Agenda and minutes

Cllr Richard Eddy welcomed everyone to the meeting and issued the safety information.

Cllr Steve Pearce notified the committee that he may have to leave early for a hospital appointment.

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.

None received.

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

RESOLVED The minutes of the previous meeting 11^th August 2021 were agreed as a correct record.

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

Officers drew attention to the following items:

Item 10 and 11 are public enquiries still awaiting Secretary of State decision which is expected by the end of the year.

Item 12 had a public enquiry at the end of August.

Item 13 appeal against refusal on flooding, there is no enquiry date set as yet.

Item 48 and 49 the appeals against non-determination were dismissed, but costs awarded against the Council. Cost to be determined.

There was a comment on the current high volume of appeals. There can be more appeals in a difficult economic climate and there have been many appeals on telecommunications applications lately.

To note recent enforcement notices.

There were no enforcement notices on the agenda. The Council tries to resolve issues without formal notices but will serve notices if this approach does not work and harm is still being caused. There is a backlog of cases and notices will appear at committee in due course.

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 16 September.

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 21 September.

Members of the public who wish to present their public forum statement, question or petition at the meeting must register their interest by giving at least two clear working days’ notice prior to the meeting by 2pm on Friday 17 September.

PLEASE NOTE THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW STANDING ORDERS AGREED BY BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL, YOU MUST SUBMIT EITHER A STATEMENT, PETITION OR QUESTION TO ACCOMPANY YOUR REGISTER TO SPEAK.

In accordance with previous practice adopted for people wishing to speak at Development Control Committees, please note that you may only be allowed 1 minute subject to the number of requests received for the meeting.

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.

The Committee considered the following applications.

Officers presented the report and highlighted the following points:

1.         Members flagged some errors  of the report which are below the usual quality standard for which officers apologised. These issues were addressed in the amendment sheet.

2.         The application has been revised from 65 to 62 dwellings in 3 blocks. The application received 350 objections, mainly related to block A. This block has been amended, reduced in size and set back with less massing.

3.         Distance from other buildings is not a significant impact.

4.         Officers recommend approval, subject to legal agreement on 20% affordable housing on site.

Questions for clarification:

5.         The buildings use air source heat pumps, this meets policy requirements. Sustainability is important, in terms of density, amenity space and parking. It is a matter for the committee to weigh up the material issues. There are 121 units, 45 parking spaces and green spaces in reasonable distance.

6.         Zoo finances are not a material consideration for the committee.

7.         The visual amenity of the application is largely subjective. The scale of the application alone is not a reason for refusal. Improvements from the original plan had been made. The scheme is compliant in terms of density.

8.         The site is brownfield and no longer appropriate for its original use. Members are asked to weigh the potential benefits against the potential harm of the scheme. The nearest play area is near to  the suspension bridge.

9.         The development should be ambitious in terms of energy use in line with sustainable practice, however Zero Carbon is an aspiration. The applicant has been assessed on sustainability measures. Members could refuse the application over sustainability concerns if they are considered  it outweighs other aspects.

10.       A decision should be made on the plan as it stands rather than deferring it, there is the possibility of appeal if no decision is made.

11.       The committee has some interest in biodiversity and notes the issue is lacking in the report. A condition on this will be attached. It is worth noting that biodiversity net gain requirement is not yet included in planning law.

Debate Notes:

12.       Bristolians love the zoo, and the committee should look to the future. The application is a bold decision but members should consider it on its own merits. The community has been consulted and the statement by Francis Greenacre is reassuring. Brownfield sites should be the priority location for development and a former car park is a prime target. The density of the development is not too high, and nature of the buildings is satisfactory. The committee should have faith that these properties will be bought because they will meet the needs of potential buyers.

13.       The committee thanked members of the public for their engagement. This part of college road is unattractive at present, and the scheme will enhance it. The scale of the proposed buildings is suitable, and the biggest trees will remain. The proposed buildings are an appropriate distance from the old buildings. The Clifton  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Officers presented the report and highlighted the following points:

1.         The application is within a primary industrial area. This is also a growth area but there is no interest in commercial use at this location.

