Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and issued the safety information.

To note that Councillor Rob Bryher has been confirmed by 21 May 2024 Full

Council AGM to act as Chair for the Development Control A Committee for

2024/25 Municipal Year.

It was noted that Councillor Rob Bryher was confirmed by 21 May 2024 Full Council AGM to act as Chair for the Development Control A Committee for 2024/25 Municipal Year.

To note that Councillor Katja Hornchen was confirmed by Full Council Annual

General Meeting on 21May 2024 as Vice-Chair for DCA Committee for

2024/25 Municipal Year.

It was noted that Councillor Katja Hornchen was confirmed by 21 May 2024 Full Council Annual General Meeting as Vice-Chair for DCA Committee for 2024/25 Municipal Year.

To note the following membership of Development Control A Committee for

2024/25 Municipal Year:

Councillor Rob Bryher (Chair)

Councillor Katja Hornchen (Vice-Chair)

Councillor Serena Ralston

Councillor Ellie Freeman

Councillor George Calascione

Councillor Zoe Peat

Labour Vacancy

Councillor Sarah Classick

Councillor Bador Uddin

The following membership of Development Control A Committee for 2024/25 Municipal Year was noted:-

Councillor Rob Bryher (Chair)

Councillor Katja Hornchen (Vice-Chair)

Councillor Serena Ralston

Councillor Ellie Freeman

Councillor George Calascione

Councillor Zoe Peat

Councillor Al al-Maghrabi

Councillor Sarah Classick

Councillor Bador Uddin

The Committee is requested to note its Terms of Reference as agreed by Full Council AGM on 21 May 2024.

These were noted.

The Committee is requested to consider the proposed dates for meetings for the

remainder of the 2024/25 Municipal Year as follows:

(all on Wednesdays and alternating between 2pm and 6pm unless otherwise indicated)

2pm 5 June 2024;

6pm 24 July 2024;

2pm 4 September 2024;

6pm 23 October 2024;

2pm 4 December 2024;

6pm 22 January 2025;

2pm Tuesday 4 March 2025 (Reserve Budget Council on 5 March)

6pm 16 April 2025.

The following dates were agreed:-

2pm 5 June 2024;

6pm 24 July 2024;

2pm 4 September 2024;

6pm 23 October 2024;

2pm 4 December 2024;

6pm 22 January 2025;

2pm Tuesday 4 March 2025 (Reserve Budget Council on 5 March)

6pm 16 April 2025.

These were received from Councillors Al-Maghrabi, Calascione and Uddin. Substitutes noted above.

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.

Councillor Ralston declared that she had previously worked for JPB – the PR/engagement for Planning application no. 22/06085/F but had no involvement in the work with this application.

Councillor Freeman declared that she had been the Chair of Action Greater Bedminster which had fed into the Bedminster Green Framework.

Councillor Poultney declared that he was the Chair of the Community Student Partnership.

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

Councillor Eddy being the only member at the previous meeting agreed that the minutes were an accurate record.

Resolved – that the minutes of the previous meeting be agreed as an accurate record.

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

It was noted that the action listed on Enforcement could now be removed as an Enforcement Update had been provided for this Committee.

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

It was agreed to report back to a Councillor outside of the meeting on the reasons Appeal 73 was allowed.

To note recent enforcement notices.

There was no discussion.

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 30 May 2024.

Petitions and Statements - Petitions and statements must be received two working days 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 3 June 2024.

PLEASE NOTE THE DEADLINE FOR STATEMENTS HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO MIDDAY ON 4 JUNE.

PLEASE NOTE THAT IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK AT THE COMMITTEE, YOU ARE REQUESTED TO INDICATE THIS WHEN SUBMITTING YOUR STATEMENT OR PETITION. ALL REQUESTS TO SPEAK MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A WRITTEN STATEMENT.

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.

If you have any futher questions, please see the Public Forum FAQ page on the Development Control Committee A page of the Bristol City Council website

https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s86621/Public%20Forum%20FAQ%20for%20Development%20Control%20Committees.pdf

Members of the press and public who plan to attend a public meeting at City Hall are advised that you will be required to sign in when you arrive and you will be issued with a visitor pass which you will need to display at all times.

Questions – The Committee noted the responses and the Chair invited Supplementary Questions from Questioners.

Andrew Kemp

1. Why is the manual operation of blinds now recommended and permissible?

Response – The tenure of the building was student accommodation and was therefore different from a residential building. Windows could be opened should an occupant return and require fresh air.

