Agenda and minutes

The Chair, Councillor D Alexander led introductions and welcomed those present.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor T Carey (substituted by Cllr R Eddy) and Councillor M Wright (substituted by Cllr H Clough) and Cllr A Shah.

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 S Clarke referenced Item 8(d) advising of his former links with the Bristol Port Authority

·       Councillor C Stevens acted as City Council’s non-executive Director to the Bristol Port Authority and confirmed he had not been contacted by any part in relation to 8(d)

o   Both stated they have made no pre-determination in the matter of 8(d) Avonmouth and Severnside Enterprise Area

To agree the minutes of the last meeting held on Wednesday 17^th October 2018 as a correct record.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 17^th October 2018 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair, noting the following:

·       That Cllr R Eddy be removed from the attendance list

·       That Cllr L Alexander substituted for Cllr T Carey

·       The heading for agenda item 8(a) should read 17/05149/F Land adjacent to the Quays

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

The Head of Development Management explained how the appeals process operated.  He referred to the following cases and outlined the latest situation in each case:

·       Appeal no 11 Hamilton House: Planning Inspectorate on appeal agreed with the Council’s decision.

·       Appeal no 14 Station rd Shirehampton: this was decided on delegate decision, a public inquiry has just concluded with the decision to be delivered shortly.

·       Appeal no 18 & 19 Mortimer House: The appeal against committee decision was allowed by the planning inspectorate further details will be shared with DC B at their next meeting.

·       Appeal no 20 Whiteladies Road: Officers had recommended approval but committee refused.  The inspectorate accepted that the proposed

·       Appeal 65 Raj Mahal City Clarence Road: Appeal on refusal the PI agreed Council’s case and dismissed the appeal.

To note recent enforcement notices.

It was noted that there was 4 standard notices and 1 continuance notices served since the last committee.  Further explanation on the enforcement action taken for adverts still on display passed the agreed date.

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 22^nd November 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 27^th November 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.

Members of the Committee received Public Forum Statements in advance of the meeting.

The statements were heard from before the application they related to and were taken fully into consideration by the Committee prior to reaching a decision.

To determine 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:

a.      The details of the application site were outlined

b.      The proposed layout was shown

c.      The development proposed to deliver 196 residential units; 176 units in the main residential building; the remaining 20 units above the proposed sports building; the affordable housing provision would be situated above the sports building and at lower levels in the main building (19 units).

d.      The development site is bound to the north by the Double Tree Hilton Hotel complex; Magdalena Court, a 3 and 4 storey residential building; to the east Proctor House, a 10 storey residential block; to the west the 4 storey Corinthian Court residential development; Broughton House a 13 storey resident block to the south.

e.      The site is considered suitable for development but the proposed scheme is not acceptable.

f.       The concerns were raised following public consultation, fully detailed in the report, summarised as follows:

                           i.          The design is bulky and wrong in context and approach for the site

                          ii.          Viewed as overbearing because of the proposed height and density of the development

                         iii.          The heritage impact of the development on St Mary Redcliffe Church

                         iv.          Concerns that the BRE Guidelines on daylight and natural light are not met in many of the units

g.      The impact of the BRE guidelines on the development were shared via visuals with the committee

h.      Committee were referred to the supplementary document produced by the planning officer, that was shared with Committee on 23^rd November and published for public scrutiny, that assessed the scheme against the Urban Living SPD which was adopted on 7^th November 2018.

i.       Committee were advised that planning officers attempted to resolve issues with the applicants but they failed to engage to resolve the issues.  The applicants instructed officers that they required the application to be determined by Committee on its merits. 

j.       Committee were advised to refuse the application as it undermines the SPD; poor design, failure to consider surrounding buildings; the negative impact on St Mary Redcliffe Church; the design was viewed as oppressive and overbearing.

