Agenda and minutes

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

Members were advised that Application 22/06085/F - Former Pring & St Hill (Plot 1) Malago Road Bristol had been deferred for this meeting at the applicant’s request, it was anticipated that the application would be considered at the 5 June 2024 meeting.

As this was the last meeting of the municipal year, the Chairman expressed sincere thanks to all members and officers that had been involved in the work of the committee.

Apologies were received from Councillor Farah Hussain, substituted by Councillor Tim Rippington.

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.

The Chairman asked that it be noted that he had made comments in the past in support of a city centre caravan park but as this was not an interest as such, he would consider the Baltic Wharf application purely on its own merits and this was not a conflict of interest. Councillor Jackson asked that it be noted that he was a member of the caravan and motoring club and that he would likewise consider the Baltic Wharf application purely on its own merits and this was not a conflict of interest.

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

Resolved - that the Minutes be confirmed as a correct record of the Meeting.

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

Noted.

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

The Committee noted the report. In response to a question about the proportion of appeals for non-determination the Head of Planning confirmed that the number of these seemed to be starting to tail off but there were still a high volume of appeals, this was partly due to the increased churning out of more decisions. The rate of defending appeals successfully was also holding up well.

To note recent enforcement notices.

The Committee noted the report.

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 18^th April 2024.

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 23^rd April 2024.

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.

Membersof theCommittee receivedPublic ForumStatements inadvance ofthe meeting.

The Statementswere heardbefore theapplication theyrelated toand weretaken fullyinto consideration by the Committee prior to reaching a decision.

The Presenting Officer introduced the report, the application was on the Baltic Wharf Caravan site, currently a brownfield site, adjacent to the floating harbour to the north and Cumberland Road to the south. The site was on a piece of land that was currently occupied by a caravan park and consisted mainly of hardstanding, with some grass areas, a toilet block, Warden’s accommodation, and parking.

The Chairman asked for clarification regarding the comment made in the Tree Forum statement about new information being published contrary to the requirements of section 100B of the Local Government Act 1970. The Council’s legal representative commented that as the officer’s report had been published in line with the requirements of the Act and there had not been any material changes to the application the deadline had been fully complied with.

The following points arose from questions: -

a)      Proposed replacement trees amounted to 68 on site and 162 outside of the application area. There was a view that more trees should be placed close to the site however this would be consequent upon the outcome of the Council’s parks development team finding sites as part of the S106 negotiations. A full mapping of tree planting sites would be inform the S106 negotiations and be taken into account as part of the s106 agreement. The Council’s ecology officer had confirmed that the proposed replacement trees fully complied with council policy. Noted that there was no distinction between council and privately owned land and that the SPD regarding this was guidance not policy.

b)      The flooding concerns had been fully mitigated and that was why the Environment Agency had withdrawn its objection. It was noted that the residential properties were all above the predicted future flood level and the LFA had confirmed that access/egress on the site would be safe and would give a lifetime of certainty to residents on the site.

c)      Although views were not normally a material consideration, this was taken into account if it involved a heritage asset. Noted that overshadowing and distance between buildings for the proposal were within the standards necessary for the development.   

d)      The overlooking aspects of the development were policy compliant, mitigation measures had been put in place and included screening on balconies and raised sill heights.

e)      CIL funding regarding this development would change if the affordable housing element changed, it currently stood at 40% which amounted to £1m. Noted that if affordable housing was 100% there would be no CIL funding (except from the commercial elements of the scheme) due to current regulations.

f)       The contribution toward flooding mitigation had yet to be agreed, this would not form part of the S.106 agreement. If affordable housing became 100% interiors of properties might need to be changed and if significant could result in an additional S.73 planning application being made to vary the consent. Net biodiversity had been gained via a hedgerow on the site and additional off-site proposals. 

g)      Residents should not have difficulty obtaining  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The Presenting Officer introduced the report, the application proposal was for the Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a mixed-use development comprising residential (Class C3), and commercial (Class E) floorspace, together with amenity space, landscaping and public realm works, vehicular access, and servicing arrangements.

The following points arose from questions: -

a)      46% of the properties had balconies being a mixture of full and Juliet balconies. As much as possible had been provided as sought within SPD guidance. Noted that total outdoor space exceeded the SPD requirement by 100%. 

b)      The gradient of the new street was redesigned to 1:20 so that movements would be DDA compliant, and disability access was fully provided. the pedestrianised street would be landscaped and sheltered. The ‘wind tunnel’ concerns had been carefully considered and work had been done to mitigate impact on various structures, including via landscaping. These details would be finalised in the S.106 agreement, however it was considered that there would be minimal impact overall.

c)      Noted that the properties comprised 9% North facing single aspect and 46% dual or partial dual aspect (Dual orientation – 38.10%, Partial dual aspect – 7.94%). Noted that this was the best possible option achievable within the constraints of the site.

d)      Economic benefits were derived from the proposal as estimated by the developers. It was anticipated that these would be achievable given the number of residential properties and the likely footfall increase due to the new development and commercial opportunities that would arise from the development.

e)      The contrast with existing tall buildings nearby and additional shadowing had been assessed by a cumulative impact study and this had not indicated any additional harm arising from any in-combination effects. 

The following points arose from debate -

f)       The development would significantly contribute to the economy of the city centre and provide much needed affordable retail space.

g)      Some concerns remained about the height and scale of the buildings and the ‘canyon’ affect from wind.

h)      The development was positive for its impact on the regeneration of the city centre and the associated economic benefits.

On being put to the vote there were six in favour and three against.

Resolved - That the application be Granted subject to a Planning Agreement and conditions.