Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed all parties to the meeting and explained that it was being held in accordance with recent Government legislation concerning the CovId-19  pandemic.

There were no apologies for absence and no substitutions.

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 Steve Smith declared an interest in Planning Application Number 19/04970/F – Glencoyne Square as he had previously worked for the Southmead Development Trust. However, he confirmed that he did not have any current connection to this organisation and had not predetermined the application.

Councillor Stephen Clarke declared an interest in Planning Application Number 19/04970/F – Land At Tavistock Road due to a previous connection with the applicant David Freed but that he no longer had an contact and had not predetermined the application.

To agree the minutes of the last meeting held on Wednesday 22^nd April 2020 as a correct record.

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

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

The Head of Development Management confirmed that the appeal for Hamilton House 80 Stokes Croft, Bristol BS1 3QY had been provisionally re-scheduled for 2^nd June 2020.

To note recent enforcement notices.

The Head of Development Management advised the Committee of three additional enforcement notices since last meeting as follows:

281 and 283 Gloucester Road.

41 Alma Vale

36 Woodstock Road.

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 7^th May 2020.

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 12Noon on Tuesday 12^th May 2020.

PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL WRITTEN PUBLIC FORUM STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO

THIS MEETING CAN BE RECEIVED UNDER THE USUAL ARRANGEMENTS AND

WILL BE SENT IN ADVANCE TO ALL COMMITTEE MEMBERS.

HOWEVER, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THIS

COMMITTEE AS APPLIES FOR MEETINGS TAKING PLACE IN THE CITY HALL.

THEREFORE, IF YOU SUBMIT A PUBLIC FORUM STATEMENT YOU ARE

REQUESTED TO INCLUDE WITHIN IT EVERYTHING THAT YOU WISH TO SAY.

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

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

The Committee considered the following applications set out below

The Head of Development Management and his representative gave a presentation and made the following key points:

·         There had been a high number of objections to this planning application

·         Details of the proposed changes in opening hours were set out

·         Planning permission was required for this item

·         An aerial shot of the sight was shown

·         A smaller smoking area would be provided

·         Noise and disturbance were the key issues arising out of the consultation

·         There was no objection from pollution control

·         With the proposed mitigation, the increased level of noise would be negligible

·         Approval would be for a 1 year temporary consent

·         There would be routine monitoring by staff of the noise and with a minimum of 3 doors

·         Neighbour’s concerns related to alleged poor management of the premises, noise disturbance, door staff and dispersal policy

·         A 1 year temporary consent was recommended which would then become permanent subject to adherence to restrictions on noise disturbance with a monitoring plan including acoustic consultants and compliance with the Door Staff dispersal policy

·         As part of the arrangements for the transition to a late night bar, the acoustic report would be assessed over a total period compared to a measured background to address concerns about it being assessed at a quiet time

·         The report referred to two complaints – the Perry Road being held open and volume levels. However, there were different types of noise to be assessed including both music and general noise and evidence showed that it was within acceptable limits

·         The use of the outdoor area would continue to be subject to adherence to the relevant conditions

·         The issue of the sound limiting device would be dealt with under the licencing regime

Officers were therefore recommending 1 year approval subject to conditions set out in the report.

In responding to members questions, officers made the following points:

·         Members concern was acknowledged that the enforcement of the smoking/non-seating area had not ever properly taken place on this site and that members of the public regularly smoked and sat at tables there. However, it was noted that the premises were open until midnight so enforcement would take place after then. Customers needed to leave the premises by 1am with staff to clear the site by 1.30am

·         There would be a condition for a monitoring plan to ensure these were adhered to particularly over key periods such as Christmas, New Year and the summer period

·         Although it was noted that this case could be brought back to Committee if it was called in or if there were a large number of objections, officers agreed that a report would come back after the end of the 1 year period

·         Members’ concerns were noted about the adverse impact on the planning application if the licence was refused. However, officers reminded members that the licencing and planning regimes operated separately under different legislative frameworks. Any decision made on this Planning Application had to be based on planning grounds and with a firm evidence base

·         Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

After the completion of this item, there will be a 10 Minute Break in proceedings.

