Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed all parties to the meeitng and explained the emergency evacuaion procedure.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor George Calascione (Councillor Guy Poultney 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.

Councillor Al Al-Maghrabi declared an interest in Planning Application Number 23/03104/P – Graphic Packaging as he had spoken to the developer and the planning group but commented that he retained an open mind.

Councillor Katja Hornchen declared an interest in this item as she lived very near the site in question.

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

Resolved – that the minutes of the above meeting ne approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair subject to the following amendments:

•            The final bullet point for Agenda Item 9(a) be amended to change Long Road to Long Row

•            The following wording to replace the third bullet point for Councillors’ comments in Agenda Item 9b on Page 5: “Councillor concerns were noted about a bedroom being so close to a busy road with heavy traffic although it was acknowledged that this is not a material consideration. Whilst it was also noted that an assessment of living accommodation had deemed this satisfactory with sufficient light and was comparable to other areas where old buildings had been constructed before motorised traffic, the rules were problematic.”

ACTION: Jeremy Livitt - ACTIONED

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

The Committee noted that an invitation had now been sent by the development team for the briefing on 5^th February 2025 which would provide an update on the principles of enforcement, the local enforcement plan and of work in the last six months.

ACTION: The item on enforcement to be removed from the Action Sheet - ACTIONED

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

In response to a members’ question, officers confirmed that there had been a slight increase in the number of allowed appeals which was due to a number of factors, including costs being awarded against Bristol City Council for non-determination of some applications. Officers were analysing the reason for this carefully.

To note recent enforcement notices.

The Committee noted the briefing on this issue referred to under Agenda Item 5 to help Councillors understand the key issues for enforcement.

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 28^th November 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 Noon on Monday 2^nd December 2024.

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 further 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/s98400/Development%20Control%20Public%20Forum%20FAQ%202024.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.

There were no written questions for the meeting.

Statements - the Committee noted all written statements and heard from those submitters who wished to speak. In addition to those statements and speakers listed in the published papers, the following people spoke on behalf of those listed to speak with their agreement or were confirmed as speakers at the meeting:

A3 – Councillor Ellie King (on behalf of Councillor Louis Martin)

A4 – Councillor Ellie King

B2 – Nigel Morris (on behalf of Chris Faulkner-Gibson)

B3 – Councillor Lorraine Francis (added as an additional late speaker with the agreement of the Chair)

The following Planning Applications were considered:

Officers presented this report and made the following comments during the presentation:

·       This was an outline application – issues related to appearance, layout, landscape and scale were not relevant

·       Key issues for consideration at outline stage were access, loss of existing uses, proposed new uses, quantum development, flood risk, contaminated land, ecology and the impact on trees

·       The location of the site in Fishponds was shown, together with an aerial view of the site

·       The site was currently vacant but had been previously occupied by Graphic Packaging

·       The Committee was shown the different types of industrial development currently located on the site

·       Views of the site from different locations were shown including Filwood Road

·       The application was for a housing development for business uses subject to relocation of existing businesses within the Bristol area and was one of three large industrial sites in Fishponds identified for development. The other two sites were still at the pre-application stage

·       There had been two rounds of consultation with 7 new objections following the new development

·       The planning team were satisfied with the employment floor space

·       The retail facilities could be used for E (e) use concerning “Provision of Medical or Health Services (Except the Use Of Premises Attached to the Residence of the Consultant or Practitioner). However, officers noted that if the development was restricted to health care use, it could be unviable for NHS use and on that basis the site does not need to include them

·       There will be two vehicle access points with a further pedestrian access and a dedicated cycle lane structure

·       This development would benefit the local area and was deemed acceptable subject to conditions. It was therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions

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

·       E(e) use could be used for medical services not attached to the practitioner. Whilst this could be made a restriction, any requirement would need to be carefully phrased to avoid it being too great a restriction

·       There would be a dedicated footway and a dedicated cycle route. In future, more detailed change could be made to transform it into a more accurate design and ensure routes for both modes of travel were separated

·       A great deal of resource had been put into this development. Based on previous discussions, it was highly likely that the other two schemes would be coming forward shortly

·       It was likely that the vision document for the sites would be approved within the next two years as required – Graphic Packaging had been very engaged in the process

·       Discussions had taken place with the transport team – it was likely that there would be an improvement of key aspects of it such as sight lines for the next stage

·       There will be a designated cycle structure in certain designated roads  to be delivered as part of the Master Plan and with additional cycling connections to the other sites

·       The issue of increased funding for policing for cycle routes for this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19a

Officers gave a presentation on this issue and made the following points:

