Agenda and minutes

Development Control A Committee
Wednesday, 11th January, 2017 6.00 pm

Venue: The Council Chamber - City Hall, College Green, Bristol, BS1 5TR. View directions

Contact: Jeremy Livitt 

No. Item


Apologies for Absence and Substitutions pdf icon PDF 92 KB


Apologies for Absence were received from Councillor Lesley Alexander.


Declarations of Interest

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 is not on the register of interests should be notified to the Monitoring Officer for inclusion.




The following Declarations of Interest were made:


Councillor Steve Pearce declared an interest in Planning Application 16/01591/F - 355 to 359 Two Mile Hill Road as it was in his ward but confirmed that he retained an open mind concerning it.


Councillor Fabian Breckels declared an interest in Planning Application Number 16/01591/F – 355 to 359 Two Mile Hill Road as it was in his former ward but confirmed that he retained an open mind concerning it.


Minutes of the previous meeting pdf icon PDF 206 KB

The Committee is requested to approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on 30th November 2016 as a correct record.


Resolved – that the Minutes of the above meeting be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.


Appeals pdf icon PDF 49 KB

The Committee is requested to note details of the above appeals.


The Service Manager (Development Control) commented on the following appeals listed in the report:


Item 10 – Southmead Police Station, Southmead Road Bristol BS10 5DW

It was noted that, officers had recommended approval for this application but it had been refused by the Committee. Following an appeal by the developers, the Inspector had allowed it under Policy DM17 and indicated that he did not consider that the loss of the specimen tree was unacceptable. It was noted that no costs were applied for.


Item 31 - 420 Stapleton Road Easton Bristol BS5 6NQ

It was noted that this item had been recommended for approval by Committee and refused by Committee on a split decision. Developers had subsequently appealed this decision.




It was noted that no enforcement notices had been issued during this period.


Public Forum

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 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 Thursday 5th January 2017.


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 12.00 noon on Tuesday 10th January 2017.


Please note, your time allocated to speak may have to be strictly limited if there are a lot of submissions. This may be as short as one minute.




The Committee heard 9 Public Forum Statements which were heard before the application they related to and were taken fully into consideration by the Committee prior to reaching a decision. (A copy of the Public Forum statements is held on public record in the Minute Book).


Planning Application 16/02114/F - Beechwood House, Bell Hill pdf icon PDF 971 KB

Change of use of existing doctor’s surgery and house into self-contained units of private sector emergency accommodation for mothers of young children. Associated car parking and refuse and recycling store. (Major Application)


Officers outlined the key aspects of this report and made the following points:


(1)        The site was located close to Bell Hill School

(2)        Existing plans showed that part of the ground floor was a doctor’s surgery and included communal laundry

(3)        Each of the 1st Floor Units had either a bed or two beds, a kitchenette and were en-suite;

(4)        Some of the rooms were quite small but they were good quality temporary accommodation and better than any alternatives, such as Bed and Breakfast or Hostel accommodation;

(5)        The proposals included a garden, there were sustainable transport links and various conditions were proposed.

Councillors made the following points and officers responded as indicated:

(6)        Unless there was parental control near the swimming pool, this could be dangerous – even if empty, a child could fall in. Some fencing was required for this. Officers confirmed that a condition could be added to the decision to require this;

(7)        It was noted that the contract would be rescinded if broken by the applicant. Officers confirmed that the owner of the property would need to re-apply to vary conditions for any future application;

(8)        This property was within the Eastville Licensing Area. Officers indicated that the Housing Team were investigating properties such as this to ensure that the appropriate licensing arrangements were being enforced. In response to a member’s question, officers confirmed there was not currently a licence in operation;

(9)        In response to a member’s question concerning the provision of an office for the manager but the lack of a communal room for the property, officers confirmed that this was the case. However, it was noted that this was intended as emergency accommodation, not privately rented, and was an alternative to Bed and Breakfast or Hostel accommodation. Whilst this was intended to be short-term, it was acknowledged that this could last a few weeks or even a few months due to the acute shortage of permanent housing;

(10)      There had been an apparent disregard by the applicant of the need to engage with other bodies for this application. If the Committee were to reluctantly approve the application, it would need to be very well conditioned and well enforced. However, there remained a concern that this type of application could become “run of the mill” rather than purely for an emergency. Officers pointed out that, whilst there had been some reduction in the resource for enforcement through the magistrates court, there remained sufficient to ensure this could take place where required. The Committee’s main concern should be to satisfy itself that the proposals together with the suggested conditions could be approved.

(11)      Whilst Councillors noted that this was not a Licensing application, they nevertheless expressed concern that no checks appeared to have been made on the property to establish if Planning Permission had been approved. In response to a Councillors’ request, officers acknowledged that they needed to take necessary measures to ensure this did not happen again ;

(12)      Some Councillors  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.


Planning Application 16/01591/F - 355 to 359 Two Mile Hill Road pdf icon PDF 5 MB

Proposed demolition of 353 to 359 Two Mile Hill Road and Redevelopment into 7 new houses, 1 maisonette and 1 shop unit


Officers introduced this report and made the following points:


(1)        The development included a footway which would help to ameliorate the difficulty of the narrow nature of Victoria Park;

(2)        The development was set back from Victoria Park to increase the sense of open access on the site.


In response to members’ questions, officers confirmed:


(3)        that TDM no longer objected to the scheme and were particularly happy about the proposals for footway and pedestrian access;

(4)        that a condition concerning gardens/trees had been agreed to ensure appropriate numbers of trees could be fitted into the site.

Members also stated that:

(5)        This site had needed development for some time. Victoria Park was very narrow with no footpath and would be difficult to construct on the existing path as it was a cul-de-sac. Officers should be able to enforce the appropriate conditions;

(6)        An additional condition concerning parking would improve the application. However, it was a well thought out development which would improve pedestrian safety.


Councillor Chris Windows moved, seconded by Councillor Harriet Bradley and, upon being put to the vote, it was


Resolved (unanimously) – that the recommendations contained in the report, together with the existing conditions, be approved


Date of Next Meeting

Members are requested to note that the next Committee meeting is scheduled for 2pm on Wednesday 22nd February 2017.


The Committee noted that the next meeting was scheduled for 2pm on Wednesday 22nd February 2017 in the Council Chamber, City Hall, College Green, Bristol.