Agenda and minutes

Councillor Richard Eddy welcomed all parties to the meeting and reminded everyone of the arrangements in the event of an emergency evacuation procedure.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Andrew Varney (Councillor Andrew Brown substituting).

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.

Agenda Item 9(a) Planning Application Number 21/03165/F – Land To West of Ashton Gate Stadium - Councillor Ed Plowden indicated that, in his previous capacity as an officer of Bristol City Council, had negotiated the trigger points for Ashton Gate parking.

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

Upon being moved by Councillor Richard Eddy and seconded by Councillor Phillipa Hulme, it was

RESOLVED -  that the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 24^th August 2022 be approved as a correct record and signed by Councillor Richard Eddy.

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

It was noted that 5 members of the Development Control A Committee had submitted Public Forum Statements to the Growth and Regeneration Scrutiny Commission on 29^th September 2022 in relation to their discussion on Planning Enforcement.

Councillor Varney was the Vice-Chair of this Scrutiny Commission and had submitted one of these statements. As a member of DCA Committee, Councillor Eddy anticipated that Councillor Varney would provide a verbal update on this at the next DCA Committee.

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

The Service Manager, Development Management introduced this report and made the following point in relation to Item 8 within the report:

493 to 499 Bath Road, Brislington: The hearing took place on 31^st August 2022, followed by another day a couple of weeks later. The Committee had made the decision on this issue in the pre-election period with a reason for refusal on the grounds of design and heat hierarchy issues. Officers had been advised that the decision was likely to be made by the end of this month and awaited the outcome of this.

To note recent enforcement notices.

The Service Manager (Development Services) introduced this report and made the following points:

·       A number of the decisions related to the re-served Wyevale Garden Centre site

·       It was anticipated that there would be more in future in relation to Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMO’s)

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 29^th September 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 Noon on Tuesday 4^th October 2022.

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.

To consider the following Planning Applications: -

The Committee considered the following Planning Applications:

The case officer for this Planning Application introduced this report. He explained that this item, whilst separate from the subsequent Planning Application listed as Agenda Item 9(b), was dependent on its approval.

He made the following points during the presentation:

·       This site will provide a wide range of community benefits which would justify building on the Green Belt in the exceptional circumstances which applied

·       It would only be viable if it was part financed by the subsequent Planning Application 9 (b)

·       The details of the demolition of the existing site and the proposed application were set out in detail

·       It was noted that the proposal was set out in 6 blocs, with details of Plot 1 comprising a multi storey car park with 36 parking spaces and some wheelchair accessible, as well as Plot 2 comprising a 4 Star Hotel and 232 Guest Rooms. Details of Plot 4 and Plot 6 (comprising 2 residential blocks) were also provided

·       It was noted that there would be three access points to the site and details of these were provided

·       Different viewpoints of the proposed development were provided to members

·       There had been 53 letters of support and 16 objections mainly relating to concerns about traffic congestion, the lack of affordable housing and some negative aspects of the design

The Committee noted that officers were recommending approval of the scheme due to the benefits it would provide including the commercial space and the 31% biodiversity net gain.

In response to Councillor’s questions, officers made the following comments:

·       In relation to the concerns expressed by the Walking Alliance relating to provisions for walking, it was explained that there were green sections within the development and referred to the biodiversity net gain. There were no longer any official road safety objections. The walking concerns were more closely linked to the site at Agenda Item 9 (b)

·       The Winterstoke Road crossing required significant modelling to satisfy road safety issues. Since the applicant had deemed the proposed super crossing too expensive, an alternative approach had been adopted which met these concerns

·       The day parking figures did not currently merit any objection but these would be reviewed and could reach a cumulative trigger point in future. However, the current evidence was not sufficient to challenge the assessment and a result the developer’s proposal had been deemed worthy to pursue. There would need to be a complete re-consultation once activity had been observed involving an origins and destination parking survey on both match and non-match days and if necessary some form of parking controls introduced following this.

·       Viability of affordable housing – This was an unusual scheme of large mixed use with a range of components. It would generate a lot of revenue since the land value was reasonably high. The landowner would need to have a reasonable return and there would high bill costs and high public realm costs. It was important to understand that planning viability was not the same as general viability since it was predicated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The case officer for this Planning Application introduced this report and made the following points as part of the presentation:

·       This was an outline application with all matters reserved except access and egress to the site

·       The development proposed 510 dwellings

·       The proposed development area was within the Green Belt and was within a site of special scientific interest

·       The Long Ashton Park and ride was near the site

·       The view of the proposed development was shown from various locations

·       It was noted that this had been the subject of careful negotiations with the applicants

·       Details of the size of the development and its access arrangements were provided. It was noted that future pedestrian links could be brought forward

·       Potential commercial spaces were indicated

·       The issue of the location of the site within the Green belt had been a key aspect of the objections. However, it was noted that the site only made a limited contribution to the Green Belt and that under the very special circumstances which applied, it could be removed from it.

