Agenda and minutes

All parties were welcomed to the meeting.

The Committee is requested to note that Councillor Richard Eddy was appointed as Chair of the Development Control A Committee for 2021/22 Municipal Year by Annual Full Council at its meeting on Tuesday 25^th May 2021.

The Committee noted that Councillor Richard Eddy had been elected as chair of Development Control A Committee for 2021/22 Municipal Year by Annual Full Council at its meeting on Tuesday 25^th May 2021.

The Committee is requested to note that Councillor Don Alexander was appointed as Vice-Chair of the Development Control A Committee for 2021/22 Municipal Year by  Annual Full Council at its meeting on Tuesday 25th May 2021.

The Committee noed that Councillor Don Alexander has been elected as Vice-Chair of the DCA Committee for 2021/22 Municipal Year by Annual Council at its meeting on Tuesday 25^th May 2021.

The membership of the Development Control A Committee for 2021/22 Municipal Year is set out below:

Councillor Richard Eddy (Chair)

Councillor Don Alexander (Vice-Chair)

Councillor John Geater

Councillor Paul Goggin

Councillor Fi Hance

Councillor Tom Hathway

Councillor Phillipa Hulme

Councillor Ed Plowden

Councillor Andrew Varney

The membership of DCA Committee for 2021/22 Municipal Year was noted as follows:

Councillor Richard Eddy

Councillor Don Alexander

Councillor Fi Hance

Councillor Andrew Varney

Councillor John Geater

Councillor Paul Goggin

Councillor Tom Hathway

Councillor Philippa Hulme

Councillor Ed Plowden

The Terms of Reference for Development Control Committees are attached. These were approved by Full Council at its meeting on Tuesday 25^th May 2021.

The Terms of Reference of Development Control Committees were noted, as confirmed at Annual Council on Tuesday 25^th May 2021.

The Committee is requested to consider the following dates for future meetings of the 2021/22 Municipal Year:

(all at 2pm or 6pm on Wednesdays as indicated)

6pm on 11^th August 2021

2pm on 22^nd September 2021

6pm on 3^rd November 2021

2pm on 15^th December 2021

6pm on 2^nd February 2022

2pm on 16^th March 2022

6pm on 27^th April 2022

The Committee approved the following dates for future meetings of the Development Control A Committee for the remainder of the 2021/22 Municipal Year.

The Committee is requested to note that Councillor Tony Dyer is substituting for Councillor Fi Hance at this meeting.

The Committee noted apologies from Councillor Fi Hance (Tony Dyer substituting) and Councillor Paul Goggin (Councillor Chris Jackson substituting).

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 Tony Dyer declared an interest in Agenda Item 13(a) – Planning Application Number 20/05811/F – Plot 3, Dalby Avenue and Whitehouse Lane as he was the Director of the Bedminster area bid.

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

RESOLVED – that the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 28^th April 2021 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

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

Officers explained the process under which appeals operated and were brought to Development Control Committee meetings for information.

The Committee was updated concerning the following:

Items 12 and 13 – Land and Buildings on the South Side of Silverthorne Lane: These applications has been supported for approval by the Committee but called in to the Secretary of state following an objection from the Environment Agency. The Inspector had how heard all the evidence and the appeal had just concluded. This would be submitted to the Secretary of State for a decision to be made. The Committee would be advised as soon as the Local Authority had been advised of this situation.

Item 14 – Police Dog and Horse Training Centre, Clanage Road – Proposed Change of Use to Caravan Site - This decision had been called in by the Secretary of State. The Inquiry was scheduled to commence on 20^th July 2021.

Item 50 – 12 Lodge Causeway, Bristol – This appeal had been allowed but no costs were awarded against Bristol City Council.

To note recent enforcement notices.

Officers explained how the enforcement process worked.

The Committee noted that four enforcement notices had been served since May 2021.