2. Do Dandera now own the site?

Response – Land ownership was not a material planning consideration so no weight was carried. The officer was not aware of a change in ownership.

Angela Truell

1. Why should these applications be considered on their own merits when all three applications’ red lines overlap?

Response – The flood risk assessment does consider the development as a whole and the restoration scheme takes account of future growth. It was not possible to consider applications jointly. It is not unacceptable to have overlapping red line boundaries.

2. Why was the Committee not appraised of officers concerns in more detail?

Response – Officers are recommending conditions recommended by the Environment Agency and those conditions adequately address concerns.

Bristol Tree Forum.

1. Did BCC intend to comply with new biodiversity net gains (BNGs) obligations which came into force in February 2024?

Response – This application was considered before BNGs became a mandatory requirement.

2. Please provide a list of locations for the 116 trees as part of mitigation?

Response – 31 trees had been agreed with the trees team and these were listed in the presentation. The other 86 would be in the BCC region and discussions had started on their location.

A - 22/06085/F - Former Pring & St Hill (Plot 1) Malago Road, Bristol BS3 4JQ

The case officer summarized the key aspects of the application for the benefit of theCommittee and the following points arose from questions:-

1. The height was supported by Bedminster Green Framework and the Local Plan and was not raised by the Inspector at the last appeal who had stated that there were not thresholds that could not be exceeded. Height was just one element of the application. The design process had been followed and the architecture layout was of high quality;

2. Enforcement of a car free development would be by conditioning that occupiers were not entitled to future permits. Car owners would be encouraged to use other forms of transport as part of the Travel Plan;

3. Funding had been agreed for an initial consultation with residents about an RPZ. The scheme would be in place within 2 months subject to community support;

4. Reasonable adjustments regarding residents with neurodiversity were a matter for the management of the building;

5. Blue Badge parking would be used if the three parking spaces were occupied;

6. Overall the overshadowing was not an unacceptable impact on daylight or on overshadowing on properties;

7. The timeframe for replacement tree planting was controlled by condition;

8. The view of Windmill Hill was a consideration but was not statutorily protected;

9. There was a ground floor amenity space for students. There was no retail or public usage. Doorways and communal entrances & windows connected to the street;

10. The Travel Plan would manage how the residents moved in and out the building and their trips;

11. Bristol University was supportive of the application and was working with the applicant to meet needs. This application went some way to meeting the need indicated in the Bristol Local Plan;

12. There had not been an assessment of whether such a development took pressure off of private and social housing in order to free up need but there was a wider picture and policies which support such applications;

13. The windows do open but due to noise and overheating the model is for windows to be closed. The Sustainable Cities teams were content with the approach;

14. In the future it would be possible for the development to be residential through the design process;

15. Plot 5 had not yet been determined but was the centre of the area of greatest height hence the design decision to step the buildings up.

The following points arose from debate:-

1. This development provided significant regeneration and was supported by the Bedminster Green Framework. Its height and scale were acceptable and the development met the needs of the travel framework document. It provided 500 student homes and 25% of land was donated for sustainable improvements. It was supported;

2. There was profound concerns regarding the scale of the buildings but equally the applicant had responded to concerns raised and addressed them;

3. It was better than  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

B - 23/00611/FB - Land Across & Adjacent To Plots 1, 3 & 5, Bedminster Green Development Bedminster Bristol BS3 4DN

The case officer summarized the key aspects of the application for the benefit of theCommittee and the following points arose from questions:-

1. At the time of drafting the report comments had not been received from the Conservation Team. They were now included in the Amendment Sheet and there was no objection to the scheme;

2. There was no loss of open space as defined in the Local Pan and there was overall a BNG;

3. The amphitheatre structure would require construction and then planting. The path would remain in use;

4. It was not known how long the BNG to return after works were completed but it was conditioned to ensure that it was achieved and tree planting achieved within 5 years.

The following points arose from debate:-

1. This scheme was supported by Bedminster Green Framework. It would provide flooding reduction measures, enhance the conservation area and provide greater public access. It was supported;

2. It would increase BNG including in the rivers;

3. The informal site visit had been helpful. On balance this was supported as it provided a good opportunity to free Malago space to see the river;

4. The BNG was achieved through the developer’s financial contribution which provided mitigation. Regulations about BNG were intended to allow off site provision;

5. It would take about 6 years for things to be established again according to the metric.

There being no further debate the Chair moved the officer recommendation and this was seconded by Councillor Eddy and on being put to the vote it was:-

Resolved (6 for, 3 against)  - That the application be granted subject to conditions.

6pm 24 July 2024