Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received by Cllr Steve Jones, with Cllr Richard Eddy as substitute and Cllr Tom Brook, with Cllr Fabien Breckels 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.

None were declared.

To agree the minutes of the 6^th September 2017,  meeting as a correct record.

Resolved – that the minutes of the meeting held on the 6^th September be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair subject to the following amendments:

I.       That the reference to the discussion on Cllr Stevens statement is correctly noted in the minutes.  The Chair confirmed that the meeting officially closed after the discussion and therefore the statement should be noted in the minutes.

II.     Cllr Mead voted against 16/065594/P application therefore the voting should be noted as 10/1 for.

III.    That a correction is made on page 2 section 7(a) second paragraph replacing ‘had’ for ‘hade’.

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. 

The following was highlighted:-

1.     Items 4 & 34 - Old Bristol Royal Infirmary Building – A request was made to Historic England to list the Chapel building that is on the site.  They have taken the view that the chapel should be listed.  The developers legal representative are able to challenge the decision to list but this is a 3 to 4 month process.  Therefore a request was made to the Planning Inspectorate for the appeal to be held in abeyance until the conclusion of their challenge to Historic England.  The inspectorate agreed to hold the appeal in abeyance until March 2018.

To note recent enforcement notices.

There were no enforcement issues to raise with Councillors.

a.     Cllr Jones, queried and expressed his concern that neither Committees had seen any enforcement notices.

b.     Members were assured that there were a number of pending notices with legal.

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 5 pm on Thursday 12^th October 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 17^th October 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)

To consider the following Planning Applications

The following items were considered:

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

1.     The application had been referred to the Committee for determination by the Ward Councillor, Cllr Paul Smith.

2.     The application sought planning permission for the change of use of Unit 4 from an A1 retail unit to A3 restaurant use, with external alterations including erection of ventilation equipment to the rear elevation.  Opening hours are proposed to be Monday to Saturday 11am to 11pm and on Sunday and Bank Holidays Midday to 8pm.

3.     The key issue was the change of use and an assessment of the potential impacts on residential amenity and on the viability and vitality of the primary shopping area.

4.     The unit lies within the Queen’s Road and Park Street primary shopping area (PSA) and primary shopping frontage (PSF), as identified in the Central Area Plan (2015).

5.     57% of the units within the overall PSF are currently A1 retail use.

6.     The premises were previously occupied by Costa Coffee for nearly 10 years as a coffee shop.  No application for change of use to a mixed A1/A3 use was received and there is no history of enforcement action against the occupation of this unit as a coffee shop. An example was given of a similar business treated in the same way trading within premises designated for A1 use.

7.     The retail presence is already compromised in the immediate area but there remains a significant number of retail outlets within the overall frontage; the application would have limited impact on retail perception at that location on Queens Rd.

8.     The objections received related to the potential impacts on residential and environmental amenity.

9.     No objections were received from BCC pollution control team or the Avon and Somerset Constabulary.

10.  The presentation included pictures of the current street view of Queens Road and Maggs House frontage.

The following was noted from the debate that followed:

a.     Cllr Eddy expressed concern that this application was pushing the percentage of retail to bars/restaurant to the tipping point and this would give a green light for further saturation in the area and would be voting against.

b.     Cllr Davies shared Cllr Eddy’s concern suggesting that DC agenda meetings should see any request regarding A1/3 applications for this primary shopping area where officers were minded to support.  The representative of the Service Director Planning  reminded the committee that they were obligated to address the application currently before them and were unable to pre determine other applications.  They were aware of the area reaching a tipping point and would endeavour to present at agenda meetings all relevant applications within this primary shopping area.

c.      Cllr Mead recalled that Whiteladies Road was once a retail area and  had given way to bars and restaurant and was therefore concerned that Queens Road would be known for eatery and bars rather than retail.  He was also minded to discount the previous use of the premises as a coffee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

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  made the following points by way of introduction:-

1.      The application had been referred to the Committee for determination by the ward Councillor Paul Smith on the basis that it was harmful to the retail area and contrary to local plan policies.

2.      The application was seeking permission to change the use of the unit from mixed A1/A3 to mixed A3/A4 use, with façade alterations to the ground floor.

3.      The business would operate from 8am to midnight Mon to Saturday and then Sunday 9am to 10.30 same as existing A1/A3 consent.

4.      Consultation had resulted in 14 objections.

5. No objections were received from BCC pollution control team or the Avon and Somerset Constabulary.  On balance, officers considered that the proposals  were not damaging to the existing perception of the immediate and wider PSF AND PSA.  The business would operate within  suitable opening hours and would also be subject to a license (separate to planning control).

