Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed all parties to the meeting and explained the evacuation procedure in the event of an emergency.

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 Serena Ralston and Councillor Guy Poultney both indicated that they had submitted objections to the previous application for the site of the former Premier Inn, the Haymarket (the former as a member of the public).

Members noted that, since these objections were in relation to the previous application and in line with Government guidance, they were not pre-determined in making their decision on the application being considered by the Committee.

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

RESOLVED – that the minutes of the meeting held on 4^th December 2024 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

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

There were no outstanding items on the Action Sheet.

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

The Committee noted this report.

Officers were congratulated on their work in ensuring the number of appeals which had been dismissed.

In response to a member’s question concerning appeal decisions for HMOs, officers agreed to share findings of these decisions with Development Control A Committee Members.

ACTION: Jonathan Dymond to provide information to DCA Committee – added to Action Sheet.

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 16^th January 2025.

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 20^th January 2025.

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.

The Committee noted the written responses provided to the question on general development matters and also noted the statements and speakers for each of the Planning Applications being considered at the meeting.

The Committee is requested to consider the following Planning Applications:

The Committee considered the following Planning Applications set out below:

Officers gave a presentation on this application which included the following points:

·       The location was in the Temple Quarter Regeneration Area. It included a mix of affordable housing and development and fulfilled the need to have sustainable development in this area

·       The site was shown. It was noted that the application would include 532 bed spaces over 22 storeys and was quite constrained. It would also include a new pedestrian link.

·       The presumption on the site was for sustainable development and it was noted that a site recently approved to the south of this site included 17 storeys

·       The current scheme had changed significantly since the last one

·       Light levels were deemed to be adequate

·       The width of the new pathway had been increased and a series of ramps  would be provided

·       Slides indicating views of the site were shown to the Committee

·       Historic England had not raised an objection to the scheme

·       Following the recent submission of wind study, officers were seeking delegated authority to assess this and secure any mitigation in the event that the Committee supported officers’ recommendation to approve the scheme

In response to Committee Members’ questions, officers provided answers as follows:

·       It was noted that there were no other developments of this height, scale and massing in the immediate vicinity and that issues relating to DM26 needed to be properly considered. However, since the Castle Park Development is 1.2km away and 25 storeys high and, since all aspects of the scheme had been scrutinised according to Bristol City Council’s Urban Living Sustainable Planning Development, the application met the requirements for officer to recommend approval

·       The necessary management strategy would be secured through appropriate conditions related to safety and security

·       The scheme was sufficiently coherent. It was based in Temple Quarter which was a regeneration area and was a sustainable part of the city. High density schemes such as this were considered as part of the spatial strategy

·       Whilst concerns were noted about the size of the site and the possible impact of wind effects, the aim of urban living was to allow sufficient space around each building to provide space for the public realm and this development achieved that

·       Whilst this would be a stand alone building, it was within a regeneration area

·       The slides indicated the number of bed spaces included within the studios. The number of kitchens would usually be included but were something for the developer to provide and would not be controlled by planning

·       Canopies and landscaping would normally act as mitigation for any possible concerns about the impact of the development on the micro climate

·       Chemical ventilation would be provided which was similar to many other developments and there had been an equalities assessment as part of the Public Sector Equality Duty which was set out in the report. It would be the operator’s responsibility to ensure that the required standards were maintained. No concerns had been raised by Environmental Health on the scheme

·       The employment issues were set out  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29a

Officers gave a presentation on this item and made the following comments:

·       The original application had been approved in May 2024 and demolition work had already commenced

·       If this application was refused, the previous application would still remain in place

·       Slides were shown illustrating the main points – the full list of changes were set out in the report

·       Under the revised scheme, the amenity space on each floor was removed and substituted with a dedicated amenity space for the two top floors. All balcony space had also been removed and replaced with additional accommodation

·       With the proposed changes in amenity provision, , the amenity space would be just over 1200 square metres

·       The external changes would require changes to the windows as a result of the loss of balconies

·       The main changes to the scheme were indicated with the revised elevations

·       An additional condition was proposed requiring a Section 106 payment towards the Travel Plan.

·       Whilst the design was slightly more cluttered, officers believed that the benefits of the scheme outweighed the disadvantages

·       Section 106 delegated authority would be required to complete the list of conditions – one to deal with noise, the other to deal with Wessex Water

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

·       The Committee should still assess the scheme on the basis of weighing the benefits against the disadvantages

·       Since the accommodation would be mechanically ventilated, purge ventilation would be used to allow windows to open to remove hot air if required

·       The standards for outdoor amenity space do not apply to co-living. Since a policy did not currently exist, the best existing policy needed to be used. C£ was used as a guidance for students since this applied to communal space

·       Amenity space would be less than 5 square metres per person – some commentary on the London plan was included since they already had standards for this

·       Health and Safety Regulations would be reviewed again if this scheme was approved and could be altered if required

·       It was a policy requirement that there was an accurate assessment of the amount of space required to meet resident’s needs

·       The scheme complied with the London plan and would need to be aligned with the Urban Living SPD (Supplementary Planning Document

·       Each unit would retain its own cooking area

·       The number of fridges and cookers was not known at this stage. Each flat would be fully furnished as required

Committee Members made the following points:

·       The proposed changes were quite modest and were policy compliant. Subject to legal requirements being met, this application should be supported

·       This seemed quite a major change since 80 additional units were being added and all amenity provision would be provided on the top floors

·       The proposal would require forced sharing which was always difficult and could create issues of lack of space

·       The loss of amenity was significant. Whilst the provision of balconies was not essential, the changes could create overcrowding. In addition, it could have a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29b

Officers made the following points as part of the presentation:

·       The applicants had requested the removal of a condition limiting the hours of use of the bailer and sorting line on site since additional capacity was urgently required

·       There would be no other change to the operation of the site

·       Noise would be limited to at least 5 decibels below background level at the premises

·       No additional vehicles would be required

·       778 residents had been consulted and some responses received but there were no Public Forum Statements

·       No objection had been received by Pollution Control

·       A photograph was shown of the building in which the bailer was positioned and of the level of rubbish

·       There was no change proposed in the transport arrangements to and from the site

·       Plastic was processed at the site but not glass since this was too noisy

·       Officers recommended approval of the application subject to conditions

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

·       The manager of the site arranged tours for members of the public if they requested it

·       When he had recently attended, the case officer confirmed that there was no smell emanating from the equipment

·       Since the location of the site was an industrial part of Bristol, the general noise level throughout the area was reasonably high

Councillors made the following points:

·       The Committee should only consider the issue of noise at the site as all other issues related to the private operations of Bristol Waste which were not development matters

·       The application should be supported since it is needed and won’t increase noise levels at the site

·       There seemed to be very few objections in the area to the proposal

Councillor Rob Bryher moved, seconded by Councillor Zoe Peat and upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously) – that the application be approved subject to conditions set out in the report.

The date of the next meeting is scheduled for 2pm on Tuesday 4^th March 2025 in the Council Chamber, City Hall, College Green, Bristol.

It was noted that the next meeting would be held at 2pm on Tuesday 4^th March 2025 in the Council Chamber, City Hall, College Green, Bristol.