·       The listed building consent for this site had been deferred for reconsideration following the decision at the last meeting to refuse the full application

·       Two objections had been received to this application including from the Living Easton Heritage Environment Group. They had objected to changes being made to the stone wall and outcrop areas of the public house. However, this property had originally been described as a house only in 1839 and it was only the totem that identified it as a pub

·       Any construction would require planning consent. The site was within the Stapleton/Frome Valley Conservation Area

·       The conservation officer had confirmed that there would be no harm to the site

·       An opening was proposed to the Blackberry Hill frontage and to lowering a section of the wall to ensure that the finish of the wall was acceptable

·       It was connected to the full application as this would help improve visibility for road users

·       Similar works would require both building consent and full planning consent. Therefore, if this application was approved, only internal works would be carried out such as windows and doors, as well as the reinstatement of the totem

·       Details of the proposal was shown which were modest in scale and would be in keeping with the area

·       Officers recommended approval subject to conditions

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

·       The application had not been withdrawn but the first application decision to refuse had not yet been appealed. In the event that this was approved and the applicant was successful with any potential future appeal, they would be able to proceed with the internal alterations which were proposed

·       The conservation officer had not identified any reason to refuse this application

·       All applications are considered on their own merits. In this case, it was only the narrow issue of the Listed Building works

·       It was regrettable that it had only been picked up at a late stage that the front sheet on the report incorrectly indicated that this application was recommended for refusal. This has been corrected by the amendment sheet.

·       Whilst it was noted that the existing curtilage was within the development, no harm had been identified by the conservation officer

Committee members made the following comments:

·       This application should reluctantly be supported on its merits. It was noted that the complete development could proceed if the applicant was successful in any future appeal for the main application

·       Although the application could not be refused, it could e perceived as a catalyst for an appeal on the main application and therefore the correct course of action would be to abstain

·       This application should reluctantly be supported

·       There was a legal risk supporting this application and it should therefore be deferred pending legal advice

·       The main development was of great concern and approval of this listed building application could be used as a gateway to this

Officers reminded the Committee that, whilst  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19b

Officers introduced this report and made the following points:

·       Details of the application were provided

·       The ownership of a small strip of land near the site had been raised by a number of the Public Forum speakers. Whilst this was not known, the applicant had completed the correct documentation.

·       The existing site was shown with the red line boundary containing two properties

·       Details of the planning history were provided, including issues relating to surface water runoff and the Inspector’s report on the impact of amenity and overlooking. The Inspector had noted that overlooking did not occur and that any concerns could be addressed by conditions

·       It was noted that the development included access for three parking spaces for three semi-detached bungalows and a further 4 bedroom detached bungalow

·       Objections to the proposal included overdevelopment, privacy, the impact on the entrance to the existing annexe, concern about removal of greenery and surface water drainage

·       Since the appeal for the previous application, the scale had been reduced from 4 bungalows to 3, a tracking diagram showed how cars can safely enter the site with bin and bike storage being shown. There would also be retention of more hedgerows and tree planting . The Inspector determined that all other issues of concern to objectors could be met by conditions

·       The concern was noted by Public Forum speakers about the impact on Policies DM21, DM23,  DM26 and DM29. in particular the loss of private gardens had been raised. However, the principle of a more efficient use of garden land on a location of higher density development had already been established, including at a nearby development site on Crow Lane

·       No concerns had been raised by the Transport Management Development Officer to any of the concerns raised by the applicant

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

·       Details of the footprint for the site were provided

·       Whilst Councillor concerns about the details of the plan were noted, officers confirmed that it complied with requirements for the application and that the urban design officer was satisfied with them

·       Whilst the applicant had indicated that the proposed dwellings could be retirement homes, C7 use covered a range of uses and need not be limited to that. It would not be reasonable to require use to be limited to use in any decision

Councillors made the following comments:

·       Whilst the application detailed in the report initially seemed reasonable, the absence of criticism (for example from the Management Development Officer) did not necessarily mean that residents’ concerns should be dismissed. Whilst the development had been reduced, it would still have a significant impact in a cul de sac and should be opposed. If approved, it required a robust Construction Management Plan.

·       Whilst the concerns from local residents were noted, this was intended for older people so was unlikely to be too disruptive or devalue existing homes. Since Bristol was in the middle of a housing crisis, it badly needed these homes

·       Whilst there was a trend  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19c

The next meeting is scheduled for 6pm on Wednesday 22^nd January 2025 in the Council Chamber, City Hall, College Green, Bristol.

The next meeting is scheduled to take place at 6pm on Wednesday 22^nd January 2025 in the Council Chamber, City Hall, College Green, Bristol.