Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed all parties to the meeting.

Apologies for Absence have been received from Councillor Tom Brook (Councillor Harriet Bradley substituting).

The Committee noted the following apologies for absence and substitutions:

(1)   Harriet Bradley (substitute for Tom Brook)

(2)   Fi Hance (substitute for Clive Stevens)

(3)   Richard Eddy (substitute for Steve Jones)

To note any interests relevant to the consideration of items on the agenda.

Please note that any declarations of interest made at the meeting which are not on the register of interests should be notified to the Monitoring Officer for inclusion.

There were no declarations of interest.

To agree the minutes of the last meeting held on 4^th April 2018 as a correct record.

Resolved – that the minutes of the meeting held on 4^th April 2018 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair subject to the word “Conservative” being replaced by “conservation”

To note appeals lodged, imminent public inquiries and appeals awaiting decision.

The Service Manager (Development Management) made the following points concerning appeals: Items 21 to 39 (Refusals relating to telephone kiosks in various locations) – These applications had all been refused but there had been an appeal for each application. Officers would provide an update on the results in due course.

Item 48 – 270 Church Road, St George – This application had been refused by Committee on the grounds that it was out of kilter visually with the existing building and surroundings. There had been an appeal which had been dismissed.

Item 53 – O and M Sheds, Welsh Back, Bristol – The Committee was reminded that it had considered this application on 22nd February 2017 and had  refused planning permission (against officer recommendation) on the following grounds:

1.         The proposed cantilevered decking would be constructed in a way that would conceal views of the listed harbour wall, compromising the setting of this part of quayside, causing harm to the listed structure and the conservation area.

2.         The proposed outdoor seating and proximity to nearby residential properties would harm amenity.

3.         The proposal would impede the historic use of this part of the quayside, which is the residential mooring for large boats, detracting from the area’s distinctiveness and prejudicing access onto neighbouring moorings.

The resulting appeal was dealt with in the form of written representations and the Inspector made the following points in allowing the appeal on 16th April 2018:

(1)   Cafes, pubs and restaurants added to the vibrancy of the city,

(2)   The proposed decking would cause minimum impact and was in place elsewhere. It would cause less than substantial harm

(3)   Houseboat Re-location – This would not compromise the waterside setting and would not materially harm the significance of the conservation area.

(4)   Living Conditions – Whilst this site was in a cumulative impact area, the licensing regime is separate from the planning process and the Council’s licensing policy allow for flexibility when looking at “family friendly” proposals. The site  was allocated for uses including leisure  in the local plan and the proposals accorded with this. It was not unreasonable to expect that there would be some noise and disturbance during the evening when living in city centre locations. Permission for a similar scheme had also been granted in 2009. The harm to the amenity of the occupiers of the houseboat would not occur if the houseboat was moved.

(5)   The appeal did not fetter the houseboat’s owners’ rights in respect of her licence or any other agreement with the Council, as these matters sit alongside but outside of the planning process. Subject to the use of a condition, stating that development could not take place unless the boat was relocated, the proposal would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring residents. Whilst the stress and anxiety of the development was acknowledged and the location of the development would interfere with the human rights of the houseboat owner, this was outweighed by the wider public benefits

(6) Costs  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

To note recent enforcement notices.

The enforcement notices set out in the report were noted.

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

Any member of the public or Councillor may participate in Public Forum.  The detailed arrangements for so doing are set out in the Public Information Sheet at the back of this agenda.  Public Forum items should be emailed to democratic.services@bristol.gov.uk and please note that the following deadlines will apply in relation to this meeting:-

Questions - Written questions must be received 3 clear working days prior to the meeting.  For this meeting, this means that your question(s) must be received in this office at the latest by 5pm on Thursday 10^th May 2018

Petitions and Statements - Petitions and statements must be received on the working day prior to the meeting.  For this meeting this means that your submission must be received in this office at the latest by 12Noon on Tuesday 15^th May 2018.

Please note, your time allocated to speak may have to be strictly limited if there are a lot of submissions. This may be as short as one minute.

Members of the Committee received Public Forum Statements in advance of the meeting.

The Statements were heard before the application they related to and were taken fully into consideration prior to reaching a decision.

The Chair did not accept any statements received after the 12pm deadline (the working day before) required in the Council’s Standing Orders.