·       There would be pedestrian and cycle lanes on the site

·       A biodiversity net again assessment had been made and a further assessment would be required at the next stage if the application was approved

·       Historic England had raised some concerns about the impact on the Ashton Court site, this was unlikely to be substantial. Neither Historic England nor the Environment Agency had raised any objection to the site

·       Only cumulative effects needed to be considered as part of the assessment of the application. Officers believed that the benefit of the site outweighed the les than substantial harm

The Legal Officer in attendance for this planning application made the following comments:

·       In reaching its decision, the Committee needed to do so in a legally correct way. Only material considerations needed to be taken account of, not immaterial ones

·       Legal advice had been provided for this application by Bristol City Council Legal Team and Counsel

·       The report reflects legal advice received from Counsel. There were four areas subject to legal input

·       Green Belt Test – Since this application would normally be deemed an inappropriate development, it requires special circumstances to apply and a substantial weighting in favour of it with the benefits clearly outweighing the harm. Both legal advice and Counsel confirm the community benefit to meet the requirement of special circumstances

·       Relationship with the Previous Application – Earlier advice had been received from Counsel. It would not be sufficient simply to deliver a financial contribution. The benefits for both applications (this one and Agenda Item 9(a)) would have to be real. Advice had been received in respect of this

·       Section 106 Agreement – The Planning obligations were listed in the report. Whilst this was yet to be finalised, Counsel had stated the appropriate mechanism to finance the development and provide practical provision

·       Noise Issues – The application needed to be an agent of change to improve the living conditions for future occupants and integrated effectively within  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

The case officer for this Planning Application made the following points during his presentation:

·       Details of the location for this school were provided. It was noted that the school currently operated on two sites and that the development would bring the whole school under one site – the historic Claremont House and other additions and extensions

·       Henleaze Infant school and was located to the south of the site and residential areas to the north and east

·       The development would include the demolition of existing structures and construction of a 2 storey extension alongside the general refurbishment and an alteration to the front entrance

·       There would be the creation of new designated minibus bays and staff cycle parking

·       The existing school capacity was indicated, together with the increased capacity for both students and staff

·       Windows would include obscured glazing to address concerns about overbearing at the site

·       There had been objections to the proposal on the grounds of amenity, highways, noise and design

·       Amenity – whilst it was acknowledged that there would be some overbearing to nearby properties which was not ideal, the applicant had minimised these as much as possible. Details were provided to the Committee of planning guidance in relation to planning applications for schools. It was considered not sufficiently harmful to refuse on these grounds

·       Highways – there was no objection on highways safety grounds

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

·       The request for a Traffic Management Plan by the local Councillor was noted. Road safety was a very important part of any proposal for a school. Most pupils were brought to school by minibus  and the number of trips involved would be minimal. However, this situation would be closely monitored. It would also be possible to apply for Safer Schools funding if this was required. There was very little traffic generation from this application

·       There would be a condition relating to noise to help avoid disturbance from the neighbourhood

·       Whilst it as not ideal that category 3 trees would be removed, this was unavoidable. There would be a Tree Replacement Plan

·       It was also noted that the scale and masing of the development had been reduced from the previous proposal to one storey which would be sufficient to outweigh any harm

·       The distance between the development and the neighbouring properties was approximately 19 metres

·       It was noted that there were concerns about potential pollution via the roof top plant. However, the control of these had been assessed and this was deemed acceptable subject to technical changes

Councillors made the following comments:

·       This development would double the number of special needs children to be schooled and provide them with a building with modern conditions. Whilst there remained some concerns about access and egress, there were not  sufficient grounds to refuse the application

·       Additional SEND places at schools were badly needed. The development would also provide jobs for staff. The conditions would mitigate any concerns. Therefore, the scheme should be supported

·       Whilst there was some  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

The case officer for this Planning Application made the following points during his presentation:

·       This was an extremely constricted site

·       The site location plan was shown and the access details provided, along with the elevation details

·       The proposal had been significantly reduced from the 2007 application

·       Proposed views from the development were provided

·       There had been 58 objections, together with 12 further objections after the revised proposals had been submitted, including form the Conservation Advisory Panel, the Bristol Civic Society and concerns from transport colleagues about the use of the arch way

·       The development would include a lift and stair access.

·       There would be no restrictions into Colston street so the number of vehicles could increase

·       Following the revisions to the scheme, officers felt the scale was now appropriate

·       The site was overgrown and had been cleared in the past

·       There were no grounds for objection arising out of the ecological survey

·       A Construction management Plan and Environmental Management Plan would be required

·       This was a landlocked brownfield site and would help to meet the needs caused by the lack of temporary accommodation

Councillor Richard Eddy noted a number of concerns about the scheme, including those raised in the Public Forum. He moved, seconded by Councillor John Geater and upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously – 9 for, 0 against, 0 abstentions) – that a decision on this planning application be deferred pending a Site Visit.

NB: The Committee was reminded that any formal Committee resolution for a Site Visit required them to attend to be able to participate in and vote when it was reconsidered at a future meeting (in accordance with the Council’s Standing Orders for Committee Members on Planning Matters).

The next meeting is scheduled to be held at 2pm on Wednesday 16^th November 2022 in the Council Chamber, City Hall, College Green, Bristol.

It was noted that the next scheduled meeting would be held at 2pm on Wednesday 16^th November 2022 in the Council Chamber, City Hall, College Green, Bristol.