Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Steve Jones, Clive Stevens (Paula O’Rourke substituting) and Jo Sergeant (Harriet Bradley 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 Paula O’Rourke stated that, whilst Application Numbers 16/03473/F and 16/03474/LA (Goldney Hall) were in her ward, her fellow Ward Member had been dealing with this application. She, therefore, felt that she would be able to participate and vote on this issue.

To agree the minutes of the last meeting held on Wednesday 14^th June 2017 as a correct record.

The Committee agreed to include a reference to the view of the interior as an additional reason that Councillor Mead would be abstaining from the Empire Sports Club (223 Newfoundland Road) application (Paragraph 11).

Resolved – that the minutes of the above meeting be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair subject to the addition of the above reference.

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

Somerset House – Following the Inspector’s decision to dismiss this appeal on the grounds of amenity of neighbouring properties, officers had now received a letter from the Planning Inspector indicating that the Inspector should have also expressed concern over the setting of listed buildings. Officers indicated that to receive such a letter from the Inspectorate after a formal decision had been given was unusual.

Chocolate Factory – Officers referred to the Inspector’s decision on this issue. He drew members’ attention to the decisions made on 30^th November 2016 and 22^nd February in respect of this application as follows:

30^th November 2016 where a late offer of six affordable housing units had been reported but the £46,000 contribution towards bus stop enhancements had been withdrawn, the Committee’s decision was to defer pending:

(a)               further consultation with local stakeholders about the need for more affordable housing on the site including discussions about,

(i)     the possibility of a trade-off between the need for retaining the existing buildings and provision of further affordable housing on the site

(ii)  further analysis of the viability appraisal reports used in the assessment process as appropriate

(iii)negotiations with the developers about the mix of uses on site and potential flexibility with the site allocation policy

(b)                further discussions with the developers about parking and traffic

and, following an appeal by the applicant against non-determination, a further Committee decision on 22^nd February 2017 as follows:

1. That if the Committee had the power to determine the application it would have

GRANTED planning permission, subject to the obligations (including the delivery of 6

affordable units) set out in the report to committee on 30th November 2016 and the associated Amendment Sheet, to be secured by an agreement or undertaking under s106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990, and all of the proposed conditions;

2. That the Head of Development Management be authorised to advise the Planning Inspectorate of this resolution and that the Council does not intend to defend the Appeal.

Officers then confirmed that the decision had been made following written representations via an Inspector’s letter dated 28^th June 2017. He outlined the main points made by the Inspector as follows:

The Appeal was allowed as he felt that there was a consensus between the developer and the Council’s Independent Adviser which had concluded that it would not be commercially viable to provide affordable housing and gave significant weight to this. He had not been provided with any other substantive evidence to demonstrate that the provision of affordable housing would not be economically viable to provide any affordable housing would not render the scheme economically unviable. This led the Inspectorate to conclude that currently it would not be economically viable to provide any affordable housing on this site.

There had been significant concerns expressed regarding the additional traffic generated by the proposal and the issue of the parking availability, with the number of car parking spaces being marginally below the recommended standards.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

To note recent enforcement notices.

There were no enforcement notices served since the last meeting.

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 5 pm on Thursday 20^th July 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 25^th July 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.

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 each of the following Planning Applications.

The Committee considered the following Planning Applications.

Felling of 31no. trees, removal of section of wall to create vehicle access from Randall Road, creation of temporary track and contractors compound, insertion of drilled piles to stabilise land. Subsequent site restoration including removal of temporary track and compound, compensatory tree planting and repair and rebuild of southern boundary wall and section of eastern boundary wall.

The representative of the Service Director (Planning and Development) introduced the report and made the following points:

(1)   There were a lot of works required to facilitate this development taking place. Control would be given by the Local Planning Authority to ensure that this takes place;

(2)   Details of the consultation were set out in the amendment sheet;

(3)   Photos showing the collapsed wall were provided

(4)   Felling of trees was required

(5)   Of the application was approved, Condition 17 would require a construction method statement

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

(6)   It was proposed to strengthen the wall to reduce the likelihood of any further collapse;

(7)   The application for consideration (including the wall) was as indicated in the report

(8)   It would not be possible to extend Randall Road to the adjoining parking zone since this was outside the Planning Act. This would not be enforceable off the back of a Planning Application. However, officers indicated that they could report back to Councillors to confirm whether or not the applicants were prepared to give consideration to this as part of a Management Plan;

