Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Lesley Alexander and Councillor Steve Pearce.

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 Clive Stevens indicated that he had raised the issue of loss of trees at Grove Road in 2013. However, the issue had been addressed and he did retain an open mind on this application.

Councillor Jo Sergeant declared an interest in respect of Grove Road but indicated that she would be leaving the meeting before this item was considered.

To agree the minutes of the last meeting on 5^th April 2017 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.

Item 2 – Somerset House. The hearing for this appeal was held on Wednesday 10^th May. The Inspector was expected to make a decision within 10 weeks.

Item 14 – Chocolate Factory – This appeal would be determined with written representations.

To note recent enforcement notices.

In response to a question from Councillor Harriet Bradley concerning a site at Saint Johns in Brislington East, the Service Manager (Development Management) stated that he would investigate this issue and report back.

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 11^th May 2017.

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 16^th May 2017.

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.

The Committee received 21 Public Forum statements. The Statements were heard before the application they relate to and were taken fully into consideration by the Committee prior to reaching a decision.

To consider the following Planning Applications

The Committee considered the applications et out below.

Variation of Condition 1 and Condition 6 attached to planning permission 13/01140/X : to allow use of land for controlled overflow car parking by Bristol

Zoo Gardens for a period of 3 years.

Agenda Item 7 (a) – Planning Application Number 16/06311/X – Land Off Ladies Mile

Councillor Mike Davies arrived after the Public Forum session for Ladies Mile had started and so took no part in this item.

Officers made the following points as part of their presentation:

(1)        Details of the layout of the site and the application history were provided;

(2)        The number of days for which permission had been granted was gradually decreasing: 55 days in 2014 and 45 days in 2016, with the current application seeking 40 days in 2017, 35 days i9n 2018 and 30 days in 2019;

(3)        There had been a very large public response to the proposals (approximately 915) with 456 written comments against. Late representations had been received from Business West, Avon Wildlife Trust and a joint submission from five organisations: Downs for People; Bristol civic Society; Open Spaces Society; the Ramblers’ and the Redland and Cotham Amenities Society;

(4)        A revised Travel Plan had been prepared in April 2017;

(5)        Issues that needed to be considered included the principle of allowing car parking on the Downs, access and movement and the impact of tourism on Bristol;

(6)        It was acknowledged that permanent use would be unacceptable;

(7)        Since 2009, the hoped for modal shift had not been achieved. The main zoo clientele were young families who needed to park close to the zoo;

(8)        The number of visitors by bus was disappointing, although the zoo was now offering a new concession of a 33% discount if travelling by bus;

(9)        The zoo estimated that the loss of overspill could cause a downturn on current revenue and was an important visitor attraction for the city;

(10)      The zoo had indicated that this will be the last time they apply for temporary car parking. This, together with the gradual reduction in the number of days requested and a commitment to review travel plans annually, showed good will on their part;

(11)      A bespoke Park and Ride scheme had been introduced in Summer 2014 but had very low usage – less than 25% (about 4 people). In 2015/16, route 901 had been funded to travel from the Portway to the Zoo (including subsidy on Sundays and Bank Holidays);

(12)      Other incentives were being considered and analysis of traffic measures also had taken place – however, the turnover of buses to get people to the zoo was not viable. There was not sufficient turnover of people using buses to make current use viable;

In response to Councillors’ questions, officers made the following points:

(13)      It was noted that Bristol Zoo paid £7,500 per annum to the Downs Committee for the temporary use. Officers stated that the amount of rent paid by the zoo was not a material planning consideration and that the Committee must not blur its responsibilities with those of the Downs Committee. The zoo estimate that they would lose £500,000 in income from visitors who use the temporary car parking;

(14)      A day bus  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

Conversion from Dental Surgery (Use Class D1) and 1 self contained flat to a House in Multiple Occupation (Sui- generis)

Agenda Item 7 (b) – Planning Application Number 17/00984/F – 248 Wells Road

Officers provided site details as part of their presentation for this application. In response to Councillors’ questions, they made the following points:

(1)        It was a requirement that the application does not harm the residential amenity or character of the area, contribute to harmful uses in the city or change the housing mix;

(2)        An assessment of the balance of the communities had been made. There were 30 HMO’s in Knowle, amounting to 4.5% of the total housing which was not significant;

(3)        Officers did not believe the application could  be refused on the basis of the impact of local car parking;

(4)        Officers outlined the various types of change of use which would require planning permission;

(5)        Officers advised against conditioning the site to the current applicant rather than the land since the occupants could not be controlled.

Councillors made the following points:

(6)        This seemed a reasonable place for such a development since it was based on a main road with a regular bus service and had space for adequate waste and recycling storage;

(7)        This was a reasonable area for HMO use.

It was moved by Councillor Kye Dudd, seconded by Councillor Clive Stevens and, upon being put to the vote, it was

Resolved: (unanimously) that the application is approved.

Application to vary conditions 6 (Reptile Method Statement), 8 (Bird/Bat boxes), 9 (Badger Protection) and 22 (Listed of Approved Plans) attached to consent granted under app. No. 13/05391/F - proposed amendment to conditions 6, 8 and 9 to comply with approved plan and amended plans to reflect changes to development (Condition 22).

Agenda Item 7(c) Planning Application Number 16/05169/X – 24 Grove Road

Councillor Chris Windows declared an interest in this item since his daughter in law worked at Aspect 360 and indicated that he would not participate in this item.

Officers made the following points in respect of this application:

(1)        This application had been brought forward by the applicant to regularise the development and was a variation. It should be treated as a fresh application;

(2)        It was a large dwelling – the biggest change from the original application was floor space and the building area.

In response to Councillors’ questions, officers made the following points:

(3)        This was a fresh application and had to be taken on its own merits. However, it was a key material consideration that in April 2014 a particular type of development was approved. Therefore, the comparison of that with the current proposed development is important;

(4)        All trees on the site were covered by TPO’s. An application to remove the Yew Tree had been refused and it was officer’s intention that it should remain in place. Since the development included a car port and not a garage, it would not disturb the roots of the Yew Tree very much;

(5)        Officers noted Councillors’ frustration that the developer had built a property that was completely different to what had been applied for and also that, if no action was taken, it could allow developers to think that they could take a similar course of action in future. However, a breach of planning control was not a criminal offence. There was no mechanism to punish applicants in such situations, although applicants were made aware that pursuing this course of action was at their own risk;

(6)        In the past, compliance officers were only ever to address a small percentage  of developments taking place and so this problem may not have been picked up in the past, until complaints were made. Since there were no longer any compliance officers, the Planning Enforcement Team’s response was entirely reactive and primarily reliant on being advised of situations by neighbours;

(7)        Officers recommended approval based on the application they had received. It was acceptable on planning grounds – the concerns officers had held about the trees had been resolved.

Councillors made the following points:

(8)        It was worrying that this could set a precedent for future applications and sent the wrong signal;

(9)        It is not right that there is one law for developers and one law for others – it was important that there should be justice and fairness in such situations;

(10)      Whilst it was frustrating that this had happened, it might be incompetence rather than deliberate. Following the work on the application made by Planning Officers, this was a reasonable scheme;

(11)      There was a concern about the blocking of light to one of the neighbouring properties. The possibility of knocking down this section of the proposed property should be considered. In response, officers confirmed that under  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61a

There are no further meetings fixed for the remainder of the 2016/17 Municipal Year.

The Committee noted that there were no further meetings for the remainder of the Municipal Year.