Application Details
| Council | BCC |
|---|---|
| Reference | 20/02800/FB |
| Address | Former Brunel Ford Muller Road Bristol BS7 9ND
Street View |
| Ward |
|
| Proposal | Redevelopment of site to provide 32no residential dwellings (Use Class C3) with associated car and cycle parking, landscaping and refuse storage (Major Application). |
| Validated | 29-06-20 |
| Type | Full Planning (Regulation 3) |
| Status | Decided |
| Neighbour Consultation Expiry | 31-07-20 |
| Standard Consultation Expiry | 17-12-20 |
| Determination Deadline | 28-09-20 |
| Decision | GRANTED subject to condition(s) |
| Decision Issued | 04-03-21 |
| BCC Planning Portal | on Planning Portal |
| Public Comments | Supporters: 1 Objectors: 5 Unstated: 2 Total: 8 |
| No. of Page Views | 0 |
| Comment analysis | Date of Submission |
| Nearby Trees | Within 200m |
BTF response:
OBJECT
Recommendation submitted 14-08-20
Application granted subject to conditions.
Relevant comments in the officer's report:
In order to support ecology onsite, the Biodiversity Statement sets out that the proposed development includes the planting of planting of trees, species rich grassland and hedgerows. This will provide habitats for wildlife and foraging resources for species including bats, birds, invertebrates and hedgehog. New trees and hedgerows will also provide nesting opportunities for birds, and the hedgerows will provide nesting opportunities for hedgehogs. Wildlife connectivity to the wider landscape is proposed through joined up green infrastructure through the site.
iii) IS THE IMPACT ON TREES ACCEPTABLE? Policy DM17 of the Development Management Policies refers to the integration of existing trees into development. It states that where tree loss is accepted, replacement provision in line with the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard (BTRS) should be provided. An arboricultural survey has been submitted to inform consideration of the application.
The tree officer has agreed that the BTRS mitigation required is 45 trees as outlined with the aboricultural report and proper assessment has been made of which trees this should cover. This is in accordance with the planning obligations SPD. The proposal includes the planting of 36 Trees on site the shortfall is 9 trees which will be covered by offsite contributions.
Concerns have been made regarding the loss of the ecosystem service of trees however the BTRS contributions have been calculated to offset the loss of trees in accordance with the planning SPD. New tree will be sought within close proximity of the site where possible. Initially the scheme proposed planting of 6 trees along the frontage however this is not possible due to a proposed sewer.
The Council's Aboriculturalist has no objections to subject conditions: The protection of trees during construction and landscaping. Further information regarding the proposed species planted in the landscaping plan and suggested BTRS contributions.
The relevant approved plan is - Drawing P7011 Rev A - Soft landscape plan, received 10/02/21;
Our Objection
We have submitted our comments on this application which can be found here - https://bristoltreeforum.files.wordpress.com/2020/08/former-brunel-ford-muller-road-planning-statement.pdf
Public Comments
on 2020-08-28 SUPPORT
Comments from Lockleaze councillors Gill Kirk and Estella Tincknell in support of this application:
As councillors we attended the local consultation events. We felt that the community were given good opportunities to engage, see the plans, talk to architects and council officers and give comments and feedback. We appreciate the liason that also took place with the Lockleaze Residents’ Planning Group. We have not received direct correspondence from residents in opposition to this development. We know from previous community consultation and the Our Lockleaze Community Plan 2019-24, that many residents are supportive of more affordable housing being built in the area. This is a brownfield site close to bus routes and local amenities so we believe it to be suitable for housing development.We support the designs and the communal outdoor space, which we hope will encourage a neighbourly and cohesive development.
We were aware of some concerns initially expressed by a few residents at the consultation, regarding the somewhat stark appearance of the buildings and materials facing onto Muller Rd, but note that designs and materials have been amended in response to this feedback.We note that access to the site has been designed in co-ordination with the Muller Rd transport improvements. We expect these improvements, when implemented, will reduce congestion on Muller Rd and improve bus routes and walking and cycling options to support new housing development in Lockleaze.
As councillors we must raise a key infrastructure concern:
1. Capacity of the local GP surgery. Horfield Health Centre. With the increase in resident numbers in the new housing, the council and developers must work with the CCG to ensure this surgery has sufficient new clinical and admin staff, and space on its premises to accommodate these new staff, and extra patients. Bearing in mind Horfield surgery has recently absorbed high numbers of patients from two closed family surgeries nearby, these negotiations must take place urgently so that the surgery can plan and prepare for the expansion that is required.
We enclose and endorse the points made by the Lockleaze Residents’ Planning Group relating to all new developments in Lockleaze and particularly wish to highlight the need for a local lettings policy to ensure local people in housing need benefit from the new homes.
