One-bedroom dwelling at Little Bonhill, Bishop Sutton, Bristol

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the access lacked the required northern visibility, creating an unacceptable highway safety risk that outweighed the proposal’s limited benefits.

“The proposed access cannot provide the required visibility splay to the north within land under the applicant's control and the Highway Authority maintains an objection. As a result, the proposal has failed to demonstrate that a safe and suitable access can be achieved and would give rise to an unacceptable risk to highway safety.”

“The proposal fails to provide a safe and suitable means of access. The submitted evidence has not demonstrated that the required visibility splays can be achieved, and the Highway Authority maintains that the proposal would result in an unacceptable risk to highway safety. This harm attracts substantial weight and is not outweighed by the limited benefits arising from the provision of a single dwelling.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The parish council supported the proposal subject to lighting, while highways maintained an objection and arboriculture and ecology raised no objection subject to conditions.

“Bishop Sutton Parish Council: Subject to a lighting condition the parish do not object to the proposal.”

“Arboriculture: No objection, subject to conditions…”

Officer report

Who spoke

An architect spoke in support of the application.

What members debated

Members discussed the limited visibility, road speed, lack of pavement and bus service, sustainability, and whether the site was Green Belt or grey belt land.

“Cllr Jackson acknowledged the concerns about the access and safety issues due to the speed of vehicles using the road and also questioned if it was a sustainable location as there was no pavement or reliable bus service. Cllr Hughes moved the officers’ recommendation to refuse the application on highway safety grounds and noted that the road was narrow and also busy as a main route to Bristol Airport. This was seconded by Cllr Simon.”

“Cllr Hounsell agreed that the site was not sustainable; the access was dangerous and there was no safe pedestrian route to the village. He also suggested there should be an additional reason for refusal that no exceptional circumstances had been demonstrated for allowing the development in the green belt. The Planning Officer advised against this as an additional reason for refusal as the officer assessment had determined that the land was grey belt.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Members voted unanimously to refuse the application on highway safety grounds, with nine votes in favour and none against.

“On voting for the motion to refuse the application on highways safety grounds, it was CARRIED (9 in favour and 0 against).”

Minutes

What was decided

The committee refused the application for the highway safety reason set out in the officer report.

“RESOLVED that the application be refused for the reason set out in the report relating to highway safety.”

Minutes