Agenda and minutes

The Committee is requested to elect the Chair for the 2018/19 Municipal Year.

Councillor Don Alexander was nominated and seconded. There were no further nominations and it was therefore:-

Resolved – That Councillor Don Alexander be elected as Chair of Development Control Committee A for 2018/19.

The Committee is requested to elect the Vice-Chair for 2018/19 Municipal Year.

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

Resolved – that Councillor Chris Windows be elected as Vice Chair of Development Control Committee A for 2018/19.

The Committee is requested to note the Terms of Reference for Development Control Committees which were approved at Full Council on Tuesday 22^nd May 2018.

The Terms of reference as determined by Annual Council on 22 May 2018 was noted.

The Committee is requested to consider dates for future meetings for 2018/19 Municipal Year. The following dates are proposed:

(all on Wednesdays)

2pm on 25^th July 2018

6pm on 5^th September 2018

10am on 17^th October 2018

2pm on 28^th November 2018

6pm on 9^th January 2019

10am on 20^th February 2019

6pm on 3^rd April 2019

Resolved – that the meetings for DC A Committee for 2018/19 are agreed as    follows:-

2pm 25 July 2018;

6pm 5 September 2018;

10am 17 October 2018;

2pm 28 November 2018;

6pm 9 January 2019;

10am 20 February 2019;

6pm 3 April 2019.

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and advised everyone of the fire evacuation arrangements.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Hickman with Councillor Brook 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 Clarke referred to Sims Metal Management - Royal Edward Dock application and stated that he had been a Director of the Bristol Port Company but was open minded and able to make a decision on this application.

Councillor Carey referred to the St John Hall application. He would withdraw from the Committee when this application was considered as he had submitted a Public Forum statement on it.

Councillor Davies referred to the Stoke Lodge Playing Fields application stating that his employer, Thangam Debonnaire MP, had submitted a Public Forum Statement on it. He had no connection to the Statement and was open minded and able to make a decision on this application. He also referred to the YardArts application. He would withdraw from the Committee when this application was considered as he had submitted a Public Forum Statement on it.

The Chair declared that he was a member of the Public Rights of Way Committee which would be considering a report on the Stoke Lodge Town and Village Green application. The Stoke Lodge application on this agenda had no connection to that report. The Chair also declared that he was the Ward member for the Sims Metal Management - Royal Edward Dock application and had attended discussions on the application but remained open minded and able to make a decision on the application.

To agree the minutes of the last meeting held on Wednesday 16^th May 2018 as a correct record.

Resolved – that the minutes of the above meeting be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

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

The Appeals were noted.

To note recent enforcement notices.

The Head of Development Management referred to the one notice in the papers. This matter had now been resolved as a new location had been agreed and planning permission had been granted. The notice would therefore be withdrawn.

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 4.30pm on Friday 15^th June 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 12 Noon on Wednesday 20^th June 2018.

Statements will not be accepted after 12.00 noon on the working day before the meeting unless they have been submitted in advance to Bristol City Council but were not received by the Democratic Services Section. Anyone submitting multiple statements for an application should note that they will only be allowed to speak once at the meeting.

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.

To consider the following Planning Applications

The Committee considered the following Planning Applications.

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

1. The application was for the demolition of an existing changing room building and brick tower and construction of a larger replacement changing room building and associated works. The hours of operation would be Monday to Friday 8am to 10pm, Saturday to Sunday 9am to 8pm;

2. Due to the level of public interest and the nature of the development it was considered appropriate for the application to come before the Committee. The Planning Authority received 311 letters of objection from surrounding residential properties and 211 letters of support;

3. The established playing field open space was owned by Bristol City Council and used by Cotham School for playing facilities on a leasehold basis;

4. Stoke Lodge is a listed building. The existing pavilion, which is some distance from Stoke Lodge, gained planning permission in 1966 and was in a poor state of repair and no longer fit for purpose;

5. The height and the footprint of the proposal would be increased from the existing building. Although this was an increased scale of building, officers did not consider it harmful in terms of impacts on historic assets;