Public Statements

Due to Covid Safety requirements we have put the following measures in place:

•            All attendees to Full Council are asked to have a Covid lateral flow test 24 hrs prior to the day of the meeting and show the results of a negative test. It’s important that you report the results of your test and that you get confirmation sent to your phone. Reception staff will ask to see this on the day of the meeting. If you have a positive test or if you develop any Covid 19 symptoms - high temperature, a new continuous cough, or a loss or change to your sense of smell or taste, you should book a test on GOV.UK and self-isolate while you wait for the results.

•            You are required to wear a face mask at all times unless you are exempt. Social distancing rules remain in place.

•            Members of the press and public who wish to attend City Hall are advised that you will be asked to watch the meeting on a screen in another room as due to the maximum occupancy of the venue.

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 24^th June 2021.

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 29^th June 2021.

Members of the public who wish 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 Monday 28^th June 2021.

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.

In accordance with previous practice adopted for people wishing to speak at Development Control Committees, please note that you may only be allowed 1 minute subject to the number of requests received for the meeting.

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.

The Committee is requested to consider the following planning applications:

The Committee considered the following applications below.

Officers presented this report and made the following arrangements:

·       Details of the site were outlined, including photos showing the site from various directions

·       One of the slides showing the site had been referred to in one of the Public Forum Statements

·       The site was split into two units – Unit A consisted of 3 to 9 storey buildings and a 33 student cluster, together with 145 square metres of social distancing and study space; Unit B consisted of 4 to 9 storey buildings with 49 student clusters and a social meeting space

·       There would be a biodiversity gain due to planting within the south of the property (40 trees of additional planting)

·       Details of the changes to the original application were shown

·       Consultation – there had been 79 original responses including 70 objections to the original proposal. There were 85 objections to the revised application

·       As part of the Bedminster Green framework, there was a humanised avenue along Dalby Avenue with enhanced cycle developments

·       Ground Floor – it was envisaged that there would be flexible ground floor space available

·       Building Heights – the Bedminster Green Framework gave indicative parameters for the Bedminster area

·       There would be no loss to existing employment from the proposal

·       The Environmental Health team expressed no concerns about the proposal

·       Housing was identified as of high demand in the area

·       University of Bristol supported the scheme

·       City design supported the proposed layout. It was noted that there would be tree planting and improved walking and cycling

·       The height, size and massing for the revised application was considered acceptable. Views from different locations were shown

·       Details of the various separation distances between the application and neighbouring buildings were shown

·       Historic England had raised some concerns about the proposal

·       Details of the proposed Section 106 agreement were set out, as well as the CIL funded works along Dalby Avenue. These would also include transport improvements

·       Daylight and Sunlight Amenity Study – All 9 areas assessed BRE guidelines. Rooms that did not meet the guidelines showed minor or very minor loss of sunlight. If there had been any concerns about the impact of the property on the neighbouring Windmill City Farm, officers would have required changes to the application

·       Flood Risk Drainage and Air Quality – these were all considered suitable subject to conditions

·       Sustainable Design and Construction – all requirements had been met

Therefore, officers recommended that the application is approved subject to a Planning Agreement, to officers being given delegated authority as required to finalise the wording of any conditions and to progressing the Section 106 agreement.

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

·       Details of Historic England’s objections were set out in further detail on Page 78 of the report. The organisation did not believe that it delivered the contextual approach that was required and that a more positive approach was needed to the historic environment in the area

·       Changes made to the original proposal were set out on the screen. These included  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

Officers introduced this report and made the following points during their presentation:

·       Details of the site were provided. It was noted that it had been vacant since 2008 and was currently a commercial shell which would require a great deal of work to return to active use

·       It was currently designated for Class E use, including for use as a café, restaurant, gym or office use

·       It was noted that it consisted of 2 storeys and was designated for town centre use under Policy DCM8

·       The application was outlined. It was explained that all external walls would be refurbished and that seating areas would be provided for customers. A roof terrace would be provided. There would be a lift on site, as well as two long corridors with service entrances. A floor extension was proposed for the area with the staircase.  Doors leading to the roof terrace were enclosed by walls to the south and east

·       A visualisation of how the building would look was provided showing new windows and lighting

