle routes for this development to address the problem of increased crime along them would be considered as part of the detailed application

·       There were approximately 252 homes in outline

·       A condition would need to be added at the appropriate stage to stipulate an increased number of car club spaces

·       An E(e) condition could be added to the existing retail use if the Committee wished to prioritise this

·       Work with development would take place over the next two to three years regarding CIL and Section 106 contributions to make offsite improvements. Officers were satisfied that sufficient work had been progressed in this area

·       Whilst it was acknowledged that there was a risk of options for later sites being unavailable due to decisions made on earlier sties, discussions had taken place about how to reduce that risk. Officers would not be recommending approval for this application if they thought this was too great a risk

·       The nature corridor along the railway path was a separate designation

·       There would be improvements to existing bus services and towars sustainable travel arising from the Section 106 contributions towards the Fishponds Feasibility Studies

·       The amended wording for highway works had been made by the Transport Management Team and accepted by the applicant

·       Affordable housing was the only policy in the local plan that had flexibility and therefore any contribution to offsite provision was a health issue which would not affect the viability of the development

Councillors made the following comments:

·       Both the Fishponds Local Planning Group and local Councillors had commented on how constructive engagement had been on this application. It was very unusual for such a scheme to have such widespread support. A scheme for two storey residential development which allowed 22% affordable housing and included improvements to sustainable development should be supported.

·       If this development did not take place, future proposed developments might have a higher density and imperil other services in the region

·       The Health Sector was better funded and could meet any future needs for the area. It was important not to impose any limitations on it such as class E(e) which might risk its viability at the next stage

·       The applicants should be thanked for the amount of effort that they had put into this application. However, given the difficulties in the area concerning health care provision, a requirement for class E(e) should be supported

·       This was a good application and should be supported. The applicants passion to support their community should be applauded. This seemed a very good site for the development

·       This is a good scheme, well thought out and supported by local people. It was good to see that this was a lower density than many other schemes. Whilst an addition of class  was preferable, it seemed likely that the applicant would incorporate this into their scheme in any case

·       Whilst there was an issue with loss of dentists and pharmacies in the area, the biggest concern was transport since there was an increasing number of cars and decreasing number of bus services

·       This was one of the most thorough reports ever complied by officers. Whilst there was some concern that collective developments could result in a weakening of the scheme, the report addressed this issue and the application should be supported

·       This was a very good application which had been given a great deal of thought and had involved a great deal of engagement with the community. This was as good a scheme as the Committee were likely to consider. It was important that more detailed plans would enable transport improvements with transport and bus links

·       A requirement for class E(e) on the site should not be supported as this could limit future usage

·       Graphic Packaging Industries (GPI) should be thanked for working with the community and supporting them.  Whilst it was disappointing that the NHS did not believe there was sufficient space for a GP surgery, it was good to see that GPI had indicated that there would be sufficient space for other health provision on the site (dentists, pharmacies, opticians)

·       It was important that the Master Plan was finalised within the required time period to avoid the other applications needing to carry out more work than required to finalise them

Officers confirmed that the Committee could impose a time limit on the operation period for Planning Policy E(e). This could be removed once this time limit expired if it was deemed appropriate to do so.

Councillor Guy Poultney moved, seconded by Councillor Rob Bryher and upon being put to the vote, it was RESOLVED (unanimously) – that the planning application is approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and amendment sheet.

Councillor Zoe Peat move, seconded by Councillor Al Al-Maghrabi and upon being put to the vote, it was RESOLVED (unanimously) – that a requirement be included for the development to operate in accordance with Planning Policy E (e) concerning “Provision of medical or health services (except the use of premises attached to the residence of the consultant or practitioner)” for a limited time period with the amount of time to be confirmed by officers.

Councillor Guy Poultney moved, seconded by Councillor Rob Bryher and upon being put to the vote, it was RESOLVED (unanimously) – that the planning application is approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and amendment sheet and subject to a requirement being included for the development to operate in accordance with Planning Policy E (e) concerning “Provision of medical or health services (except the use of premises attached to the residence of the consultant or practitioner)” for a limited time period with the amount of time to be confirmed by officers.