Agenda and minutes

The Committee is requested to elect the Chair for 2017/18 Municipal Year.

Councillor Windows was nominated by Councillor Jones and seconded by Councillor Stevens. There were no further nominations and it was therefore:-

Resolved – that Councillor Windows be elected as Chair of Development Control Committee A for 2017/18.

The Committee is requested to elect the Vice-Chair for 2017/18 Municipal Year.

Councillor Mike Davies was nominated by Councillor Sergeant and seconded by Councillor Jones. There were no further nominations and it was therefore:-

Resolved – that Councillor Mike Davies be elected as Vice Chair of Development Control Committee A for 2017/18.

The Terms of Reference set out below are unchanged from 2016/17. Any changes made at the next Full Council meeting will be subsequently reported to a future Development Control (A) Committee:

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEES

Terms of Reference

Arrangements

There are two Development Control Committees:

            -           Development Control Committee “A”

            -           Development Control Committee “B”

Each Development Control Committee shall have full authority to deal with all development control matters reserved to a Development Control Committee by virtue of this consultation.

Functions

Full Council has delegated to the Development Control Committees all functions relating to town and country planning and development control as specified in Regulation 2 and Schedule 1 to the Local Authorities (Functions and Responsibilities) (England) Regulations 2000 (as amended) under the following provisions and any related secondary legislation:

1.         Power to determine applications for planning permission (section 70(1)(a) and (b) and 72 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c.8)).

2.         Power to determine applications to develop lad without compliance with conditions previously attached (section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

3.         Power to grant planning permission for development already carried out (section 73(A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

4.         Power to decline to determine application for planning permission (section 70A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

5.         Duties relating to the making of determinations of planning applications (Sections 69, 76 and 92) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Articles 8, 10 to 13, 15 to 22 and 25 and 26 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure Order 1995) (S.I. 1995/419 and directions made thereunder).

6.         Power to determine application for planning permission made by a local authority, alone, or jointly with another person (section 316 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992/1492)).

7.         Power to make determinations, give approvals and agree certain other matters relating to the exercise of permitted development rights (Parts 6, 7, 11, 17, 19, 20, 21 to 24, 26, 30 and 31 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995).

8.         Power to enter into agreement regulating development or use of land (Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

9.         Power to issue a certificate of existing or proposed lawful use or development (Section 191(4) and 192(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

10.       Power to serve a completion notice (Section 94(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

11.       Power to grant consent for the display of advertisements (Section 220 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992).

12.       Power to authorize entry onto land (Section 196A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

13.       Power to require the discontinuance of a use of land (Section 102 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

14.       Power to serve a planning contravention notice, breach of condition notice or stop notice (Sections 171C, 187A and 183(1)  ...  view the full agenda text for item 65.

The Terms of Reference as determined by Annual Council on 23 May 2017 was noted.

The following dates are proposed for the remainder of the 2017/18 Municipal Year (all on Wednesdays):

6pm on 26^th July 2017

2pm on 6^th September 2017

6pm on 18^th October 2017

2pm on 29^th November 2017

6pm on 10^th January 2017

2pm on 21^st February 2018

6pm on 4^th April 2018

It was proposed that two of the meetings take place at 10am. This was seconded. On being put to the vote, this was carried (10 for, 1 against).

Resolved – that the meetings for DC A Committee for 2017/18 are agreed as follows:-

6pm on 26 July 2017;

2pm on 6 September 2017;

10am on 18 October 2017;

2pm on 29 November 2017;

6pm on 10 January 2018;

10am on 21 February 2018;

6pm on 4 April 2018.

Apologies were received from Councillor Phipps with Councillor Donald Alexander present as substitute.

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 Stevens referred to 223, Newfoundland Road, an application on this agenda and declared that he was the Secretary of the Bristol Tree Forum which had commented on an application relating to the neighbouring site (car park)  but he had no involvement with the current application site and was able to determine it freely.

The Committee is requested to agree the minutes of the last meeting held on Wednesday 17^th May 2017 as a correct record.

The Minutes of the Development Control Committee A meeting on the 17 May 2017 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. 

Resolved – that the minutes of 17 May 2017 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

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

The Committee considered a report of the Service Director, Planning noting appeals lodged, imminent public inquiries and appeals awaiting decision.

Particular attention was drawn to the following:-

1. No. 35 – Somerset House. Officers had recommended this for approval at the meeting on 19^th October 2016 but the Committee had deferred a decision for officers to look at the  impact of the development on the Conservation Area and the loss of trees adjacent to the development. At the meeting on 22^nd February 2017 officers advised Committee that an appeal against non-determination had been made and, whilst officers supported the proposals, it was possible for the Committee to resolve that it would have refused permission on the grounds that the application had been deferred on. The Committee however had taken the decision not to defend the appeal and, thereby, would have granted planning permission if it still had the power to do so.  Following an appeal hearing the Inspector produced a comprehensive report and found that the principle of the development was acceptable, the design of the scheme was acceptable on balance and the loss of the trees, whilst significant  would be mitigated by replacement planting. On assessing the impact on residential amenity, in particular on properties in Canynge Square which typically had small windows and gardens, he found the impact unacceptable and dismissed the appeal and refused planning permission. The applicant applied for costs and this was dismissed. The Inspector considered that the Committee had not acted unreasonably  so there was no award of costs against  the Council. The Council was not formally represented at the hearing. Residents and Stakeholders had been well organised and the Inspector had made a well-argued conclusion and a very measured decision.