The Head of Development Management and his representative introduced this report and made the following comments:

·         The details of the planning application were introduced

·         The site had been used as a boxing gym until recently but had now been relocated elsewhere. Access was via a dropped curb.

·         Five flats would benefit from private tenancies and would have private balconies

·         Details of the objections received at different stages in the process were outlined. These included concerns about insufficient off street parking, a loss of a community asset. However, the existing building was in disrepair and officers did not believe it would create a shortfall

·         Residential development on site was considered acceptable

·         The City Design Team had been consulted to ensure it loosely followed the building line. Their assessment was that it was acceptable and did not warrant refusal

·         There would be no windows overlooking the two nearest properties

·         There were five windows and only one side balcony. This would be angled as required.

·         All dwellings met the required safety standard

·         Seven flats would benefit from private space and all twelve would benefit from community space

·         There was no objection to the proposed development from Transport Development Management

·         The Health and Safety Adviser had raised no concerns

·         A Management Plan was proposed as a condition

·         The development met required energy sustainability levels

In response to members’ questions, officers made the following comment:

·         It was not deemed necessary by residents or Transport Development Management to have a Waste Management Plan to deal with any concerns that might arise if bins were not returned to properties. There was storage space and a dropped kerb

Members made the following comments:

·         The benefits of the scheme outweighed the difficulties. It provides accommodation that is in short supply. There had been no objections from Councillors

Councillor Mike Davies moved, seconded by Councillor Afzal Shah and upon being put to the vote it was

RESOLVED: (unanimously) that the application be approved subject conditions contained within the report.

During the item, Councillor Steve Smith advised that during the debate a member of the Southmead Development Trust with whom he had previously worked had contacted him. (At the Meeting of the Committee on 10^th June 20210, he requested that this be noted that it was a social contact and unrelated to the application.) However, he reiterated his previous Declaration of Interest in this application and that he had not predetermined it.

The Head of Development Management introduced the report and made the following comments:

·         Details of the were outlined

·         There were 33 comments in support and 5 objections including letters of support from ward councillors

·         The scheme was a 5 storey building

·         The choice of materials was predominantly brick and render

·         Whilst the applicant can proceed with no affordable housing, there would be affordable housing grants between Bristol City Council and the future landowner

·         The applicant was now proposing a hybrid system of heating

·         There was sustainable transport to the site. The applicant was required to provide travel plan management

·         Details of highway mitigation had been provided

·         The applicants had emphasised that they would be providing affordable housing and that it was extremely likely they would receive significant public funding

Officers confirmed that the scheme was recommended for approval with appropriate conditions.

In response to members’ questions, officers made the following comments:

·         Members’ suggestion that there is a requirement for affordable housing with this scheme was noted. However, officers advised that the policy position was that if a scheme cannot deliver affordable housing it shouldn’t be a requirement of the planning system to do so. Also there needed to be additionality involved to only apply on top of that amount. . Officers further advised that the proposal for 85% affordable housing had been agreed with the applicant which could not be secured through a Section 106 agreement

Members made the following comments:

·         This had the potential to be an excellent scheme that could release family housing from some people who wish to downsize properties.

·         The design of the scheme was good

·         Development on this scale in a green space with local support is very encouraging

·         It was encouraging to see that the community had been involved, including school children in the preparation of the design. The area had been neglected for too long

·         The proposed heat bumps were a good innovative solution.

Councillor Mike Davies moved, seconded by Councillor Fabian Breckels and upon being put to the vote it was

RESOLVED (unanimously) – that the application be approved together with the conditions contained in the report.

The next Meeting will be the Annual Meeting for 2020/21 Municipal Year and isc scheduled to be held at 2pm on Wednesday 10^th June 2020.

It was noted that the next meeting was the Annual meeting for 2020/21 Municipal Year and was scheduled to be held at 2pm on Wednesday 10th June 2020 as a Zoom remote meeting.