Agenda and minutes

These were done.

Apologies were received from Councillor Jones with Councillor Eddy attending 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 Sergeant declared that she lived near the development but was open minded. Councillor Clarke declared that he used to be a Governor of Redland High School and was open minded. Councillor Wright declared that he had previously visited the site at the invitation of the applicant but this had not influenced him and he remained open minded.

To agree the minutes of the last meeting on Wednesday 29^th November 2017 as a correct record.

These were agreed as a correct record of the meeting.

Resolved - that the minutes be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

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 by 5pm on Thursday 4^th January 2018.

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 9^th January 2018.

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 is held on public record in the Minute Book)

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 is held on public record in the Minute Book)

The following items 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 Head of Development Management made the following points by way of introduction:-

1. The application was for the redevelopment of the former school into residential use for 43 dwellings with a mix of number of bedrooms;

2. Strong objections were received from Historic England, BCC City Design, the Georgian Group and other amenity groups regarding the loss of heritage assets. Planning officers considered the objections and concluded that there was less than substantial harm;

3. No objections were made to the demolition of the east range, the removal of the Sports Hall and the reinstatement of the Belvedere Terrace which were considered positive elements of the proposal;

4. It was acknowledged that the proposal would impact on the silhouette and prominence of the main building on the skyline. However, the view of the building from the south would be significantly improved by the removal of the large Sports Hall, reinstatement of the cupola, and the removal of the ancillary tennis structures with the return of the landscaped garden;

5. There was no design objection by officers to the proposed town houses and the scale next to the science block was considered acceptable. The main issue was the impact on neighbouring houses with overshadowing to the North and objections from local residents had been received. A light assessment was undertaken and it found there would be a suitable level of daylight but officers accepted there would be a significant impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers;

6. Officers were comfortable with the overlooking on Woodstock Road;

7. Regarding the West Villa, officers agreed that this would have a negative impact on the setting and views of the main building and the ‘secret garden’;

5. There would be a new vehicular access point and  44 on-site car parking spaces sub-divided into 18 within the existing external courtyard, 17 within the basement and 4 adjacent to the frontage of the properties on Woodstock Road, with the remaining in the form of garages to the town houses. Traffic calming would be provided along Redland Court Road;

6. In summary, the impacts from the less than substantial harm should be given considerable weight and the Committee had to consider whether there were other material planning considerations and public benefits that were sufficient to outweigh that harm;

7. The Planning Obligations Manager stated that the primary issue for this application in relation to affordable housing was viability. The applicant had bought the site for £7.4m unconditionally and without the benefit of it being allocated for housing in the Local Plan or the site having residential planning permission. On a per unit basis, the amount paid was significantly more than comparable sites that traded with planning permission. The applicant’s viability consultant stated that the Site Value was £5.4m, £2m less than the applicant had paid for it. A key consideration when bidding for a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32a

An amendment sheet was provided to the Committee in advance of the meeting, detailing changes since the publication of the original report. 

The Head of Development Management made the following points by way of introduction:-

1. The wider planning context when considering the application was set out. The Call-In Public Inquiry relating to proposals at Cribbs Causeway in South Gloucestershire had taken place towards the end of last year. Whilst the Inquiry hearings ended back in September, the Inspector held open the Inquiry until the new year (primarily to consider new transport modelling evidence) and the Inquiry remained open until early February. The Callowhill Court application had last been considered in September and a decision was deferred. The Committee now had an opportunity for Bristol City Council as Local Planning Authority to take a view on this application and express its support whilst the Call-In Inspector was able to receive further evidence and representations before making a recommendation to the Secretary of State on the Mall expansion planning application.