To note recent enforcement notices.

These were 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 8^th June 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 12pm on Tuesday 13^th June 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.

Statements

Members of the Committee received public forum statements in advance of     the meeting.

The Statements 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 are held on public record in the Minute Book).

The following Planning Applications set out below are for consideration by the Committee.

These were as follows:-

Proposed demolition of existing dwelling and the construction of a 2 no. semi-detached houses to the front and a terrace of 3no. houses to the rear of the site.

An Amendment Sheet was provided to the committee in advance of the meeting, detailing changes since the publication of the original report.

The representative of the Service Director – Planning and Development made the following points by way of introduction:-

            1. The application had been referred to the Committee by the ward       Councillor, Mark Weston;

            2. The plans in the supplementary documents were not to scale and were         indicative only;

            3. The application had been amended form its original submission to    reduce the number of houses and parking spaces and to increase             the      amount of garden space and landscaping;

            4. The proposal was for five, two-storey, three bedroom houses. Three within a row at the rear of the site and two on the site of the former bungalow;

5. It was not a conservation area so no consent was required for tree removals;

6. The original proposal was for 6 houses but officers felt this was over-developed and therefore unacceptable and worked with the applicant to address the issues in light of the extreme housing need in the city;

7. Twenty trees were being replaced on the site and a contribution for off-site planting had been agreed and signed. A large hedgerow was proposed which was a positive gain in terms of biodiversity. Tree officers were content with the proposals;

8. In terms of urban design there was a mix of housing styles in the area including estate terrace housing and bungalow;

9. The houses were coach house style so the mass was less severe and therefore was reduced in scale. They were not highly visible from the road;

10.  Residential amenity issues were considered to be acceptable;

11. Highway officers had no objections to the proposals as there was adequate capacity on the local road network;

12. In summary, the density was quite low and was considered an appropriate size development with parking. Officers were therefore satisfied with the proposal believing it to be a good scheme that contributed to the housing needs in the city and recommended it be granted.

          The following points arose from discussion:-

            1. Neighbours had been notified of the revisions and there had been two         rounds of consultation;

2. The removal of trees before a survey was permitted in conservation areas. Officers could then apply a standard replacement scheme. The Head of  Development Management added that a firm stance had been taken from the outset with the introduction of the tree replacement standard policy. All felling that occurred prior to submission of the application was taken into account with replacement planting;

3. There were set requirements regarding Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) in relation to scale and amenity. These did not apply for this development;

4. Councillor Mead acknowledged that there was infill all around the city and this would continue. He added that the area was quite low density and the development was sympathetic in relation to the height of the semi-detached dwellings. There would not be a great deal of difference to traffic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73a

Proposed development for the complete renovation and conversion of the existing Grade II listed building, Empire Sports Club into 22no. flats. Demolition of the existing infill lean-to building in the middle of the site, and the modification of gated boundary to the existing building to accommodate new entrances to the proposed housing (Major Application)

The representative of the Service Director – Planning and Development made the following points by way of introduction:-

            1. The building, incorporating the gym, had ceased operation in 2014 and fallen into disrepair. The previous owners were unable to afford repairs and so the building was now quite dilapidated;

            2. The same applicant had successfully gained planning permission for 10 houses on the             adjacent car park site;

3. The application had been submitted in 2015 and had gone through a number of amendments in order to produce the best scheme;

4. The number of units had been revised to 22. There were one, two and three bedroom units. As it was a listed building, conversions were more difficult;

5. There were no external changes other than the inclusion of roof lights and cycle parking/ refuse facilities;

6. The Conservation Team, in response to consultation, concluded that given the number of internal changes the proposal would cause significant harm. English Heritage objected on the same basis, with a direction that the application be referred to the Planning Casework Unit (PCU) should the Local Authority be minded to grant consent for the proposal. Planning Officers accepted these expert views but were required to consider Paragraphs 131 and 133 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to assess if the public benefits of bringing the site back into use outweighed the significant harm caused to the heritage site and additional criteria set out in Paragraph 133 of the NPPF. The conclusions were as follows:-

Ø  No other proposals had come forward  following marketing and community involvement of the site;

Ø  The heritage site was unsuitable for any other use other than housing;

Ø  The proposal was not viable in isolation but the development in the car park would help to provide the necessary cost subsidy;

Ø  Conservation grant funding had been explored by the applicant who had demonstrated that there was no grant funding or some form of charitable or public ownership available to conserve the heritage asset;

Ø  There were structural and public safety concerns due to the deterioration of the building. Bringing the site back into use would mitigate these concerns;

Ø  That the proposal satisfied all of the relevant criteria in Paragraph 133 of the NPPF following a detailed officer assessment.

Ø  The site triggered the application of Vacant Building Credit and was therefore exempt from an affordable housing requirement.;

7. In summary, considerable weight was given to the significant harm of this proposal but in accordance with the requirements of Paragraph 133 of the NPPF, this harm was outweighed by the importance of bring the site back into use as much needed housing in a sustainable location and Officers therefore recommended approval. This is subject to a referral process to the Planning Casework Unit (PCU) whereby there is a period of 21 days for the PCU to consider whether to call in the application for determination.

            The following points arose from discussion:-

            1. Councillor Dudd asked about parking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73b

Subject to the Committee’s agreement, the next meeting of Development Control (A) Committee is scheduled for 6pm on Wednesday 26^th July 2017.

This was noted as 26 July at 6pm.

The Meeting finished at 4pm

CHAIR  __________________