5. Officers considered that noise disturbance could be an outcome from this proposal but would not refuse it on that basis as this could be conditioned;

6. Four trees will be removed in order to facilitate the development and replacement trees would be conditioned;

7. The basis for the Planning Authority’s objection was that the proposed enhanced and enlarged facilities would result in an increased intensity of use and thus number of users of the site. This would lead to a significant increase in coach and vehicle traffic which is unsuited to the local highway network. There were no turning facilities for coaches which would exacerbate the harm caused. The applicant was asked to provide data with respect to car parking but had not done so on the basis they believed there would be no material increase. Officers had suggested a possible solution of using the Stoke Lodge Car Park but the applicants did not wish to enter into discussions and wished the application as it stood to be considered;

8. In summary, officers recommended refusal as traffic impact was unacceptable and contrary to Policy DM23.

The following points arose from debate;

1. Councillor Breckels asked whether the Planning Authority could condition the use of the car park to mitigate the unacceptable traffic impact and was informed that this would be changing the nature of the application. The applicant had not wished to discuss this possible solution so such a condition would amount to a leap of faith and raise a question over whether it would be delivered;

2. It was noted that trip information on vehicle usage had been requested three times;

3. Councillor Mead referred to the historic asset of the site and questioned the officer’s view that the proposal would not cause harm and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

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

         1. The application related to an existing metal processing facility within the               Avonmouth Principle             Industrial and Warehousing Area as designated by the              Bristol Local Plan. The existing facility is 30 years old and out of date;

         2. The proposal was to expand the facility onto an adjacent piece of land, to             add new plant and to            upgrade and acoustically enclose existing plant. It                                  proposed a 3.5m high fence to limit dust escape and a pre-shredder to                       reduce occurrence of explosions in the Fragmentiser;

         3. The application attracted 18 objections concerning air quality and dust and          noise pollution;

         4. The applicant undertook robust community engagement and their                          responses to concerns were set out in the report;

         5. In summary, there were no adverse design, sustainability or ecology                       impacts envisaged. The business would become more efficient if planning                  permission was granted and this was recommended.

         The following points arose from debate:-

1. The only part of the development appropriate for renewable energy was the office. As the main part of the proposal was for recycling and the structures were acoustic houses and not buildings and the renewable energy was small for the office. However, the report set out other sustainability measures they had offered;

2. The Head of Development Management confirmed that no weight should currently be given to the emerging Local Plan as policies were not yet formulated;

3. Councillor Mead referred to St Andrews Church which had been there long before this development and there had been concerns about dust in Avonmouth for some time. In response, he was informed that the applicant had worked well with officers to balance the needs of the business with residential amenity and the application was now at the stage where this hadbeen achieved;

  4. Councillor Davies stated the acoustic barrier would improve the noise break out and   noted that the a 6-8 db reduction was a significant reduction for residents;

 5. The representative of the Head of Development Management confirmed that weight should be given to the fact that the site was already a recycling plant as if refused and appealed the Inspector would take this into account;

6. The Chair observed that the residents of Avonmouth had suffered from dust and noise pollution for some time and this would not happen in central Bristol. He commended Sims for the effort they had put into community engagement. He noted the assurances that things would not be made worse and noted there was a brand reputation to protect. He was therefore minded to support the officer recommendation;

7. Councillor Wright supported the officer recommendation;

8. Councillor Mead was minded to abstain as he could not be satisfied it would not be worse but equally he did not want to refuse the application in light of an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

Councillor Carey stood down for this application. Councillor Windows noted that he knew the agent of the application and therefore chose to stand down. This left 9 Committee members to vote on this item.