The Lockleaze Residents Planning group have made the following comments to the Local Plan response with regard to all developments in Lockleaze: Broadband should be as standard on all developments with a choice of providers (FTTP) should be the standard to future-proof connection needs Supplementary guidance to restrict conversion of family homes to HMOs, new developments should restrict the number of properties that can be bought to avoid buy-to-let Affordable Housing should be 40% minimum (aim for 50%) with 20% council, social or ethical rent and a range of tenures A local lettings policy should be applied on all new sites in Lockleaze Residents should be encouraged to downsize as part of new developments and a local lettings policy applied to the re-let of 3 and 4 bed family homes A new Lockleaze Railway station to support sustainable travel Resurfacing of Romney Avenue, Constable Road and Bonnington Walk so that as traffic increases the noise levels are not impacting on residents quality of life, cycling infrastructure should be considered as part of this New developments to include electric car charging, car club spaces and support for electric bike scheme A commitment to accessible home standards Higher density should be achieved through infill and as appropriate in areas such as around Gainsborough Square, Developers and planning officers should be mindful to maintain views from Gainsborough Square (and Stoke Park beyond) across to Southmead hospital and keep a stepped approach to housing height so as not to obscure these vistas across the city Lockleaze is blessed with lots of green space and developments should seek to maintain cul-de-sacs and green space, and increase trees lining the streets Developers should create hoardings with information about the development when they own the sites and are actively progressing them keep local people up to date with what is happening.
Gill KirkCouncillor for Lockleaze (Labour)
on 2020-08-05
I have reviewed the application documents and our focus remains ensuring that thedevelopment allows the improvement work to upgrade PROW BCC/143 which runs along thesouthern edge of the development site to provide a 2m tarmac surface throughout, as per myresponse to the pre-application for this development.
As also confirmed at the pre-application stage, and given that the development documentsemphasise links from the central shared space open area to and enhancement of BCC/143, wewould hope to receive additional S106 funding from this application to supplement the fundingalready allocated from the adjacent Lidl development to fund the PROW improvement works. Inote that this does not appear to be included in the Planning Obligations documents included withthe application. An alternative would be that the developers include this PROW improvement workas part of their site construction works, although this does not appear to be included in their plans.
We would also look for coordination of the PROW surface improvement works with the boundarytreatments and landscaping works along the PROW identified in the development plans.
on 2020-07-29 OBJECT
We have submitted our comments on this application which can be found here:
https://bristoltreeforum.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/former-brunel-ford-muller-road-planning-statement.pdf
on 2020-07-27 OBJECT
I am strongly objecting these plans of development as I have serious concerns in which the following questions will need to be answered with honesty and professionalism before any support can be put forward from us:-
- How far will the development be built from my property/boundaries e.g. yards
- How long will the work continue as my Husband and I work shift-hours being key workers and have concerns of disruption at times during the day/night
- What types of properties will be built on this development? I am concerned with lack of privacy on my property if flats are being proposed
- How will you rectify any structural damages to my property with any movements of iron, timber and bricks due to hard drilling / construction work
- The land that is being built on is private land; have and how have you gained the correct approval to build on this land which is situated in adjacent to my rear garden
- How far will the development be built from my property/boundaries as I have a Garage situated next door to the former Ford Brunel Dealership e.g. yards
I look forward to your response
on 2020-07-25 OBJECT
I am strongly objecting these plans of development as I have serious concerns in whichthe following questions will need to be answered with honesty and professionalism before anysupport can be put forward from us:-
- How far will the development be built from my property/boundaries e.g. yards
- How long will the work continue as my wife and I work shift-hours being key workers and haveconcerns of disruption at times during the day/night
- What types of properties will be built on this development? I am concerned with lack of privacyon my property if flats are being proposed
- How will you rectify any structural damages to my property with any movements of iron, timberand bricks due to hard drilling / construction work
- The land that is being built on is private land; have and how have you gained the correctapproval to build on this land which is situated in adjacent to my rear garden
I look forward to your response
on 2020-07-25 OBJECT
I am strongly objecting these plans of development as I have serious concerns in whichthe following questions will need to be answered with honesty and professionalism before anysupport can be put forward from us:-
- How far will the development be built from my property/boundaries e.g. yards
- How long will the work continue as my Husband and I work shift-hours being key workers andhave concerns of disruption at times during the day/night
- What types of properties will be built on this development? I am concerned with lack of privacyon my property if flats are being proposed
- How will you rectify any structural damages to my property with any movements of iron, timberand bricks due to hard drilling / construction work
- The land that is being built on is private land; have and how have you gained the correctapproval to build on this land which is situated in adjacent to my rear garden
- How far will the development be built from my property/boundaries as I have a Garage situatednext door to the former Ford Brunel Dealership e.g. yards
I look forward to your response