Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomedall parties to the Meeting.

Apologies for absencewere receivedfrom Councillor Mark Wright, substitute Tony Carey.

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.

The following Declarations of Interest were received and noted:

Councillor Stevens – Item No. 18/05203/F 493 – 499 Bath Road. Has written a book but does not consider that his views on Affordable Housing expressed in it will preclude him from participating in the item.

Councillor Stevens – Item No. 20/01032/F and 20/01033/LA 85 Whiteladies Road. Has submitted a Statement and will not participate in the item.

To agree the minutes of the last meeting as a correct record.

Resolved – thatthe Minutesof the abovemeeting be confirmed as acorrect record and signedby the Chair.

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

The Head of DevelopmentManagement introduced the report and summarised it for everyone.

To note recent enforcement notices.

The Head of DevelopmentManagement introduced the report and summarised it for everyone.

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

Anyone 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 Wednesday 26^th August 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 12 Noon on Tuesday 1^st September 2020.

Anyone who wishes to present their public forum statement, question or petition at the zoom meeting must register their interest by giving at least two clear working days’ notice prior to the meeting by 2pm on Friday 28^th August 2020.

PLEASE NOTE THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW STANDING ORDERS AGREED BY BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL, YOU MUST SUBMIT EITHER A STATEMENT, PETITION OR QUESTION TO ACCOMPANY YOUR REGISTER TO SPEAK.

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.

Membersof the Committeereceived Public Forum Statementsin advance of themeeting.

The Statementswere heardbefore theapplication they relatedto and were takenfully into consideration by the Committee prior to reaching a decision.

The following Planning Applications are to be considered by the Committee:

The Committeeconsidered the following Planning Applications:

The Head of Development Management and his representative gave a presentation and summarised the report for this item. The application is for the demolition of the existing building and redevelopment of the site for 146 residential units, including apartments and houses (Use Class C3), with associated car parking, landscaping and works. (Major application)

The Planning Obligations Manager summarised the Viability and Affordable Housing position.

The Project Manager, Sustainability summarised the sustainable design and energy strategy aspects of the application.

Answers for clarification:

·      The application is for 100% affordable dwellings, the BCC Policies require up to 30% affordable dwellings with no public funding – i.e. at  the developer’s expense; although there would normally be a S106 agreement to secure affordable dwellings, as the Officer recommendation is to refuse the applicationthere is currently not a Section 106 Agreement in place to secure the 32 affordable housing dwellings proposed (22%)

·      If the applicant wished to appeal the refusal, the lack of affordable housing reason could be overcome by the applicant and the Council concluding a Section 106 Agreement to secure the affordable housing, and presenting it to the Inspector prior to the subsequent appeal

·      Although residents would be able to choose their energy suppliers on the open market, it is considered that electrical heating is going to be more expensive than other forms of heating

·      Heat hierarchy measures should have been included in the design of the development from the start; it is considered that other forms of providing heat are technically feasible

·      All grant money is public sector funding; only S106 units are provided at the developer’s expense

·      If individual heat pumps were provided these could be switched off; this is more difficult to do if a communal heating system is provided

·      An air quality assessment has been undertaken which concludes that the effects of local traffic on the air quality for future residents would be acceptable; the development is set back from Bath Road by circa 8 metres

·      The relationship between Blocks A and B is not considered to be acceptable, Block B would be located between 2 and 13 metres from the rear elevation of Block A of which both elevations feature windows. The proposed distance between flats would be unacceptable and would result in unacceptable levels of overlooking for future occupiers. The amenity value of the courtyard space between Block A and Block B is also considered to be compromised

·      There are no specific rules about the density of developments, the Bath Road site is 0.7 hectares in area, this site was allocated for 85 dwellings in the Local Plan, which would be 121 dwellings per hectare; the pre-application enquiry was for 121 dwellings, which would be 172 dwellings per hectare; the application is for 146 dwellings which is 209 dwellings per hectare

Debate:

·      Members had various concerns about a number of aspects relating to the application including the heating system proposed, the relationship between Blocks A and B, and aspects of the design

·      It was noted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

Councillor Stevens did not participate in this item.

The Head of Development Management and his representative gave a presentation and summarised the report for this item. The application is for the partial demolition of a modern brick rear wall and construction of 2 storey building for use as a 6 bedroom HMO (sui generis student use) with associated refuse and cycle storage.

         There were no questions from Members for Officers.

           Debate:

·           There were concerns about policy DM2 not being complied with

Councillor Smith moved the Officer recommendation for approval of the application.

Councillor Goggin seconded this Motion and on being put to the Vote it was LOST (Voting 4 for, 5 against).

Committee members noted the decision making process diagram, which would usually lead to a motion to defer if members were minded to refuse, however members decided to not follow this approach.

Councillor Breckels moved refusal of the application on the grounds of Policy DM2 and over concentration of HMOs.

Councillor Davies seconded this Motion and on being put to the Vote it was

Resolved – (voting 5 for, 4 against) that the application be refused on the grounds of Policy DM2 and over concentration of HMOs.

The Head of Development Management and his representative gave a presentation and summarised the report for this item. The application is to convert the existing living accommodation over the garage to be self-contained.

Answers for clarification:

·      An application was approved earlier this year for the building which did not allow the property to be used as separate accommodation; this application is to remove this restriction and allow for the property to be used as separate residential accommodation

·      It is not known if the residents pay for the maintenance of the road as this is a civil matter and is not a planning matter

·      It would not be possible to add a condition preventing the premises being used as a holiday home

Debate:

·                       It is a prestigious building but there is nowhere to put the bins

·                       It would not be acceptable if it could not be restricted to being used as a dwelling

·                       The restriction on the property should not be lifted

·                       Concerns about parking

Councillor Goggin moved the Officer recommendation for approval.

Councillor Alexander seconded the Motion.

On being put to the Vote it was LOST (Voting 4 for, 6 against).

Councillor Smith moved that a decision on the application be deferred pending a receipt of a further report providing reasons for refusal including parking and bins.

Councillor Carey seconded this Motion.

The initial Vote was 5 for, 5 against the Motion. Councillor Alexander used his second (casting) vote to vote against so the Motion was LOST.

Councillor Stevens moved that the application be refused as it is not a suitable location due to waste and parking issues.

Councillor Windows seconded this Motion and on being put to the Vote it was

Resolved – (voting 6 for, 4 against) that the application be refused on the groundsthat it is not a suitable location due to waste and parking issues.

The next meeting is scheduled to be held at 2pm on Wednesday 30^th September 2020 as a remote zoom meeting.

It wasnoted that the next meetingwould be held as a remotezoom meeting at2.00 pm on Wednesday 30^th September 2020.