Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed all parties to the meeting and explained the evacuation procedure in the event of an emergency.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Serena Ralston (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.

Councillor Zoe Peat indicated that one of the applications was within her ward but she was able to remain impartial throughout the decision process.

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

The chair noted that apart from some small typos, which had been changed, that he had requested no other amendments to be made to the minutes.

RESOLVED – that the minutes of the meeting held on 22nd January 2024 be approved 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.

Officers were thanked for the briefing. An inquiry was raised about how noise complaints are captured. Councillors requested a briefing from Planning on the use of capture systems and their application. It was noted that there is no centralised record of all issues, and a suggestion was made to refer the matter to the relevant policy committee.

An officer agreed to provide a briefing and confirmed that Pollution Control is consulted when assessing applications. A representative from Pollution Control clarified that complaints are handled by the Neighbourhood Enforcement Team, with other bodies such as the police and university also receiving reports. It was noted that views on retrospective applications are considered.

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

Jonathan Dymond highlighted item 69: The Old Tavern Blackberry Hill Bristol BS16 1DB as this application had been brought before the committee previously.

The committee noted the report.

To note recent enforcement notices.

The Committee noted the report.

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 Questions and Statements should be submitted via our webform:

www.bristol.gov.uk/publicforum

Petitions should be e-mailed to democratic.services@bristol.gov.uk

Please note that this meeting will be held on TUESDAY and therefore the public forum deadlines reflect this.

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 5 pm on Wednesday 26^th February 2025.

Petitions and Statements - Petitions and statements must be received 2 working days prior to the meeting.  For this meeting this means that your submission must be received in this office at the latest by 12.00 noon on Friday 28^th February 2025.

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 further questions, please see the Public Forum FAQ page.

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.

The Committee noted the written responses provided to the question on general development matters and noted the statements and speakers for each of the Planning Applications being considered at the meeting.

The Committee considered the following Planning Applications set out below:

Officers gave a presentation on this item and made the following comments:

·       The original planning application was approved in May 2024, permitting the redevelopment of the Premier Inn site on The Haymarket, Bristol, with partial demolition already completed?.

·       If this variation application (24/04048/X) was refused, the existing approved scheme under permission 23/02827/F would still remain valid?.

·       Slides presented during the committee meeting showcased the main changes, with a comprehensive list of amendments included in the report?.

·       The revised scheme eliminated smaller, floor-specific amenity spaces in the co-living block, consolidating them into a dedicated amenity space on the ground floor and two top floors (Levels 16 and 17). This reconfiguration also involved the removal of all private balconies, replaced with full-height side-hung windows, allowing the addition of 18 more studio units (increasing from 132 to 150)??.

·       The total internal amenity space for the development would be just over 1,200 square metres, still meeting the London Plan standard of 3.6 sqm per unit. External amenity space at roof level would be approximately 110 sqm, with a focus on usability and integration into the public realm?.

·       External changes to Block A (student accommodation) included replacing solid spandrel panels with louvres on upper floors (Levels 13-14 and 23-27), using back-painted glass insulated panels to reduce solar gains, and adding access doors to roof areas for plant maintenance. The plant enclosure would transition from solid metal cladding to a louvred façade, improving ventilation?.

·       Block B (co-living units) featured similar façade treatments, additional cycle and bin storage at basement level, and a new firefighting stair extending from basement to ground level. Louvres were added to the ground floor of the northern façade to ventilate the café?.

·       Both buildings underwent structural changes, including a 3m offset from the existing highway retaining wall in the basement and a reduction of curved glazing panels at the ground level. Additional smoke shafts and risers were also introduced for fire safety?.

·       An additional clause to the Section 106 agreement was recommended, increasing the financial contribution to the Travel Plan to £35,948 (£16,500 for co-living and £19,448 for the student element) due to the increased occupancy?.

·       The proposed scheme included significant s106 contributions.

·       Noise management included a revised noise assessment introducing purge ventilation, with comfort cooling as a mitigation measure.

·       Environmental and sustainability measures involved a Sustainable Drainage Strategy (SuDS) still under review and compliance with BREEAM ‘Excellent’ certification requirements is agreed?.

·       While the updated design was acknowledged to be more cluttered, officers concluded that the benefits, including housing delivery, public realm improvements, economic impacts, and heritage benefits, outweighed the disadvantages?.

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

·       Heritage Asset Concerns: The reason for potential refusal of the application is linked to harm to heritage assets. Officers assessed that while the removal of balconies may reduce the clutter of the structure,  the changes to the windows would increase clutter. However, the primary impact on heritage assets  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9a

An Officer gave a presentation on this application which included the following points:

·       The application sought to vary Conditions 7 (Operating Hours) and 8 (Vehicle Noise) of planning permission 92/01535/P.

·       The proposed amendments would extend operating hours, with activities between 05:00–07:00 and 19:00–22:00 (Monday–Friday) and 05:00–07:00 (Saturday) restricted to inside the workshop.

·       Restrictions on audible reversing signals during sensitive hours would remain in place.

·       A total of 148 neighbours were consulted, with 40 objections received raising concerns over noise pollution, light pollution, and vehicle movements in residential areas.

·       Two letters of support were submitted.

·       Pollution Control raised no objection to the variation, with a revised noise assessment and management plan considered acceptable.

·       Transport Development Management raised no objection, confirming that transport impacts on the Portway were outside the scope of the application.

·       Officers considered the proposed amendments acceptable and recommended approval.

In response to Committee Members’ questions, officers provided answers as follows:

·       A total of 40 objections were received prior to the proposed changes, with no objections submitted since the revisions were made.

·       It was noted that this case demonstrated how amendments could be made in response to objections, and officers were thanked for their work.

·       No additional consultation was carried out following the changes, but no objections were raised by officers.

·       Concerns were raised about the potential increase in floodlighting, but officers confirmed that the application only sought to vary noise conditions and did not include changes to lighting.

·       Questions were raised regarding restrictions on HGV routes to prevent them from using residential roads for turning. Officers confirmed that no such restrictions were in place and that this application only covered noise conditions. It was also noted that extended opening hours would not apply to the entire fleet.

·       Reference was made to existing planning conditions related to turning space and lighting, which were already in place.

·       Clarification was sought on how the conditions would be enforced. Officers confirmed that enforcement would follow standard procedures, with potential breaches investigated through a planning enforcement case, which could lead to a breach of condition notice if necessary.

·       The management plan was discussed, with confirmation that it included measures such as keeping roller shutters closed but did not address any original issues.

Committee Members made the following comments:

·       As Pollution Control had raised no objections, there were no grounds for refusal on this basis.

·       It was noted that the management plan was not available on the planning portal under the case documents.

·       The application was highlighted as a good example of how concerns could be addressed through revisions.

·       It was confirmed that the management plan would be conditioned as part of the approval and this was delegated to officers.

Councillor Rob Bryher moved, seconded by Councillor Al Al-Maghrabi and upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously) – that the application be approved subject to conditions set out in the report.

The date of the next meeting is scheduled for 6pm on Wednesday 16^th April 2025 in the Council Chamber, City Hall, College Green, Bristol

It was noted that the next meeting would be held at 6pm on Wednesday 16th April 2025 in the Council Chamber, City Hall, College Green, Bristol.