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

1.  This application was referred to the Committee by both local ward Councillors – Carey and           Langley and was also before the Committee due to level of public interest for the proposal and      concerns expressed regarding the developer and their past issues;

2. The application was to demolish the former St John Hall and garage building and replace it with  8 single dwelling houses with the front pedestrianised and a communal cycle store;

3. The proposal had initially attracted 29 objections then on revision, 16 objections concerning overlooking, noise and parking;

4. Key issues concerned loss of community facility as the building was in a poor state, overshadowing of properties in Manworthy Road, City Reach and the Brislington and St Annes Conservative Club, a loss of privacy to properties in Manworthy Road and intensity of development;

5. There were no design objections. Eight units did comply with policy in terms of efficient use of land and this proposal was less intensive than the outline permission granted in 2009;

6. Transport colleagues were content subject to a TRO on the junction to improve visibility;

7. In Summary, officers recommended approval subject to conditions and a TRO.

The following points arose from debate:-

1. Councillor Davies asked whether an enforcement monitoring inspections could be undertaken as an exception in this case and was informed that the applicant was not material to decision making though this was a case  when it would be prudent to closely watch the site being built;

2. Transport colleagues were content that emergency vehicles could access the lane. A standard vehicle was used to assess this. Approved vehicles would have to be arranged for private waste collection;

3. Councillor Stevens noted that this proposal did not meet the policy of mixed housing and asked how approval was justified when flats were not proposed. In response, he was informed that policy also included more housing and officers’ focus had been on smaller units that impacted less on the residential area and the nature of the immediate area  was family houses;

4. Councillor Wright felt it was a reasonable proposal for family housing and not over developed so he would vote in support of the officer recommendation;

5. Councillor Breckels stated there was a need for more housing and would support the officer recommendation. He hoped enforcement officers would monitor the site;

6. Councillor Brook stated that it was sad to lose a community building but it was old and more housing was needed. He would support the officer recommendation;

7. Councillor Mead moved the officer recommendation and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

Councillor Davies stood down.  This left 10 Committee members to vote on this item.

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

1. The application was for a four-storey block of 37 residential apartments alongside car parking, refuse storage and amenity space to the rear;

2. 7 of the 37 apartments would be affordable thus meeting the Council’s 20% affordable housing requirement;

3. The Planning Authority supported the principle of redevelopment for housing but had a number of issues with this application hence the recommendation to refuse;

4. 38% (14 of 37) of the apartments were single aspect and north facing and would not get sunlight most of the day. This was in excess of what officers could support. Policy DM29 applies. The applicant was advised to reconfigure but chose not to do so;

2. Air quality was a serious issue in the area which suffered high concentrations of pollution given its proximity to the M32 and the development would create a street canyon which would exacerbate pollution along Lower Ashley Road;

3. The development would have a harmful overshadowing impact on the neighbouring residential property above the ground floor takeaway. A shadow analysis undertaken showed that at times of this year this would be worse;

4. The development was poorly designed and over intensive by virtue of its height, bulk, massing and overall design;

5. Two trees on site were a rare species and provided sufficient amenity to warrant a TPO in view of the Tree Officer;

6. In summary, the provision of affordable housing was supported but for the reasons above officers recommended refusal.

The following points arose from debate:-

1. Officers had suggested some solutions to the applicant but the applicant had not wished to pursue these;

2. The Head of Development Management stated that it had been recommended for refusal on affordable housing grounds also even though it met the 20% requirement on type and level in order to protect the Council’s position on this matter at appeal. The Inspector would need to know the full case and the applicant could subsequently state that no affordable housing was offered. That reason for refusal would go away if the applicant confirmed the provision of affordable housing at the appeal stage;

3. The resident and takeaway owner had not objected but there was some doubt if they were occupying the premises at the moment;

4. A well designed, high quality development could have mitigated against the loss of the trees. This scheme did not. It was a balanced position;

5. It was confirmed that there was scope for a higher quality scheme whilst retaining the trees;

6. Councillor Breckels disagreed with the officer recommendation as he had seen far less well-designed schemes and the whole row of buildings on that road were north facing. He added that he would vote for grant subject to not all the affordable units being located at the rear of the development. The Head of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

At this point Councillor Windows left the meeting.  This left 10 Committee members to vote on this item.

