Agenda and minutes

Councillors Chard, Clucas and Colin Hay.

There were none.

14/01612/OUT Land off Harp Hill

Councillor Fisher looked at this site briefly, including a walk down the drive.

14/01667/FUL 331 Hatherley Road

Councillors Sudbury and Baker both looked at this site from outside.

Members present on Planning View:  Councillors Babbage, Barnes, McCloskey, Seacome, Stennett, Thornton, Coleman and Nelson.

There were none.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 23^rd October 2014 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections.

EP introduced the reserved matters application, which follows approval of the outline application at the beginning of the year (considered by Planning Committee August 2013).  The outline established the principle of residential development on this former school site, with all matters other than access reserved for future consideration.  The same access is indicated in the REM application, with the outstanding matters of appearance, lay-out, landscaping and scale now up for approval.  The outline was indicatively proposed for 85 dwellings; following extensive negotiation with the applicant and agent, 90 x two, three and four-bedded houses are now being applied for, which officers consider acceptable.  There have been two report updates concerning affordable housing and contributions; the first explaining the clauses, and the second setting out that the applicant has agreed to provide an additional affordable unit, bringing the number up to 18 which equates with the 20% affordable agreed at the outline stage.  The recommendation is to approve.

Public Speaking:

Philip Court, Technical Director for Taylor Wimpey Bristol, in support

The reserved matters application is for 90 new family homes with private gardens, together with roads, parking and landscaping.  A public consultation was held in June 2013, the feedback was carefully considered, and adjustments were made to the scheme as a result of comments made.  The main change was to the properties at the front:  the 2.5-storey houses have been reduced to two-storey, to improve the frontage to Arle Road.  Of those who responded to the consultation, three were strongly in favour of the scheme, 16 in favour, and three undecided. 

The development will provide 18 much-needed affordable housing units, family homes which will be pepper-potted throughout the site and be tenure-blind.  Under the terms of the S106 agreement, 17 affordable units were required, which is below the 20% originally required, but Taylor Wimpey has agreed to provide an extra unit. 

There will be two parking spaces per dwelling, as well as additional non-allocated visitor spaces; this was influenced by comments made in the public consultation and concerns of residents.  The development will enhance Arle Road, and include open space, trees, play areas and wide streets.  The developers have engaged positively with the public and with officers to develop the proposal to the scheme before Members today.

Councillor Rawson, as local ward member

There is a lot which is positive about this proposal:  officers have worked hard to improve on the outline version; the developers have engaged with local people and taken notice of their comments; the principle of development of this site for housing is acceptable.  However, as ward member, there are still a few areas of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

EP described the application as above, for outline permission with all matters reserved other than access, at committee at the request of Councillor Babbage.  Officers are concerned that the site is too small to accommodate the dwelling.  The site is in the AONB.  There are highways concerns regarding safety, visibility at the entrance, and the lack of space for passing -  a letter from the County concerning the highway situation has been circulated to Members as an update.  The officer recommendation is to refuse.

Public Speaking:

Ms Becky Brown of SFPlanning, agent, in support

The report acknowledges that there is no policy to preclude small-scale development of this kind within the AONB, therefore the principle is acceptable. The indicative proposals show how the plot can be successfully developed without any adverse effects; the pattern of local development is organic, varied, and not exclusively frontage development. 3D images circulated to Members show that the proposed dwelling will sit inconspicuously in the site and be barely noticed.  Cannot see how it could be regarded as harmful to the AONB when an approved dwelling between The Bredons and The Gray House, directly fronting Harp Hill, was not, and would further obscure the development site from view from the road. The report acknowledges that the site is not widely visible from public vantage points but doesn’t mention that the approved dwelling would make it even less visible. 

Generous amenity space can be created for the new dwelling without being cramped.   There has been no objection from the closest neighbouring property.  Design and external appearance will be addressed at the reserved matters stage.  The applicant has worked with County Highways to resolve the access and highways issues.  The width of access issue has been resolved with the addition of a passing bay, and the visibility splay requirements can be met to ensure safe access to the main road. The Council has used Grampian conditions elsewhere to ensure that the necessary work is done to provide suitable visibility, at Gravel Pit Cottages for example, and can use something similar here to ensure that all work is done until visibility is secured. 

If the proposal is as unacceptable as officers suggest, would expect to see more opposition to it, but the Civic Society supports it, the Parish Council has made no objection, and only one out of 20 neighbours consulted has objected to the scheme.  Based on the context, cannot see the proposal will harm the AONB, and safe access can be secured via a Grampian condition, and therefore urges Members to support the scheme.

Member debate:

PB:  what is a Grampian condition?

EP, in response:

-          it is a negatively-worded condition requiring certain works to be carried out before any part of the development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

CS described the application as above, which is at committee at the request of Councillors McKinlay and Whyborn.  The recommendation is to refuse as officers feel the proposal will not be subservient and will have an overbearing impact.

Public Speaking:

Mrs Anna Perks, applicant, in support

Wants to create a beautiful home for her family of three boys in this lovely area, and has worked hard on the plans, reducing the size a number of times.  Thought the final submitted version satisfied all the guidance, so it was distressing when the officer recommended refusal for the proposal.  In view of the existing single-storey kitchen on the back of the house, it is an over-exaggeration to say that the proposal will be 6.1m from the original rear wall at ground floor level and 4.95m at first floor level. The first floor extension will be 3.5m from the original rear wall, to create a master bedroom with ensuite, and the ground floor extension could be 6m under permitted development.The two-storey side extension, single-storey elevation to the rear, and porch are all considered acceptable by the officer. The proposed first floor extension to the rear will not be visible, will not be oppressive or result in any loss of light to neighbouring properties, and is only 0.5m bigger than a similar extension down the road.  There have been no letters of objection, but two letters of support, one from each neighbour. In light of these facts, is struggling to understand how refusal is in public interest, and therefore requests that Members support these improvements to her home.

Councillor Whyborn, in support

One of the functions of Planning Committee is to apply common sense to making decisions, so that we do not end up with ‘planning by numbers’.  Admittedly, the proposed extension is larger than normal guidelines, but having spoken to neighbours in the last 24 hours, they are happy with it.  These semi-detached plots have narrow fronts and very long back gardens.  This proposal will extend quite a long way back but neighbours are happy with the state of affairs.  The family wants to extend the house in order to continue living there; if they can’t, they will have to move.  It is a larger than normal extension, but it passes the light test.  Who are we to tell people what is acceptable? Common sense must prevail.  There are no objections from the Parish Council.  Understands the reasons for the officer recommendation and the need to protect the general principle, but we are often told that every application should be considered on its own merits.  This proposal should be a splendid  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

BH introduced this application, for two external soil pipes on flats in Princess Elizabeth Way.  It is at committee as the local authority own the site.  The officer recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Member debate:

There was none.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

There were none.