To consider the following Planning Applications for Development Control Committee A

The Committee considered the following Planning Applications set out below.

(a) Planning Application Number 17/05939/F - Former First Bus Depot, Muller Road

The representative of the Service Manager (Development Management) made the following points in relation to this application:

(1)   The site was shown from a range of different perspectives and its proposed layout and design was indicated

(2)   There were licensing issues on site which affected the ability to market it. However, marketing information submitted by land agents state that the site is not attractive for industrial and warehousing

(3)   As the site was outside of a designated centre, it was subject to a Retail Impact Assessment, which concluded that there would be no adverse retail impact on the viability of defined centres of Gloucester Road and Lockleaze

(4)   Highways works – access arrangements to the site would be changed as well as signalisation at the Ralph Road junction, there would be contributions made for public rights of way improvements, bus shelter improvements and traffic signals/Traffic Regulation Orders. In addition, a travel plan had been agreed

(5)   Air quality - Scheme of mitigation is required to reduce the impact. The mitigation proposed to date refers to other documents and measures already secured e.g. sustainable transport. Additional measures are required, which could include additional measures to minimise the impact such as electric vehicle charging points, additional cycle parking, public transport incentives

(6)   ) The loss of 21 low value trees on site would be met through the provision of 10 replacement trees on site with a financial contribution for the remaining 44 trees to be provided in accordance with the BRS and this will be secured by a Section 106 agreement

The Committee noted that officers were proposing an amendment to part (A) of the recommendation to give the updated total amount for the contribution for replacement trees as follows:

(viii) £36,222.03 – Contribution for replacement trees in accordance with the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard.

In addition, it was noted that there was a proposed additional condition relating to air quality.

 In response to Councillors’ questions, officers made the following points:

(7)   Conditions were included to address air quality issues – a scheme of mitigation and for construction impacts

(8)   ALDI’s consent was already factored in to the retail impact assessment for the site

(9)   ) In accordance with Policy DM13, non-industrial use is not permitted unless there is no demand for the site for industry or warehousing; or the proposal would not prejudice the function or viability of the rest of the Principal Industrial and Warehousing Area. The site is not currently being put forward for industrial use in the Local Plan Review, although it was noted that was still in the early stages of the consultation process. Officers were also aware that the Council as landowner were looking to do a “land swap” in order to deliver housing on the neighbouring site (where Lidl already had permission) although members should not attach too much weight to this

(10)                       Following the full approval of the 2014 application, a legal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

The representative of the Service Manager (Development Management) made the following points:

(1) Details of the site and the 5 separate applications were shown (including 4 separate building plots and 1 site wide landscaping). The outline planning parameters were set out

(2) The proposal included provision for 25 affordable housing units (with at least 15% of the housing mix to include family sized dwellings with 3 or more bedrooms)

(3) The parking framework set out a requirement for: Residential – 1 space per 4.3 dwellings; and Employment – 1 space per 250 square metres

(4) Plot B – this would include 68 residential dwellings and some ground floor retail use. There would be obscured glazing adjacent to a neighbouring welding yard with angled louvres to screen views and with noise insulation measures agreed in the design of the cladding

(5) Plot C – There were 92 residential dwellings proposed with office and retail floor space. Details of the site were shown

(6) Plot D – There were 60 residential dwellings proposed. Details of the site were shown

(7) Plot E – there were 10 town houses proposed. Details of the site were shown

(8) Car Parking – details of the parking provision for residential and employment use across all of the plots was set out

In response to Councillors’ questions, officers made the following points:

(9) It was considered that there were sufficient measures to protect against noise from adjacent industrial use designed into the cladding of the scheme (Plot B)

(10) The average density of dwellings across the site would be 134 dwellings per hectare (on average 230 dwellings per hectare across all plots not including the road and landscaping). It was noted that the issue of density was determined at the outline stage

(11) A condition required 15% Carbon Dioxide reduction – this parameter had been set as part of the outline permission

(12) There is a commitment within each building plot to ensure that a future connection to a district heat network is future proofed. However, it was noted that the Committee could request an advice note  to ensure the applicant consults Bristol City Council’s Energy Services to ensure the space heating and hot water services plant for each plot would be of a suitable quality for a future connection to a district heating system

(13) Officers were satisfied that the window glazing would be sufficiently obscured to protect peoples’ eyes and advise tenants so that they are aware of the situation. This would also form part of the condition of any lease agreement for tenants that they could not amend or remove the obscured glazing

(14) Viability testing had formed part of the previous outline planning permission, which was subject to a decision by a Development Control Committee.