·       There had been 241 objections to the application, with 59 supporting comments. Many nearby residents objected on noise grounds and some objected on parking grounds since there was no on site parking. Those who supported it did so on the grounds that it would bring a vacant building into use and provide jobs. Other pubs in Gloucester Road had been closed

·       The application needed to be assessed in land use terms rather than generic use

·       As the site was within the Gloucester Road Town Centre, it was accessible and would be served by very good public transport

·       Planning policy was now more flexible than in the past. It wouldn’t be harmful to shopping in the area. Once built, there would be under 4% public houses. A map showing public houses in the area indicated that it would be the fourth in this section of Gloucester Road and that there would remain a good mix of uses in the area. In addition, it would have wider benefits since it would create 50 full and part time jobs

·       The proposal for a public house was not a reason for refusal on planning grounds

·       Amenity – the application had been revised to seek permission for opening 0700 to 23:30 hours Sunday to Thursday and 0700 to 00:30 hours Friday and Saturday. It was proposed that the roof terrace would close at 9pm daily

·       There would be a site management plan with high security staff employed

·       A series of other measures to manage use would operate to reduce the level of noise on the roof terrace. An assessment of noise indicated that it would be lower than the World Health Organisation’s Annoyance Level, although noise nearby might be higher due to existing traffic. The noise level might be 2 decibels above background level for 2 properties near the site

·       Pollution Control had assessed the background levels of noise from proposed kitchen and extractor fans as being acceptable

·       Following various assessments, officers now believed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

Officers introduced this report and made the following comments during the presentation:

·       Details of the application and the site were shown, including photos from different locations

·       The application involved the demolition of an existing garage and replacement with a part single storey property

·       The height would increase form 3.6 to 5.3 metres

·       The property would be built from natural brick and would include timber cladding and a flat green roof with clay tiles and no windows on the side elevation

·       There would be a larger external amenity area

·       There had been 24 objections to the original proposal and there were continuing objections despite some revisions to the scheme

·       Objections included a concern that it would impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, an impact on the nearby St Xavier’s Church and a concern about the impact on trees and ecology

·       Objections to the application had been received from the former Councillor Lake and current Councillor Guy Poultney, as a result of which it had been brought to Committee for consideration

·       The principle of development was that this should take place on previously undeveloped land. It was acknowledged that this application would result in the loss of some garden land

·       The application is very close to the city centre. Overall officers were satisfied that this was a sustainable location and that a significant amount of private land would be retained at 6 Clyde Park

·       The development was in an established mews setting and was in an area characterised by this type of development within the Redland and Cotham Conservation Area. The principle of removing the garage and redesigning it was considered appropriate

·       Officers’ original concerns related to scale, height and materials but did not believe the current proposal would cause overly significant problems, since the 2 storey element was only slightly greater than the garage. The original boundary wall would be retained

·       Precedent – the building was already constructed but any application is assessed on its own individual merits. Officers were satisfied that the design and scale were appropriate to the setting and, following consultation with the City Design Team and Conservation Group, believed that the character and appearance of the Conservation Area would be preserved

·       There would be a significant separation distance between the property and nearby dwellings

·       The applicant had provided details of a section through the site which showed that the development would be only marginally bigger than the boundary wall and was set back. Officers believed that there was no harm in terms of overbearing and overshadowing

·       A privacy screen existed in the bedroom to the new property and a condition would be included to ensure this was kept in perpetuity

·       The Transport Development team had no objections subject to conditions. The development was in the Residents Parking Scheme area

·       An advice note would be attached to the scheme indicating that visitors are eligible for permits

·       A Management Plan would be secured by condition

·       Trees and Ecology – there were no objections subject to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

Subject to the decision made under the Agenda Item concerning Dates of Future Meetings, the next meeting is scheduled to be held at 6pm on Wednesday 11^th August 2021.

Following the approval of dates for 2021/22 Municipal Year, it was noted that the next meeting was scheduled for 6pm on Wednesday 11^th August 2021.