Questions for Clarification

k.      Proposed sports centre: Members asked about who would run the centre; what noise assessment had been made:  Officers advised that as refusal was the primary position the details around the sports centre had yet to be worked through.

l.       Member commented that if the BRE guidelines were applied to previous developments a number of buildings would not have been constructed.  Officers commented that they had worked with current guidelines and had clearly demonstrated the impact on neighbouring buildings to committee both in the report and the visual shared during the presentation.

m.    Questions were asked on the Urban Living SPD:  Officers confirmed that they were obligated to have due regard to current policy; the SPD was a key material consideration from the date of adoption (7^th November); the application must be compared against the SDP; it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

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

a.      The details of the application were outlined.

b.      The plans for the development were presented and salient points of the design explained.

c.      The scheme would require the demolition of a property for the construction of a 3 storey building containing 7 dwellings.

d.      The development was within 50 metres of an urban centre; with access to public transport; the units proposed were appropriate for the area.

e.      The design included to the rear 2 storey level in line with the neighbouring property; the buildings local to the development were of various designs; the proposed development incorporated the red brick theme from a number of properties into the design; the design was viewed as contemporary; made good use of the land.

f.       One parking space was included in the development for the family unit; cycle storage provision was included in design.

g.      The roof incorporated solar panels in its design.

h.      Officers recommended approval with conditions.

Questions from Members for Clarification:

i.       Parking:  explanation was sought on the decision to include just one designated parking area on the development.  Members were concerned about possible future contention; impact of residents cars on an already crowded highway.

j.       Officer advised that the original design included an area for parking for 5-6  cars with access via a driveway; there was concerned about the negative impact of a car park on neighbouring properties; but the decision was taken to revise the design and replace it with a garden area for the use of all residents; the design included storage and refuge area to prevent any other vehicle to access the site,  other than the one vehicle attached to the family unit; there are no parking controls in the area; on street parking was available; the site is sustainable so the decision was made that it was unnecessary to commission a parking survey.

k.      Officers were asked to explain the impact of the development on the adjacent property to the rear of the development.  The modification at that level reflected the neighbouring 2 storey at the rear; no.25 had an extension that backed onto the development.

l.       Glazing of the windows: the condition to include obscure glazing to the west side was not necessary to the East side of the development because the outlook was different.

Member Debate:

m.    Cllr M Davies: considered it a striking and modern design and was pleased to see it on a small scale development; made good use of the land; had some concern about the parking of resident’s cars on the highway and possible negative impact but was minded to support.

n.      Cllr Mead: minded to vote against; considered the design favourable; had grave concerns about the issues arising from additional cars in an area following a decision that a development was sustainable; this had the potential to impact negatively on the area; but on the other hand agreed with the decision  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

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

a.      The details of the application site were outlined

b.     A number of maps of the Avonmouth & Severnside Enterprise Area were shared

c.      The summary of the development extracted from the report:

·        The application relates to a major infrastructure project to provide addition flood protection works and ecological mitigation works in the Avonmouth area.

·        The project runs from Lamplighters Marsh in the south up to the Severn Crossing in South Gloucestershire, and hence parallel applications have been submitted to both authorities.

·        The project intends to provide two areas of ecological mitigation, to include proposed wetland environment at Hallen Marsh.

·        The project intends to protect existing homes and business, has the potential of providing additional employment land to meet the needs of the city.

d.     Concerns were raised from the public consultation

·        Challenge to the Flood Risk Assessment

·        The amendment sheet with committee detailed the issues raised by the Bristol Port Company with regards the modelling that was undertaken and the issues relating to the Lock Gates.

e.      Offices sought Delegated Authority to enable the finalisation of the detailed technical conditions relating to the application. 

f.       Committee were advised that both authorities had to approve the development of this joint project, to enable matters to progress.  South Gloucestershire would be considering the application in the New Year towards the end of January or early February 2019.

g.      Officers requested that Committee delegate authority to Officers to grant planning permission subject to conditions (to be granted) and to delay issuing the decision such that it coincided with the decision being made on the South Gloucestershire application.

Questions for clarification

h.     Concerns were raised about the Lock Gate issue not being resolved before the application came to committee.  Members asked:

·        Why the lock gate issue had not been resolved before the application came to committee

·        Whether the application could be taken in part to allow for the a resolution of the lock gates

·        If the application could be deferred

i.       Officers advised

·        that the development would not preclude an opportunity for future consideration on the issue of funding (of the Lock Gates) and to formulate a solution, but not as part of this application. 

·        That Officers were unable to direct that the suggested works were completed at this stage as the wider issue is with other parties to determine;

·        the application could be deferred for wider discussion on the lock gates but there is no immediate solution available on the issue,;

·        the application provided resilience to the area notwithstanding the gap;

·        that future discussions on conditions to extend the length of the wall can be part of the development process;

j.       Trees: Officers advised that the tree replacement conditions would be developed further and could be done via phasing scheme to be conditioned.

k.      Questions were asked of Officers relating to the timing of the current application in relation to the wider scheme.

l.       Officers explained that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.