Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed all parties to the meeting and outlined the emergency evacuation procedure.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Ellie Freeman (Councillor Guy Poultney 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.

The committee noted that Agenda Item 9c Giant Goram, Barrowmead Drive, Bristol Planning Application Number 22/0607S/F was in the ward of Councillor Zoe Peat.

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

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

The Committee is requested to note any outstanding actions listed on the rolling Action Sheet for DCA Committee.

There were no outstanding actions from previous meetings.

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

The Committee noted that a number of additional appeals had been received by officers and that details would be provided at the next meeting.

Following a request by Councillor Richard Eddy concerning Item 84 (Station Road, Shirehampton, Bristol BS11 3TT – Redevelopment of the Site to Include Care Home With Associated Facilities, Works to Include Access, Parking and Landscaping – Appeal Upheld), officers agreed to provide details of this appeal and an update on the current situation to him and all ward Councillors. ACTION: Jonathan Dymond – added to Action Sheet

To note recent enforcement notices.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to enforcement notices issued in respect of HMOs.

Following questions from members of the Committee, Planning Officers confirmed the arrangements for assessments on whether or not to take enforcement action in particular circumstances.

The Committee noted that there would be a briefing in early 2025 concerning the local enforcement action in particular circumstances.

The Committee noted that there would be a briefing in early 2025 concerning the local enforcement plan and providing an overview of enforcement.

ACTION: Jonathan Dymond – to be included in the Action Sheet

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 17^th October 2024.

Petitions and Statements - Petitions and statements must be received two working days 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 Monday 21^st October 2024.

PLEASE NOTE THAT IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK AT THE COMMITTEE, YOU ARE REQUESTED TO INDICATE THIS WHEN SUBMITTING YOUR STATEMENT OR PETITION. ALL REQUESTS TO SPEAK MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A WRITTEN STATEMENT.

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.

If you have any futher questions, please see the Public Forum FAQ page on the Development Control Committee A page of the Bristol City Council website

https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s98400/Development%20Control%20Public%20Forum%20FAQ%202024.pdf

Members of the press and public who plan to attend a public meeting at City Hall are advised that you will be required to sign in when you arrive and you will be issued with a visitor pass which you will need to display at all times.

Questions – there were no supplementary questions.

Statements - the Committee noted all written statements and heard from those submitters who wished to speak. The following people spoken on behalf of those listed to speak with their agreement:

A2 – Andrew Smith (on behalf of Steve Bluff)

B1 – Keith Ettle (on behalf of Susan Strickland)

B3 – Norman Spalding (on behalf of Dave Redgewell)

B9 – Michael Orr (on behalf of Ben Larcombe)

C4 – Mary Page (on behalf of Jon Mackenzie)

To consider the following Planning Applications:

The Committee considered the following planning applications:

Officers gave the following presentation on this planning application:

·       Details of the redevelopment of Canningford House were provided, together with the proposed alterations to the old toilet block and the altered beer garden

·       The Committee was shown the on screen site location

·       Details of the existing site were provided and of the proposed reinstatement of Long Row as an historic route

·       Access to Long Row was shown, including a view from Temple Street and a site overview, side and front views and the Victoria Street frontage

·       51 objections had been received to the original application, together with 1 supporting comment. Most of the objections related to the impact on the public house, the loss of the garden and the viability of the pub

·       Following this, significant revisions had been made including improvements to the route to address concerns about public safety. 3 objections and 5 comments of support had subsequently been received with most concerns relating to the pub and some to the design

·       The existing office building was not fit for purpose and was not in good condition. The proposed development aligned with market trends for this sort of accommodation

·       The development would enhance movement of the area, provide a new toilet block and increase footfall past the pub

·       Historic England had raised concerns about the impact of the changes to the Victoria Street frontage and to the fact that the proposed office development would be visible in silhouette to the Grade 2 Listed Church. Bristol City Council had also raised concerns about this

·       However, whilst this was an area containing several heritage sites, it also contained modern development and was therefore also an area of change. Conservation believed that the less than substantial harm should be weighed against the benefits of the development such as an enhanced public realm and increased biodiversity gains. There would also be accessible toilet facilities and a rear door to help with access to the beer garden

·       Officers recommended both applications for approval, with the full office realm application requiring to be referred to the Secretary of State as a result of the objection from Historic England

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

·       A number of measures had been proposed to improve sustainability, including a heating system to connect to the local heat network and 200 square metres of solar panels. It was noted that, in the case of a development of this scale, it was difficult to get a 20% level of carbon reduction. In addition, the Section 106 provision would help to offset the 11% shortfall in this area

·       Planning policies did not specifically require prevention of overheating but the caron offset would help to achieve this

·       The 8 storey Temple Street was designed to align with buildings on the other side of the road and the 5 storey frontage was consistent with more modern developments along Victoria Street

