Agenda and minutes

There were none.

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 Wright referred to the McArthur’s Warehouse application, stating that he had initially submitted an objection to the Planning Department for this application. Since then, the plans and report had been revised and he therefore felt able to consider the application with an open mind.

To agree the minutes of the last meeting held on Wednesday 18^th October 2017 as a correct record.

The representative of the Service Director - Planning referred to Minute 11 – Land at Hengrove Park, Whitchurch Lane and reported that the Heads of Terms for the S106 agreement had been properly reflected in the officer presentation but had not been reflected in the Amendment Sheet or minutes. The minutes needed to reflect this in order to instruct Legal Services to draft the agreement. The following amendments were agreed:-

To add to end of first sentence –

‘and also gave a PowerPoint presentation that included clarity over the Heads of Terms of the proposed s106 agreement’

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

These were noted.

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 5pm on Thursday 23^rd November 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 Wednesday 28^th November 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.

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 is held on public record in the Minute Book)

The Committee is requested to consider the following applications

The following were considered:-

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. This application was to provide a mixed commercial and residential development including 147 flats. Work space, a café and car parking;

2. The site was allocated for residential/office/workshop uses so the application is appropriate for the site;

3. Officers were content with the design of the building but there had been a significant level of concern regarding the scale and intensity of the building;

5. There were also concerns regarding visual impact. Historic England had assessed the building’s visual impact on the SS Great Britain and found it not to be as bad as feared although there was impact. More concerning for them was the view from the south as the building obscured some of Brandon Hill and the monument. Officers view was that these impacts caused less than significant harm and the benefits outweighed the harm;

6. With respect to amenity, the dock and boatyard were important commercial facilities. A noise insulation scheme designed on the basis of an equivalent facility elsewhere would be provided by the applicant. Pollution control officers were satisfied with the scheme. It was not possible to protect balconies in the same way;

7. Wooden slatted windows would be incorporated into the elevation facing Steamship House. Officers were satisfied the building would have a reasonable relationship with its neighbours;

8. The Planning Obligations Manager reported that there has been considerable negotiation with respect to affordable housing. The main issue with respect to the viability of affordable housing was the site value put forward by the applicant of £5.8m. The District Valuer, who had been commissioned to advise the Council on the viability issue, had the view  that this was too high and should be £2.5m which would result in the provision of 18% affordable housing (27 affordable units) being viable. The applicant did not agree with this valuation and made a formal offer of 12% affordable provision and 18 affordable units – 9 would be shared ownership and 9 would be  social rented and a mixture of 1/2 bedrooms and on different floors of the building. The Council’s Affordable Housing Manager believed this offer should be accepted. If the the development had not started within 18 months the it was recommended that the viability should be reviewed;

10. In summary, officers recommended approval subject to a S106 agreement. The proposal was a good quality design and an appropriate scale given its position central to Spike Island. It would provide affordable housing, an improved walkway and commercial space. An addition to the Amendment Sheet was the deletion of the reference to ‘guidance and regulations’ in Condition 32 of the report;

The following points arose from debate:-

1. There were on-going discussions with the Homes and Communities Agency regarding topping up affordable housing numbers through  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20a

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:-

1. This application was the next phase (Phase 2) in the long-term comprehensive project to modernise and extend Bristol’s largest venue hall into a modern and sustainable venue that could maximise cultural offer of the city and the income and revenue potential for the long term. It looked to address identified deficiencies including poor acoustics, uncomfortable seating, poor accessibility for the disabled users, and stage management the general poor condition of the building;

2. Committee was informed that the Grade II Listed with St Michaels Hill and Christmas Steps Conservation Area, surrounded by other numerous other Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings as set out in the report. Originally built in 1897 is had burnt down twice and as a result had been remodelled numerous times to reflect the changing periods and requirements as a music venue. The last main remodelling of the hall was in 1950’s through the installation of the current Festival of Britain main auditorium;