Councillors made the following points:

(15)      This was an impressive development

(16)      This was an interesting development. Since the approval had been made in 2012, developers were urged to progress the site as soon as possible.

Councillor Richard  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67a

The representative of the Service Manager (Development Management) made the following points:

(1) Details of the site location were provided

(2) The zebra crossing would be moved further west along Eastgate Road

(3)  Eastgate Centre was not a defined centre in the Core Strategy. This had been considered when the Core Strategy was prepared. Representations had been made in the current review of the Bristol Local Plan to have the Eastgate Centre designated as a centre but this would not be supported by officers.

(4) There was a long history on the site, details of which were provided

(5) Since Eastgate was not a defined centre , it needed to pass the sequential test policy. The application does not pass the sequential test and this is a reason to refuse the proposal.

(6) Officers were concerned about the loss of green infrastructure and that very little would be retained, although it was acknowledged that there would be an offsite contribution in accordance with the BTRS. However, there was no justification for the loss of the trees as the development does not achieve any policy aims in the Core Strategy and this is a further reason for refusal.

(7) Officers were concerned about highway safety because the zebra crossing would be moved away from

the ‘desire line’ for cyclists and pedestrians who may as a result make unsafe crossings increasing the risk of pedestrian / cycle / vehicle collisions.  This was a further reason to refuse the proposal.

Councillors made the following points:

(8) The district retail offer avoids congestion and pollution by providing a local amenity. There was no reason why local people should be denied the opportunity to go to a local centre. Whilst the comments about lack of public transport were noted, these did not apply so much to the Eastgate Centre which did have public transport access

(9) It was difficult to justify the reason for the trees being destroyed. It did not feel that the applicant had taken this issue seriously. The application failed the sequential test

(10) The sequential test had been brought in by a previous conservative government. In addition, the traffic situation would be very bad and would require complete remodelling

(11) It would be difficult to get to the Eastgate Centre via bus from some parts of Bristol. This was a drive through facility and not generally the sort of place that people would travel to by public transport. The Committee should stick with the officer recommendation

(12) The loss of trees was significant, as was the failure of the sequential test

(13) The city centre should not always be seen as the main location for people to use as a shopping centre. There was a need to support small centres and to allow people to shop near where they live. However, the loss of trees was a cause for concern. It would be helpful if the applicant would consider changing the plan to avoid the destruction of trees

(14) There was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

The representative of the Service Manager (Development Management) made the following points:

 (1) Members’ attention was drawn to recent officer advice that, since the publication of the

amendment sheet, officers have received and considered Historic England’s comments in response to the consultation on the amended plans. Whilst Historic England maintained their objection, and the Council’s conservation officer could still not support the amended scheme, they did acknowledge the proposed reduction in roof height.

(2) Officers have carefully considered Historic England’s comments but believe that the proposed lowering of the roof height has tipped the balance to a point where the development can now be supported and were therefore now changing their recommendation for the application to be approved

(3) The harm had been weighed against the public benefit and it was acknowledged that, whilst there was some harm to the setting of the Heritage Assets especially St Stephen’s church, there had been an improvement proposed to the building

(4) An aerial view of the site was shown

In response to a Councillor’s question, officers provided further details of St Stephen’s Church.

Councillors made the following comments:

(5) The application did not harm the Heritage Assets and the economic benefits outweighed any harm

(6) Whilst the issue of heritage was a finely balanced one, it should be supported.

Councillor Olly Mead moved, seconded by Councillor Richard Eddy and, upon being put to the vote, it was Resolved (11 for, 0 against) that the application is approved as per the officers’ revised recommendation.

There are no further meetings scheduled for 2017/18 Municipal Year. The first meeting of the 2018/19 Municipal Year is likely to take place in mid to late June 2018.

It was noted that the next meeting would be the 2018/19 AGM and was scheduled for 2pm on Thursday 21^st June 2018.