·       The Secretary of State could either allow the development if the Committee voted to approve it or they  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9a

Officers gave the following presentation on this application:

·       There were two applications, including a full application and an associated listed building application

·       The listed building was a Grade 2 building and the residential area was part of the Stapleton Valley Conservation Area

·       Photographs of the existing site were shown. The public house was in a poor condition. The application proposed a change of use for conversation of the public house, a student block with 32 spaces and extension

·       The item had been referred to committee by the local Councillor

·       There had been 47 objections including two from local amenity groups. One of the main concerns had been the secondary loss of the public house, together with a concentration of student accommodation, highways concerns and the loss of the public house

·       The proposed site plan was shown. This was policy compliant

·       Three parking spaces would be used by students and would be controlled by condition. A parking survey had indicated there was insufficient capacity to meet demand. The site would be governed by a Management Plan and would include highway works

·       Officers recognised the issue of concentration of students and acknowledged that, whilst there was a demonstrable need for students in the area,  it was in excess of the 10% limit

·       In applying policies DM2 and BCS18, officers had assessed that the development would cause levels of activity involving excessive noise and disturbance and would have a detrimental impact on the building

·       It had not been demonstrated that a pub was not viable since there was a diverse range of public house provision within the area. As no public house was located within 800 metres of the proposed development, it would not comply with DM6. Both nearby public houses (Fishponds Tap and the Golden Lion) were in excess of 10 minutes from it. In addition, an isochrome gradient assessment had been made which indicated that this was significant for travel to the existing pubs

·       Since any development needed to be accessible to all members of the community, officers recommended refusal of the main application

·       Following conservation officer’s advice, the listed building application was assessed as causing less than substantial harm and therefore on the basis of this, it was now recommended for approval

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

·       UWE’s possible future plans for their campus could not be taken into account as part of this application which needed to be considered on the basis of the information submitted

·       Whilst Councillors’ views about other preferred options were noted, they were required to consider the application on its own merits

·       Councillor concerns were noted about people living on the road very close to heavy transport. However, an assessment of living accommodation had deemed this satisfactory with sufficient natural light and was comparable to other areas

·       The transport team had indicated that this development was wholly compliant whilst acknowledging some other issues such as a high concentration of students which did not breach the required policies. Officers’ only concerns  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9b

Officers gave a presentation on this application and made the following points:

·       This application had previously been considered at the last meeting on 4^th September 2024 and had been deferred on grounds of viability pending a further report back to this meeting

·       Following consultation, there had been 28 objections and 8 letters of support with the main reasons for objection being the loss of the pub, lack of housing, lack of community facilities, lack of community engagement, complaints that the pub had been deliberately run down to make it unviable and that a micro pub does not meet the needs of the community

·       The Committee was shown details of the north and south elevations of the proposed development and of a revision since the last meeting of an inclusion of outdoor seating with an indicative sketch showing the front elevation

·       A supplementary viability report had been submitted by the applicant with limited financial information and focusing on CAMRA viability only. Whilst this had stated that there would be lower financial risks, there was no further evidence for the viability of Giant Goram

·       The officers’ view assessed whether it met the needs of DM6 and had recommended approval but had indicated there was not sufficient evidence to confirm whether or not it was economically viable

·       Whilst there were some negative aspects of the development which were highlighted by officers in the report (the loss of the existing building, the loss of the public house, conflict with the Neighbourhood Development Plan), officers considered that the development outweighed harm. Their view was that it complied with the relevant policies and was of public benefit with the creation of 8 new dwellings, providing sustainability, mixed usage on the site and would bring a long-term vacant site back into use

·       It was also noted that there had been no alternative proposal on the site since 2019. Officers recommended approval of the development

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

·       Officers were aware of a ministerial statement made last year that if committees vote against officer recommendations to approve an application, the Secretary of State would report instances where this had happened and to remind councils that such instances should be rare and infrequent

·       The CAMRA test only applied concerning the viability of the existing facility

·       The two tests for viability of an established pub had not been met – there was no evidence for viability or of alternative provision

·       It would be outside the scope of planning permission to compel any developer to operate a full pub on the site. For the purposes of the assessment of the development, a micro pub was a pub

·       The design evaluation indicated that it was in keeping with the wider street scene albeit with a slightly higher corner plot. The pub was set back into the site so it does not maximise the impact of the development

·       Whilst the micro pub may not have some elements of a full pub (ie a skittle  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9c

The next meeting is scheduled to tke place at 2pm on Wednesday 4^th December 2024 in the Council Chamber, City Hall, College Green, Bristol.

The Committee noted that the next meeting is scheduled to be held at 2pm on Wednesday 4^th December 2024 in the Council Chamber, City Hall, College Green, Bristol.