3.  The Committee was then taken through the main areas impacted by the proposals. The main auditorium (Hall 1) - existing Festival of Britain auditorium - element key to the special interest building of particular note were the attractively formed gallery fronts, with relief panels of cherubs, the wall and ceiling lighting, and the rhythmic waves of timber panels along the flank walls, culminating in the main stage area. However significant issues with the operation of a modern venue i.e. large gallery overhang hampers acoustics and the area below got very poor sound, poor accessibility for audience and performers  and the stage was very cramped. The remodelling included the total loss of the Festival of Britain auditorium albeit elements such as the cherubs/lighting would be re-used. The proposed new auditorium space would meet modern expectations for a performance venue with a new interior and replacement roof, flexible accessible seating and stage area to enhance audience and performer experience and to aid hall /crew management and turnaround and a more open arrangement to enhance acoustic experience;

4. The backstage facilities- were outdated and would be enhanced; level access created to all performance areas and a complete change in access for staging away from the narrow restrictive access from Trenchard Street which has hampered the ability to accommodate some touring shows to a larger stage entrance on Colston Street;

5. The Lantern Building - Hall 2 retained a great deal of the original 1870s decorative scheme, but this had been impacted upon by later evolutions of the room. Proposals would open up infilled windows and decorative cornicing restored along with enhanced performance and audience facilities. The Lantern lobby would be opened up and made accessible to the Lantern Room and main auditorium all at one level for all users and a new staircase proposed down to the mezzanine  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20b

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

1. The application had been referred to Committee by Councillor Craig, as local ward Councillor, on the basis that higher density development was an aspiration of the Council and the application would deliver housing on a site in a poor state of repair;

2. Two errors in the report were corrected. The external elevation was 4.6m in height and not 5m as set out in the report and the width was 0.8m and not 0.5m as set out in the report;

3. The application sought to construct 2 storeys on the existing 2 storey building with a rear extension to the second storey. The third and fourth storey would provide a new 2 bedroom dwelling. The third story would match the design and materials of the existing building and the fourth storey would comprise a timber clad box like structure. The existing barber shop on the ground floor would be retained but would undergo minor alterations. The sole access to the new dwelling would be via an external staircase from the rear yard to the fourth storey;

4. Cycle and refuse storage were policy compliant;

5. There was no car parking provision which was considered acceptable to transport officers;

6. In assessing, the principal of the development in a sustainable location was supported, however officers objected to the design as it did not accord with key design policies Four storeys and timber cladding on the roof were contrary to policies DM26 and 27 and Policy BCS21 of the Bristol Core Strategy;

7. Officers did not support the materials proposed for the box like structure which was out of keeping with the area;

8. The additional two storeys were contrary to Policy DM30 which states that extensions should be visually subservient to the host building and not dominate by virtue of siting and scale. The additional two storeys would appear visually dominant with the existing building and the street scene;

9. Officers could accept a scheme of a smaller scale such as a single storey extension  but did not accept the fourth storey and believed the existing staircase was unsafe and the new dwelling was not a quality living environment;

10. In summary, the principal of an additional residential dwelling in a sustainable location was supported but this was balanced against an unacceptable scheme. In the absence of a revised scheme, officers recommended refusal.

The following points arose from discussion:-

1. It was not possible to redesign the scheme to make it acceptable. The scale was not helped by the use of very different materials;

2. Councillor Wright accepted the 3^rd floor extension and staircase but could not support the fourth storey which was very visible and of a strange appearance;

3. Councillor Davies accepted the proposal was not ideal but it was not within a Conservation Area. It was untidy but this was outweighed by the provision of additional housing so  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

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

1. The application was for the proposed relocation and expansion of the school to create a combined two-form entry primary school with a nursery and Autistic Condition Spectrum School;

2. The existing St Johns Ambulance building would be demolished and would become a car park and drop off facility for the Autistic Condition Spectrum School;

3. Trees -  3 A grade trees would be removed, it wouldn’t be possible to retain these trees without a fundamental redesign. 33 trees would be removed and replaced with 73 on site in accordance with the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard;