2. It was commonly recognised that there would be one major investment in retail-led development in the west of England sub-region during the next 10-15 years. This was likely to be either at Cribbs Causeway or at this application site. The retail-led mixed use redevelopment of the Bristol shopping quarter was supported by policies within the adopted Bristol Local Plan which was our development plan, particularly:

Ø  Policy BSC2 of the Core Strategy (Bristol City Centre’s role as a regional centre to be promoted and strengthened)

Ø  Policy BCAP 13 of the Central Area Plan (major retail growth to be focused on sites in the Bristol shopping quarter)

Ø  Policy BCAP 36 of the central area plan (the Horsefair & Callowhill Court allocated for major retail-led mixed use redevelopment)

It was very important that the Secretary of State’s Planning Inspector received a clear message from the City Council about its support for the redevelopment of the site in central Bristol, so that the Inspector could weigh this up when advising the SoS on the proposals at Cribbs Causeway.

3. The Committee in September resolved to defer as follows:

“…the Committee strongly supports the redevelopment of the site but considers the car park access via Brunswick Square to be unacceptable; therefore the car park must be reduced and possibly moved or eliminated to allow for a more sensitive solution. If this is achieved, the Committee would be disposed to grant outline planning permission, subject to detailed air quality assessment.”

4. Since then the Applicants have amended the application in the following respects:

Ø  Revised customer vehicular access arrangement is proposed – access was still to be taken from Bond Street, but no longer included circulation access via Brunswick Square. Access to the proposed multi-storey car park would be via a new signalised junction from Bond Street, with a right-in/left-out arrangement

Ø  A reduction in car parking spaces from 580 to 380 spaces.

Ø  The controlling parameter plans to be approved have  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32b

Councillor Eddy left the meeting.

9. 17/04132/F – Olympia House, 36 – 38, Beaconsfield Road, St. George.

The representative of the Head of Development Management made the following points by way of introduction:-

1. The application had been referred to Committee by Councillor Asher Craig;

2. This application was for full planning permission for the redevelopment of Olympia House to provide 26 residential flats whilst retaining the historic and architecturally important elements of the site;

3. The rearshed-like structures would be demolished to facilitate a 12 space car park and a new build of 4 flats;

4. The development also included refuse and bicycle storage and a landscaped area adjacent to Beaconsfield Road;

5. The number of units proposed triggered the Affordable Housing policy but as the building was vacant it benefited from Vacant Building Credit and was not therefore obliged to provide affordable housing. This fact should not be held against it when considering the application;

6. The objections received related to residential amenity including noise, disturbance and privacy, the amount of the proposed development and its impact on on-street parking, the lack of affordable housing and the lack of 3 bedroom units;

7. A condition requiring windows to be glazed on the elevation over-looking residences and even without that condition, officers believed the overlooking was acceptable;

8. A Construction Management Plan condition would ensure that buildings were demolished as the area was developed so that there would not be a large number of vehicles and cranes on site at one time;

9. The applicant had submitted information that the 12 parking spaces could accommodate the 26 flats and a survey of nearby streets showed that there was capacity for overspill parking. A TRO would ensure that there would be no parking near or at the junction of the site so as not to cause disruption;

10. The renewable energy target was not quite met given the nature of the proposal. There was a condition requiring solar panels;

11. In summary, the conversion was sensitive, the 26 flats would help the housing supply and the development benefited from Vacant Building Credit. Officers recommended grant subject to conditions and a legal agreement and a contribution to the TRO’s.

The following points arose from discussion:-

1. Councillor Sergeant questioned the level of parking provision given the development was not in the City Centre and was informed that the development was within walking distance of Church Road which was considered a distinct centre and was therefore sustainable. It was accepted that parking was limited but there was sufficient parking near the site for overspill;

2. The site was advertised for use for 12 months since the date of the report;

3. Officers would have preferred more 3 bedroom units but the applicant had increased the number so was on balance better;

4. Councillor Stevens stated that electric heating was wasteful and a rough deal for owners and asked whether a condition requiring ground source heat pumps had been considered. He was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32c

The next meeting is scheduled to be held at 10am on Wednesday 21^st February 2018.

21 February 2018 at 10am

Meeting ended at 9.55 pm

CHAIR  __________________