Agenda item

The representative of the Service Director – Planning and Development made the following points by way of introduction:-

1. The application had been referred to Committee by Councillor Craig, as local ward Councillor, on the basis that higher density development was an aspiration of the Council and the application would deliver housing on a site in a poor state of repair;

2. Two errors in the report were corrected. The external elevation was 4.6m in height and not 5m as set out in the report and the width was 0.8m and not 0.5m as set out in the report;

3. The application sought to construct 2 storeys on the existing 2 storey building with a rear extension to the second storey. The third and fourth storey would provide a new 2 bedroom dwelling. The third story would match the design and materials of the existing building and the fourth storey would comprise a timber clad box like structure. The existing barber shop on the ground floor would be retained but would undergo minor alterations. The sole access to the new dwelling would be via an external staircase from the rear yard to the fourth storey;

4. Cycle and refuse storage were policy compliant;

5. There was no car parking provision which was considered acceptable to transport officers;

6. In assessing, the principal of the development in a sustainable location was supported, however officers objected to the design as it did not accord with key design policies Four storeys and timber cladding on the roof were contrary to policies DM26 and 27 and Policy BCS21 of the Bristol Core Strategy;

7. Officers did not support the materials proposed for the box like structure which was out of keeping with the area;

8. The additional two storeys were contrary to Policy DM30 which states that extensions should be visually subservient to the host building and not dominate by virtue of siting and scale. The additional two storeys would appear visually dominant with the existing building and the street scene;

9. Officers could accept a scheme of a smaller scale such as a single storey extension  but did not accept the fourth storey and believed the existing staircase was unsafe and the new dwelling was not a quality living environment;

10. In summary, the principal of an additional residential dwelling in a sustainable location was supported but this was balanced against an unacceptable scheme. In the absence of a revised scheme, officers recommended refusal.

The following points arose from discussion:-

1. It was not possible to redesign the scheme to make it acceptable. The scale was not helped by the use of very different materials;

2. Councillor Wright accepted the 3^rd floor extension and staircase but could not support the fourth storey which was very visible and of a strange appearance;

3. Councillor Davies accepted the proposal was not ideal but it was not within a Conservation Area. It was untidy but this was outweighed by the provision of additional housing so would, on balance, support approval;

4. Councillor Mead noted that the applicant had been given an opportunity to redesign a scheme.  The proposal was contrary to Policy DM30 so he would not support approval;

5. Councillor Brook support additional housing. The proposal was not visually acceptable but he believed this was not grounds to refuse. He accepted the access arrangements were constrained by the building. On balance he would support approval;

6. The Chair stated the fourth storey was visually unacceptable and very apparent on the roof top. He would vote against approval;

7.  Councillor Mead moved the recommendation to refuse and this was seconded by Councillor Wright. On being put to the vote it was:-

Resolved – (8 for, 2 against, 1 abstention) That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:-

1. The proposed development by virtue by its height, scale and design would fail to respect the character of the existing property and the surrounding street scene, most notably in the relationship of the corner plot with the two storey terraces on Sherbourne Street. As an extension to the existing building, it would appear visually dominant, while the proposed modern box design of the fourth storey would be an incongruous addition to a highly visible corner property. Consequently, the proposed development is contrary to Policy BCS21 (Quality Urban Design) of the Bristol Core Strategy (June 2011) and DM 26 (Local Character and Distinctiveness) DM 27 (Layout and Form) and DM 30 (Alterations to Existing Buildings) of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Local Plan (July 2014).

2. The development proposes that the sole access to the new third and fourth floor storey dwelling would be a 4.6m high external staircase. This is not considered a safe and inclusive form of access for a new dwelling and it would limit potential occupants of the dwelling. The proposed development would subsequently fail to provide a high quality environment for future occupants. Consequently, the proposed development is contrary to Policy BCS18 (Housing Type) and Policy BCS21 (Quality Urban Design) of the Bristol Core Strategy (June 2011).