4. Scale –  the building would consist of one and two storey masses, the materials would be white render and timber cladding. It was considered that the design and scale would cause no harm to the character and appearance of the area given the limited visibility from the street;

5. Amenity – this was a key issue. It was accepted that the site was not ideal for a school but the applicant had looked at alternative locations but this was considered the most suitable as the existing school site had been identified under the Priority Schools Building Programme as beyond its life and requiring rebuilding and it would be difficult to achieve the desired increase in capacity at the current site. Locating  all elements of the school on the same site would improve cross phase working and sharing of resources. The proposed site was largely disused as car parking and a walled garden area. To expand in any other location would impact negatively on the designated Important Open Space and would compromise the playing and sporting facilities;

6. The site would be approximately 23m from the rear elevations of properties along Gatehouse Avenue. There would be some overshadowing of some sections of rear gardens at certain times of the day and of some sections of the properties in the Winter. The end terrace property – No 8,  Smithmead would be 6m away from the new school building. As a consequence of officer concerns regarding overbearing the scheme was redesigned to reduce the impact. Officers were now satisfied following a balanced assessment that the overbearing impact on No.8 Smithmead would not be harmful enough to warrant refusal in this instance. 7. In conclusion, it was considered that the public benefits of providing an important educational establishment outweighed the harm and was therefore recommended for approval.

The following points arose from discussion:-

1. There was no case law regarding the tipping point on overshadowing. It should be considered on a case by case basis and with the scheme as a whole. It was primarily gardens and only some properties in the Winter months that would be affected by overshadowing and it was therefore, on balance, considered not harmful enough to warrant refusal;

2. Officers were satisfied that BREEAM would achieve ‘very good’ and ‘not excellent’ for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

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

1. Councillor Paul Smith had referred this application to Committee for the reasons that it eroded employment uses in the City Centre and over intensive use of a listed building;

2. The application was for a change of use from A2 to C 3 student accommodation. Minor alterations were proposed within the building envelope;

3. In respect to consultation, there were no comments from nearby neighbours. Those comments received included over intensity of student accommodation in the City Centre, loss of employment space, over intensive use of the site;

4. Highway officers commented on the lack of out-door space which meant there was only space for 2 cycle storage stands but on balance they accepted the proposal;

5. The site had been marketed for office use but there had been no interest shown hence the owners application for change of use;

6. Residential amenity - The standard of accommodation was good and well exceeded space standard requirements. There was good communal living space and communal study room. All bedrooms had natural light;

7. Design – there was no changes to the external heritage assets. The inside had been designed in accordance with conservation officer advice;

8. Sustainability – there was no on-site renewable energy provision however other measures are proposed to improve performance;

10. In summary, the application for planning permission and listed building consent was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

The following points arose from discussion:-

1. Cycle storage was one for one provision which was well in excess of standards. There would be 8 cycles in the basement and 4 outside;

2. The applicant had classified the application as C3 but it was confirmed that larger scale HMO’s were normally sui generis. It was not possible to change the description of the development unilaterally  but officers had assessed the application as sui generis student accommodation;

3. Councillor Dudd referred to BCS18 regarding housing balance. He believed there was now a tipping point and there were no longer mixed communities and asked whether there were enforcement powers. He was informed that currently all policies were not aligned. BCAP4  - specialist student accommodation was acceptable unless there was a harmful concentration in any given area. Until a different policy was in place, applications were assessed on the current policy;

4. This was low density in student accommodation numbers and not a multi-flatted tower block;

5. Councillor Stevens asked whether the proposal was specialist student accommodation or an HMO so it could be judged against the correct policies and was informed that it was both HMO and specialist accommodation for students. It was confirmed that there was no difference between specialist student accommodation and an HMO;

6. Councillor Sergeant asked for the definition of student accommodation and whether there were any mitigation costs and was informed that in planning terms there was no real difference. The site could be marketed for students  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

The next meeting is scheduled to be held at 6pm on Wednesday 10^th January 2018.

10 January 2018 @ 6pm.

End: 6.40pm

Chair