Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence and substitutions are set out 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.

The following declarations of interest were made:

Councillor Stephen Clarke indicated that he had been involved in a meeting with the agent for Linear Park but that he retained an open mind concerning the application.

Councillor Mark Wright stated that he had commented on previous applications for the Former Gas Works Site but that he retained an open mind concerning the application.

To agree the minutes of the last meeting held on 22nd February 2017 as a correct record.

Resolved – that the Minutes of the previous meeting held on 22nd February 2017 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

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

The Service Manager (Development Management) made the following points:

(1)        Somerset House 18 Canynge Road Bristol BS8 3JX – the Appellant has formally applied for an award of costs. Officers have sent a rebuttal on the costs application but the position remains that the Council will not be defending the appeal in accordance with the Committee decision of 22nd February 2017;

(2)        Avonbank, Feeder Road Bristol BS2 0TH – this appeal had been lodged late last month

(3)        Former Chocolate Factory Greenbank Road Easton Bristol BS5 6EL – the appeal against non-determination had been received and would not be defended in accordance with the Committee decision of 22nd February 2017.

Resolved – that the report be noted.

To note recent enforcement notices.

The Service Manager (Development Management) advised the Committee that 2 enforcement notices had been issued since the last meeting.

Resolved – that the report be noted.

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 30^th March 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 Noon on Tuesday 4^th April 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 received 8 Public Forum Statements in advance of the meeting (including one late statement, agreed by the Chair). The Statements were heard before the application they relate to and were taken fully into consideration by the Committee prior to reaching a decision. (A copy of the public forum statements are held on public record by Democratic Services). democratic.services@bristol.gov.uk

Please note the following applications for consideration at this meeting.

The Committee considered the following Planning Applications.

Erection of Building To Provide Residential Accommodation (Class C3), Associated Parking, Landscaping and Boundary Treatment, Internal and External Alterations to West Purifier House

Officers gave a presentation for this item and made the following key points:

(1)        Details of the proposed building were provided which would contain 58 residential units over West Purifier House, a new 6-storey building in the north-eastern area of the site and two houses in the Engine House;

(2)        Information was given concerning the previous permitted scheme at the site for the Soil Association which had expired;

(3)        Objections had been received from the SS Great Britain (the loss of sight lines and potential impact of this) and from Historic England (excessive scale, materials and articulation, cause harm to the character of the Conservation Area and to the views to and from Brandon Hill);

(4)        Space standards had been met. Town Scape views indicating the visual impact analysis had been included;

(5)        The development complies with the Site Allocation policy criteria for the site since it would use re-use the existing listed buildings on the site and bring them back into a sustainable use;

(6)        The development would improve the Harbourside Walkway;

(7)        The development would provide vehicular access from Lime Kiln Road;

(8)        The  development would preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and is supported by Flood Risk Assessment;

(9)        The scheme mitigates its impact through Section 106 obligations and would provide a financial contribution towards affordable housing;

(10)      Whilst acknowledging the objection from Historic England, officers had applied the appropriate assessment and had concluded that the impacts on the heritage assets are acceptable when balanced with the interests of bringing the site and buildings back into use;

(11)      The scheme provides a policy compliant sustainability response and includes robust supporting information on protection of nearby residents’ amenity;

(12)      Transport conditions were acceptable and conditions would ensure that design details of the development were also acceptable;

(13)      The scheme will bring a long –term derelict site back into sustainable use.

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

(1)        There is an electric charging point;

(2)        Highways officers had examined the concerns raised about the level of traffic that would occur during the construction phase and had deemed that it was acceptable;

(3)        Officers felt the land value in excess of £3 Million proposed by the applicant was too high given the significant level of abnormal costs associated with this site. Following advice from Property Services, officers considered that a land value of in the region of £2 Million is the minimum that a reasonable land owner would be prepared to dispose of the land for, given its highly desirable location. Consequently, a land value of £2 Million has been adopted by the Council;

 (4)       It was confirmed that any temporary or permanent works to the existing Listed Dock Wall would definitely require an additional listed building consent;

(5)        The future views from Cabot Tower had been indicated in the plans;

(6)        Public access around the site will be maintained as part of the Construction Management Plan and would also include  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

Erection of a 8-11 storey building comprising 255 no. residential units, 536 sq metres  of flexible commercial / community floor space (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A4, B1a, D1 or D2) at ground floor level, basement car park and associated development, including access, landscaping, bin storage and cycle parking. (Amendment to planning permission 14/03133/F) – Major Application

Item 7 (b) – Application Number 16/04561/F – Linear Park, Avon Street, Bristol – Erection Of An 8-11 Storey Building Comprising 255 No. Residential Units, 536 Square Metres of Flexible Commercial/Community Floor Space (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A4, B1a, D1 or D2) At Ground Floor Level, Basement Car Park and Associated Development, Including Access, Landscaping, Bin Storage and Cycle Parking (Amendment To Planning Permission 14/03133/F) – Major Application

Officers gave a presentation for this item and made the following key points:

(1)        Since the item had been to Committee on 22nd February 2017, it was noted that the bill period had been extended to 37 months, not to the shorter period that had originally been referred to by the applicant during Public Forum at the last Committee;

(2)        Since the applicant’s acknowledgement that there had been an error in the calculation of CIL as a result of the incorrect original viability assessment, this had now been corrected;

(3)        The applicant had now indicated that he would provide a minimum of 26 affordable units (10%), together with an offer of a further viability review on completion of the scheme. This was on the understanding that, if they could afford to provide more affordable units, they would do so. This offer was a significant concession by the applicant as they were not required to do this. Nevertheless, it was acknowledged that the report indicated that the applicant could afford to provide 34 units – which the applicant did not agree with;

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

(4)        There was no risk of less than 26 affordable units being provided – this was the minimum figure that the developer would have to provide;

(5)        Values and build costs were estimated to increase. Therefore, it was fairly likely that any review would result in units being built having higher rental values. There were only a small number of these PRS schemes in operation. It was, therefore, difficult to assess it until the work was completed. The review of the viability of a PRS scheme like this had not been done before and this was therefore breaking new ground;

(6)        The wording of the Section 106 Agreement had been agreed to ensure the yield was set at the beginning and with finance factored in. The applicant would need to incorporate the sales value of rented flats at the end of the scheme;

(7)        The figure of 90% occupancy had been set at the relevant stage of the review as by this stage the scheme would be mostly built and rental values could be assessed.

Councillors made the following comments:

(8)        In future schemes, consideration should be given to allowing the developer to retain 25% of the excess profit of such schemes to provide motivation for them to build schemes as quickly as possible;

(9)        The method by which the scheme’s viability had been assessed was a cause for concern.

Councillor Olly Mead moved, seconded by Councillor Chris Windows and,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

The next meeting is scheduled for 2pm on Wednesday 17^th May 2017.

It was noted that the next meeting was scheduled for 2pm on Wednesday 17th May 2017.

The meeting finished at 8.25pm