2.         The site includes 154 flats in 4 blocks. The proposed housing mix is as follows: four blocks of 1 and 2 bed flats. There will be 62 one bed flats and 92 two bed flats. There are no plans for family units. 20 percent is to be affordable housing and 3 units will be wheelchair accessible. A further 6 units could be adapted for wheelchair accessibility. However, 41% of properties are single aspect, which is concerning.

3.         25 responses were received in public consultation and the majority of objections pertained to traffic, parking and height.

4.         There will be 56 parking spaces on the site, 20% of these including electric charge points. Space will be provided for 180 cycles. 9 parking spaces will be lost from Coronation Road.

5.         Significant negotiation and amendment has been undertaken in relation to highway safety and servicing matters, with the scheme as presented being supported by BCC Transport Officers.

6.         The nearest residential buildings are opposite on Coronation Rd and are between 19-to-21-metres  away, which is acceptable.

7.         Whilst there are identifiable shortfalls, the standard of the accommodation is generally good , and the design  picks up on key themes and features ofexisting historic buildings nearby within the Conservation Area .

Questions for clarification:

8.         The inclusion of electric storage heaters creates sustainability concerns. The design contains heat pumps, solar PV, also electric panel heating. It would not be able to connect to the council district heat network for heat without significant and distruptive retrofit works.

Debate notes:

9.         The proposal builds on a brownfield site and will help meet the Bristol’s housing needs.

10.       Electric panel heating is an issue but there has not been any development in the area for some time, so this development is welcome.

11.       The development is an opportunity to open the riverbank with new views and aspects. Concerns about heating remain, but the benefits of the scheme outweigh those concerns.

12.       The lack of a good mix of housing is also a concern.

13.       There is a lack of parking on site which could cause pressure for the area and appears to be contingent on a Resident’s Parking Scheme that may not happen.

14.       A member was reassured by the statement of support from the relevant ward member.

DECISION was moved by Councillor Eddy and seconded by Councillor Hulme

RESOLVED (8 for / 0 against / 1 abstain) application approved as per officer recommendations.

Officers presented the report and highlighted the following points:

1.         This is an outline application for up to 350 Class C3 dwellings, up to 1650sqm of flexible class E space, including 150sqm Sui Generis (to cover hot food takeaway). Class E is highly permissive.

2.         This application seeks approval for access points to the site. Those will be set today for a future reserved matters application. The officer recommendation is to grant subject to legal agreement.

3.         Loss of leisure use is a concern. However, officers and members cannot refuse an application based on how we would want something to be. The commercial reality is that this site is not sustainable for the existing leisureuses, and the assessment is whether this an acceptable site for residential development.

Questions for clarification:

4.         There is a major play area at Hengrove which is a significant asset. Car parking is important for accessibility to this park. An intensive housing scheme could reduce the amenity of the park as users cannot get close enough to it. This would be relevant for a future scheme. 

5.         Members expressed concern about the input they are permitted to have on this application given the objections regarding leisure amenity and transport. The nature of outline applications makes them difficult as a future application cannot be predicted. Members are asked to agree the description of the site as a residential led development with up to 350 dwellings. This does mean losing the existing leisure use. The mix of uses being proposed  cannot be reviewed later. 

6.         It was confirmed the development is proposed  to be 30% affordable.

7.         The leisure buildings are around 20 years old and cannot be repurposed. The development was designed around older principles such as heavy car use, which is no longer relevant.

Debate notes:

8.         The loss of leisure facilities is regrettable, but this is market forces in action. The restaurants are viable, but the cinema and bingo hall are operating at loss.

9.         Members raised concerns about the loose definition of Class E space and would prefer a tighter definition and/or appropriate caveats.

RE move that approval with additional E Class

DECISION was moved by Councillor Richard Eddy and seconded by Councillor Plowden.

RESOLVED (8 for / 0 against / 1 abstain) approve application subject to suitable conditions to be drafted by officers.

The next Development Control A Committee is on Wednesday 3 November at 6.00pm in City Hall.

The date of the next Development Control A committee is 3 November 2021.