Breadcrumb Content

Agenda and minutes

Venue: The Council Chamber - City Hall, College Green, Bristol, BS1 5TR. View directions

Contact: Jeremy Livitt 

Link: Watch Live Webcast

No. Item


Welcome, Introductions and Safety Information pdf icon PDF 405 KB

Additional documents:


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


Apologies for Absence and Substitutions


None received.


Declarations of Interest

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.


Minutes of the previous meeting pdf icon PDF 572 KB

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


RESOLVED the minutes of the previous meeting on 16 March 2022 are agreed as a correct record.


Action Sheet pdf icon PDF 402 KB

The Committee is requested to note any outstanding actions listed on the rolling Action Sheet for DCA Committee.


Councillor Eddy updated the committee on the enforcement briefing. This was brought to the Development Control leads meeting last Wednesday. It was agreed that it should be investigated by Growth and Regeneration Scrutiny Commission. Councillor Eddy has spoken to the Chair of the committee to facilitate this for the June scrutiny meeting and hopefully include it onto their work programme. Development Control members may wish to contribute their views to scrutiny.


Appeals pdf icon PDF 128 KB

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


·       Items 28 – 31 (Wyvedale Garden Centre): at the last committee, officers reported that enforcement notices had been served on this site. The owners have since appealed those notices. They are made on written representations so hopefully there will be a fast resolution.


·       Item 34 – 35 (Silverthorne Lane): The Council has received Secretary of State (SoS) decision on Silverthorne Lane, those applications were considered by committee and granted some time ago. SoS called in the decision but has decided to grant permission. GC will circulate a report to members as important principles were endorsed in this decision, especially regarding flood risk. [ACTION]


·       Item 36 (Clanage Road): Officers felt that flood risk on this site was significant, but committee decided to grant permission. The application was called in by the SoS. The planning inspector recommended grant, but the SoS thought the risk was too high and refused permission.


·       Item 37 (Feeder Road): Officers thought this application had significant flood risk and refused it under delegated powers. The SoS granted permission on appeal, subject to Grampian permissions on flood mitigation. The flood evacuation plans were complex and relied on off-site land. Officers viewed that as unreasonable at the time. Following the decision, they are working with the developer to utilise nearby council land.


·       Item 47 (Swift House): This application was considered by committee in April 2021. The proposal is a waste transfer station on former van hire site. Officers recommended approval, but committee refused based largely on the potential disruption to a nearby nursery. The planning inspector has permitted the appeal, explaining that some environmental issues are not for the committee to decide but for the Environment Agency. This is a reminder to members that they cannot control all elements of an application.


·       Items 52 – 54 (South Liberty Lane): This was an officer delegated decision, which was appealed with costs. This was an application that was controversial locally, but officers admitted they had been too stringent and conceded the case.



Enforcement pdf icon PDF 232 KB

To note recent enforcement notices.


No Enforcement Notices to report.


Public Forum pdf icon PDF 969 KB

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 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 21 April 2022.


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 26 April 2022.


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 (Name Deadline Date)




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, details of which are included as a supplementary dispatch for the meeting.


Planning and Development pdf icon PDF 90 KB

Additional documents:


The Committee considered the following Planning Applications:


21/02976/F - 46 & 47 Coronation Road & Castlemead House St Johns Road, Southville Bristol BS3 1AR pdf icon PDF 1 MB


Officers introduced this report and made the following points:

·       The site is a 1960s office block with some other houses. It is within the Bedminster conservation area. The office building is identified as a negative feature and the houses as neutral in the conservation area appraisal.

·       The trees on site are subject to protection orders. On the eastern side of the site there is a culvert for the Malago river, so the applicant cannot develop on that section of site.

·       There was an earlier 2019 application that was refused as set out in the report. 70 units have been reduced to 46. The massing has also been significantly reduced.

·       Potential loss of employment is an issue. The site is not specifically designated for employment but would be considered an employment site and therefore the applicant needs to demonstrate a lack of demand. The existing building lacks quality, however, the land itself could be used for employment in future. We would normally expect an exercise to demonstrate lack of business demand, but this has not taken place. Given the lack of a five-year land supply in accordance with para 11 of the NPPF, there is a presumption in favour of approving applications for housing unless there is a conflict with other policies in that document. Accordingly, on balance this is not a reason to refuse per se.

·       Affordable housing percentage is another issue. The developers have undertaken a viability assessment which was independently reviewed. This assessment stated that affordable housing would make this site unviable. The developer has recently offered three affordable units which is welcomed by officers.

·       The housing mix is better than in the 2013 application, comprising one, two and three bed properties. The design is good, using quality materials and removes a negative building.

·       In calculating the Biodiversity Net Gain of the site there is a difference in approach to the value given to urban trees between the consultant acting for the applicant and the Tree Forum. The application does comply with Bristol tree replacement standards. Officers could condition long term maintenance plan for ecology.

·       Officers recommend approval and seek delegated authority to negotiate conditions.


Officers then responded to Councillors’ questions as follows:

·       The applicant did not carry out a marketing business assessment. Although this is not a legal requirement, officers would expect to see it normally. The demand for residential property in the area likely outweighs the commerciality concern.

·       The initial viability assessment stated that no affordable housing was possible, but this has been revised to three units (9% of the total).

·       Planning viability is not same as practical viability. Planning viability is based on policy and guidance, what is expected in terms of margins. The developer may have a different appetite for risk that changes viability.

·       There are three viability related planning conditions. First is works must commence within 18 months, second must re-examine viability at the end of the build before occupying, third if the developer sells the site for more than its agreed value  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.


Date of Next Meeting

2pm 8 June 2022


The date of the next meeting is 8 June 2022 at 1400 in City Hall.