Agenda item

Officers introduced this report and made the following points:

·       Details of the application were provided

·       The ownership of a small strip of land near the site had been raised by a number of the Public Forum speakers. Whilst this was not known, the applicant had completed the correct documentation.

·       The existing site was shown with the red line boundary containing two properties

·       Details of the planning history were provided, including issues relating to surface water runoff and the Inspector’s report on the impact of amenity and overlooking. The Inspector had noted that overlooking did not occur and that any concerns could be addressed by conditions

·       It was noted that the development included access for three parking spaces for three semi-detached bungalows and a further 4 bedroom detached bungalow

·       Objections to the proposal included overdevelopment, privacy, the impact on the entrance to the existing annexe, concern about removal of greenery and surface water drainage

·       Since the appeal for the previous application, the scale had been reduced from 4 bungalows to 3, a tracking diagram showed how cars can safely enter the site with bin and bike storage being shown. There would also be retention of more hedgerows and tree planting . The Inspector determined that all other issues of concern to objectors could be met by conditions

·       The concern was noted by Public Forum speakers about the impact on Policies DM21, DM23,  DM26 and DM29. in particular the loss of private gardens had been raised. However, the principle of a more efficient use of garden land on a location of higher density development had already been established, including at a nearby development site on Crow Lane

·       No concerns had been raised by the Transport Management Development Officer to any of the concerns raised by the applicant

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

·       Details of the footprint for the site were provided

·       Whilst Councillor concerns about the details of the plan were noted, officers confirmed that it complied with requirements for the application and that the urban design officer was satisfied with them

·       Whilst the applicant had indicated that the proposed dwellings could be retirement homes, C7 use covered a range of uses and need not be limited to that. It would not be reasonable to require use to be limited to use in any decision

Councillors made the following comments:

·       Whilst the application detailed in the report initially seemed reasonable, the absence of criticism (for example from the Management Development Officer) did not necessarily mean that residents’ concerns should be dismissed. Whilst the development had been reduced, it would still have a significant impact in a cul de sac and should be opposed. If approved, it required a robust Construction Management Plan.

·       Whilst the concerns from local residents were noted, this was intended for older people so was unlikely to be too disruptive or devalue existing homes. Since Bristol was in the middle of a housing crisis, it badly needed these homes

·       Whilst there was a trend for these types of development and the residents’ concerns were acknowledged, this was not large. It would be assisted by a Construction Management Plan

·       Whilst there was some concern that these properties could always be sold to younger families, there was no material ground to refuse it

·       Transport Management had done a good job by providing cycling facilities and ensure developments are connected. The application should be supported

Councillor Rob Bryher moved, seconded by Councillor Zoe Peat and it was RESOLVED (7 for, 1 against) – that the application be approved subject to the conditions contained in the report.