6.      Members sought clarity on the weight to be given to the information submitted regarding police crime statistics from the RARA group.  Officers confirmed that limited weight should be given to this information, given that the Police had withdrawn their initial objection to the proposals.  In addition, data was included that indicated that the information was based on the Queens Road area.  Officers  clarified that  the data had been retitled and that it was understood that the data covered a wider area including the harbourside area.

7.      Cllr Dudd sought clarity on how the CIA (Cumulative Impact Area) impacted on the application.  Officers advised that the CIA policy related to the Licensing objectives and was not a matter for this committee to consider.  A licence had been granted for the applicant to trade to 1am to allow sale of alcohol.

8.      The previous businesses that had traded at that site had moved location, the record shop to a pop up shop and the café to another location in the area.

The following was noted from the debate that followed.

a.      Cllr Eddy expressed that this application could be viewed as the tipping point and he was minded to vote against.

b.      Cllr Wright felt this application was different from the previous application in that it added another bar to the area; involved loss of retail space; and would have an  impact on the night time economy.  He acknowledged the advice given but took the view that the committee were concerned about the impact of the proposals on nearby residents and he intended to vote against.

c.      Cllr Dudd would vote against because the question should be asked whether this was a bar selling food or a restaurant selling drinks with its meals.  The area did not need a further licensed premises.  He felt that the police should look again at this application as it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

This item was removed from the agenda.

 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 related to the ongoing regeneration of the Hengrove area and this application relates to the completion of Phase 1.

2.      The application will deliver 261 dwellings in a mixture of terraces, apartments and semi-detached properties.

3.      The consultation had been extensive with a number of comments but feedback was greater for Phase 2 of the project that would be before committee approximately next June 2018.

4.      Conditions were recommended to manage grassland; drainage scheme and natural habitats; there would be a loss of trees but the developers intend to replace with 121 street trees; the area known as the mound had the potential for ground gas but investigations were ongoing.

5.      The Apartments would be 4 storeys-high but would be the same height as the college building opposite the development.

6.      The Development delivered  30% policy compliant  affordable housing therefore a viability appraisal was not necessary.

7.      The development delivers the density  of houses per hectare that fits the market for the area.  Phase 2 of  the development will include a higher density of dwellings with the portion for affordable housing and market housing to be considered.

8.      Clarity was provided on the position of sustainable energy.  Feasibility work was underway in relation to this site and phase 2 development with regards future CHP plant and links to the District Heating Plant.

9.      There is a potential for the wider Hengrove development to attract commercial retail business enabling on site amenities and to minimise the need to travel by car.

The following was noted from the debate that followed:

a.      Cllr Eddy shared that local Councillors welcomed the scheme and were happy with the design; the percentage of affordable housing proposed; and that it was compliant to city council policy.  He acknowledged there was a need for improved infrastructure such as access to GPs and grocery stores.  He stated that the sums that would be generated from CIL monies would positively impact the creative aspect of the area and improve the provision at the Hengrove play park.

b.      Cllr Mead expressed his disappointment with the density of dwellings per hectare but acknowledged the need for new housing across Bristol.  He was favourable to the ecological mitigation to be provided by the developer, albeit a portion of the meadow would be lost.  He explained that condition 7 should be enhanced to include shrubs, preferable those with fruits, to encourage insects and birds.

c.      Cllr Breckels viewed the development as a good start and noted  the developer’s willingness to include affordable housing.  The development would attract retailers to the area.

d.      Cllr Clarke enquired whether CHP and the link to the DHP could be added as a condition.  Officers explained that further feasibility work would take place with regards  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

The Committee is requested to endorse the adoption of the revised Planning Application Requirements List including the Drawings Standards document

The Committee received the report of the Head of Development Management and were asked to agree to endorse the adoption of the revised Planning Application Requirements List including the Drawings Standards document.

The following was highlighted:

a.     That the local list must be reviewed every two years.

b.     That three of the West of England  authorities had worked together on the Drawings Standards Document and had agreed it.

c.      If an application did not meet the requirements then it would not be registered and the statutory period to determine the application would not begin.

d.     The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is currently being reviewed and will need to be reflected locally.  As a result, it was likely that the Local List would be revisited sometime during 2018.

e.     The key issue in the report was the tightening up of the Council’s approach to the receipt and publication of developers’ viability appraisals.

The following comments were noted:

       i.          Cllr Stevens had submitted a number of questions on the plan that would be addressed and was happy for a response to follow after the meeting.  He did pose the question as to whether the local list could be considered earlier in the review process to provide a longer consideration period.

     ii.          The committee were informed that a  review of the NPPF was underway and the impact of that would require a change to the local list in the next year.

    iii.          Cllr Mead moved to support and Cllr Clarke seconded.

Committee Resolved:

·       To endorse the revised Planning Application Requirements List including the Drawings Standards document

The next meeting is scheduled for 2pm Wednesday 29^th November 2017

Wednesday 29^th November 2017 @ 2pm