1. The Head of Development Management introduced this item. This was the second time it was before Committee and since then the Committee membership had changed. On 16 May 2018 the Committee had made no decision and asked that it be brought back with conditions that could form part of an approval, which, in effect, was a deferral and the application remained undetermined. The report before this Committee provided those conditions and included the previous Committee report for information. The sequential test was a key issue and the Committee’s clear views in May were shown in the minutes. As individual members, it was important to have regard to these views but no decision was made so members were not bound by the comments. In order to make a fully informed decision legal colleagues recommended that the previous public forum be circulated to the Committee and this was done;

2. Councillor Davies asked whether the content of the previous minutes would be used at appeal if the application was refused today for the sequential test reason and was informed that the previous meeting’s discussion would be raised in any appeal as the minutes were a public record but this should not fetter the ability of members to make a decision on that basis;

3. The report now before the Committee also provided an additional assessment regarding trees and highway safety. The Committee was advised to give the appropriate weight to the previous discussion and reach a decision on that basis;

4. The Committee was informed that this was an application for an extension to an existing row of  retail units comprising two fast food outlets and one retail unit, with service access at the rear. This would require the moving of a zebra crossing west along Eastgate Road.  The existing drive-thru restaurant would also be moved further forward from its current position.

5. Objections regarding the removal of the Oak tree near Burger King were received when the first application to extend the retail park was submitted last year. As a result, this tree would be retained.  A number of trees along Eastgate Road would be felled with the exception of one Poplar and one Ash tree;

6. The classification of Eastgate as a Local District Centre was not supported when the Bristol Core Strategy was drafted as retail centres should be truly accessible for all modes of transport as well as principal locations for shopping, community facilities, local entertainment, art and cultural facilities. . The Eastgate Centre is essentially just shops designed to be accessible for carborne shoppers  and was  therefore different in nature from Gloucester Road or the City Centre. The site had been restricted to the sell of 50% bulky goods and white goods, however, open, unrestricted A1 sales across the whole of Eastgate centre was granted by a Committee in September 2016 despite the officer recommendation to refuse.

7.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

At this point Councillor Wright left. This left 9 Committee members to vote on this item.

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

1. The application sought full planning permission for the erection of 6-11 storey building comprised 120 Private Rented Sector residential units and 524 sqm flexible commercial floor space at ground floor level within the Enterprise Zone;

2. Officers were content with the design though it was at the limits of what was acceptable;

3. The Planning Obligations Manager stated that the key issue for this application was viability for affordable housing. He stated that the affordable housing process had been protracted as the applicant had changed their viability consultant following assessment of the original viability appraisal submitted with the application, and had been changing key inputs such as Operating Costs and Profit Margins, which would have been expected to be set at an early point in the viability process.

4. He reported the receipt of a letter overnight which confirmed that the applicant would commit to a wholly private rental scheme for at least 15 years. This period was not unreasonable and would be secured in the Section 106 agreement. Affordable Housing would be secured for 125 years as was the case for ND7.

5. The Planning Obligations Manager confirmed that it was not appropriate for the viability appraisal to take account of long term growth, as the District Valuer was very clear that this must be dealt with in the yield, which was low for this scheme reflecting that rental growth was likely. It was not possible to know future rental growth and if there was another recession there could be no growth.

6. RICS had recently consulted on the issue of how to value property purpose built for the rental sector, and this had indicated that stamp duty land tax should be included in viability assessments for Private Rental Sector Schemes. The consultation was now closed but there was no report yet to provide clarity on the matter and no timescale regarding publication of the full guidance. However, at a meeting the previous day the applicant had stated that the draft guidance was now full guidance, despite this not being the case. The District Valuer considered that she should have regard to the guidance even if only draft, and despite her not being aware of any Private Rental Sector schemes that were not being held as long term investments.

7. On this basis, the District Valuer concluded that with stamp duty land tax factored in, the development could provide 4 affordable dwellings with rents set no higher than Local Housing Allowance levels.

8. The viability assessment assumed the commercial element of the development would be sold when completed therefore stamp duty land tax would be included for this element. In this case the applicant maintained that the viability figure should include stamp duty land tax for the whole scheme despite them accepting that the residential element of scheme would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87a