Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed those present and explained the process to be followed on hearing of each application.

No apologies were received.

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.

Cllr Stephen Clarke stated that Application No, 18/03496/F – 125 to 131 Raleigh Road is in his Ward. He has spoken to the developer but has not offered any opinion on the application.

To agree the minutes of the last meeting as a correct record.

Resolved – that the Minutes of the above meeting be approved as correct record and signed by the Chair.

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

The Head of Development Management introduced the report and summarised it for everyone.

To note recent enforcement notices.

The Head of Development Management introduced the report and summarised it for everyone. He stated that 4 Notices have been served.

The Head of Development Management then advised everyone that two items had been withdrawn from the Agenda – 18/04367/F 1 to 3 Ashton Road (The Old Brewery) and 18/04627/CAAD Ashton Vale Club for Young People.

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 5 pm on Thursday 21^st February 2019.

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 12.00 noon on Tuesday 26^th February 2019.

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 by the Committee prior to reaching a decision.

To consider the following items:

The Committee considered the following Planning Applications

The Head of Development Management explained the situation concerning the Neighbourhood Development Plan and the recently held Referendum. The Independent Examiner at the Planning Inspectorate had agreed the Plan and therefore the Committee must give significant weight to it.  The Plan would be put before Council at its next Meeting. The Full Council decision is really only an administrative process to ratify the Referendum result and in line with general principle of local government law, development plan documents need to be formally adopted by Full Council.

The Head of Development Management and his representative presented this item highlighting the following:

·                     This is an Outline Application for the demolition of existing buildings and a development including residential dwellings,  office accommodation, education floor space, community building, commercial floor space, a new park and areas of formal and informal space

·                     A full description of the site and the application

·                     Responses to the consultation

·                     The reasons for recommending approval of the application

Answers to questions

·                     The strategic landscaping areas are the main park and runway park and although some trees are being lost there will be replanting; the issue of trees is regarded as being important

·                     The proposed density has been calculated for outline purposes and will be known in detail at the reserved matters stage  The Committee has to decide the application on the present Policies

·                     Some drainage information is included in the application and detailed proposals will not add to existing flooding and if possible will seek to improve the situation  Development Management meets regularly with the Schools Places Team to assist with the planning of school provision based on projected changes in population; there are no specific plans for nursery provision included in this scheme

·                     The Joint Spatial Plan  increases the number of houses to be provided in Bristol  and should be given weight

·                     The Neighbourhood Development Plan includes what should be provided on the Park

·                     There is a Condition recommended   concerning further site investigations

·                     A Condition is recommended  regarding the the provision of recreation and sporting facilities prior to the loss of the existing ones

Debate

·                     This is an important development for the area and although some aspects of the proposals are attractive, others are less so; concerns about the low density and the problems this could cause as well as the loss of Category A trees and more employment being needed

·                     The trees being lost should be considered as Category A trees as this was the opinion of the Council’s own arboricultural officer

·                     Concerns about compliance with the Neighbourhood Development Plan particularly regarding density

·                     Concerns about the residents’ disquiet and about some of the facilities

·                     Concerns about some of the existing facilities being lost

·                     The development would be very car dependent and wouldn’t be sustainable

·                     Development on Council land should be an exemplar

·                     The City has a pressing need for housing which this development would deliver

Councillor Windows moved that the application be refused on the grounds that it does not comply with the Neighbourhood Development Plan as it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

This Item was withdrawn from the Agenda.

The Head of Development Management and his representative presented this item highlighting the following:

·                     This is an Application for the demolition of existing buildings and a development of offices and apartments

·                     A full description of the site and the application

·                     Responses to the consultation

·                     The reasons for recommending approval of the application

Answers to questions

·                     The Construction Management Plan Condition safeguarding the adjoining gardens would have be signed off

·                     The rear facing windows were installed under permitted development; they would not looking on to any properties

Councillor Breckels moved that the application be granted.

Councillor Mead seconded this motion and suggested that the Construction Management Plan Condition safeguarding the adjoining gardens be included. This was agreed.

On being put to the Vote it was

Resolved – (9 for, 0 against) that the application be granted subject to Conditions including one relating to the Construction Management Plan Condition safeguarding the adjoining gardens.

The Head of Development Management and his representative presented this item highlighting the following:

·                     This is an Application for the construction B1/B8 business units

·                     A full description of the site and the application

·                     Responses to the consultation

·                     The reasons for recommending approval of the application

Answers to questions

·                       . The flats at 5 Ashley Down Road were granted planning permission in 2015. They had originally been approved as offices in a previous consent  in 2010.The access/maintenance issue of the rear elevation of the flats is a private issue to be agreed with the owner of the industrial estate. The application is being recommended for approval with conditions in order to impose some control to mitigate concerns from the neighbours

·                       The applicants could build a wall up to 2 metres in height on the boundary without requiring planning permission

·                       Conditions would control noise, smell, dust and hours of use

Debate

·                     The windows should not have been installed in the flats so close to the boundary

·                     Concerns about the owners of the flats not being able to maintain their property

Councillor Wright moved that the application be granted. Councillor Davies seconded this motion.

On being put to the Vote it was Lost (3 for, 4 against, 2 abstentions).

Councillor Mead moved that the application be refused on the grounds of poor design and the inability of the owners of the adjacent premises to maintain their property. Councillor Stevens seconded this motion.

On being put to the Vote it was

Resolved – (5 for, 2 against, 2 abstentions) that the application be refused on the grounds of poor design and the inability of the owners of the adjacent premises to maintain their property.  

The Head of Development Management and his representative presented this item highlighting the following:

·                     This is an Application for the demolition of existing buildings and the construction B1/B8 business units

·                     A full description of the site and the application

·                     Responses to the consultation

·                     The reasons for recommending approval of the application

Answers to questions

·                       Planning permission is required as the premises are within 5 metres of the boundary on an industrial estate

·                       The windows will be at a high level and therefore obscure glazing is not considered to be required

·                       Given the distance from adjoining residential properties and the height of the unit overbearing cannot be substantiated as a reason for refusal

Debate

·                     It cannot be refused but obscuring the windows should be included

·                     External wall facing Brynland Avenue properties should be painted white

·                     Obscure glazing  should be required but not white paint

Councillor Wright moved that the application be granted subject to Conditions including one requiring obscure glazing.

This was seconded and on being put to the Vote it was

Resolved – (5 for, 4 abstentions) that the application be granted subject to Conditions including one requiring obscure glazing.

This Item was withdrawn from the Agenda.

Wednesday 3^rd April 2019 at 6.00 pm.

The next meeting - 3^rd April 2019 at 6.00 pm.