(9)   It would not be possible to add a condition limiting the size of the wall. The protection of the listed wall was a statutory duty and had been approved by Bristol City Council’s Conservation Team and Historic England;

(10)                       The sign at Randall road indicating that HGV’s were unsuitable was noted. It was acknowledged that this was not an ideal situation;

(11)                       The suggestion that smaller vehicles are used was noted. However, it would depend on the material being transferred. In addition, the proposed lorry size would avoid the disruption period being unnecessarily being extended. Members’ attention was also  drawn to the Construction Management Plan which would arrange deliveries at certain times and keep disruption at a minimum

(12)                       The suggestion of a condition to ensure safety for schools by limiting deliveries to certain times was noted. Officers confirmed that they could arrange this with the applicant

Councillors made the following comments:

(13)                       It was clear that officers had considered all possible alternatives and come up with the best solution;

(14)                       There was no alternative to the proposal. However, the size of the lorries that would be used remains a concern;

(15)                       It was clear that the works were required. The proposal was the least worst option available.

It was moved by Councillor Kye Dudd, seconded by Councillor Harriet Bradley and, upon being put to the vote,

Resolved (unanimously) - that the recommendations contained in the report be approved.

Proposed Development for the complete renovation and conversion of the existing Grade II listed building, Empire Sports Club into 22no. flats. Demolition of the existing infill lean-to building in the middle of the site, and the modification of gated boundary to the existing building to accommodate new entrances to the proposed housing (major Application)

The Service Director (Planning and Development) introduced the report and made the following points:

(1)   This application had been approved at the last meeting on 14^th June 2017 subject to clarity regarding future residents’ eligibility to the Residents’ Parking Scheme (RPS) being reported to the Agenda Meeting and if necessary the full Committee. Whilst the Secretary of State did not want to call in this application, the issue of enforceability of the RPS scheme needed to be further discussed;

(2)   Members’ attention was drawn to the  Amendment Sheet which proposed an advice note as a means of addressing the issues that had been raised following the investigation into the RPS parking issues;

(3)   The application was in a very accessible location in the City Centre;

(4)   The provision of cycle facilities in the development was an effective means of meeting the policy requirement for appropriate cycle parking;

(5)   The capacity for the RPS was approximately 67%. However, so far only 750 permits had been issued out of 2,300. Therefore, based solely on this figure there would be capacity within the RPS to accommodate the additional vehicles associated with 22 residential dwellings

(6)   However, this does not reflect the actual situation as it should be noted that the parking restrictions are only enforced between 9am to 5pm Monday to Friday. As a consequence outside of these hours and at weekends there are likely to be additional vehicles parked. Furthermore due to the proximity of the city centre there is an element of people parking in this location to utilise the facilities of Cabot Circus in the evening. It is, therefore, likely that the actual capacity will be much lower than the 67% set out above;

(7)   The usual advice note and the proposed amended one relates to the proposal being treated as a car free/low car use development. As such it should be noted that it would be ineligible for parking permits. Although this advisory  is meant to control and regulate vehicle ownership in the RPS, it can only control vehicle parking within the restricted hours. As a consequence vehicle owners which operate outside these ie utilise their car between 9am to 5pm will still be able to park outside of these times. Therefore, it has the potential not to deter car users from this location. Also, the existing RPS TRo wording does not give the Council as Transport Authority sufficient power to reject permit applications from occupiers of new developments;

(8)   Resident Parking Schemes are to be reviewed with Local members and amended TROS may come forward, for example relating to hours of control. Any new TROs are planned to be in place by April 2018 and they won’t apply retrospectively. Whilst the development would have an Advice Note, this would only act as a deterrent since the TRO won’t be in place.

(9)   In view of the accessible location of the site and the existing available capacity, officers did not believe the impact would be significant and were,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

Erection of a Passive house: Sustainable 5-bedroom family home.

The representative of the Service Director (Planning and Development) introduced the report and made the following points:

(1)   He referred Councillors to additional consultation that had been received concerning this application, in addition to a note of clarification concerning Paragraph (G) (Arboricultural Issues) and clarification of the issue relating to materials;

(2)   Relevant plans indicating the proposed site

(3)   Officers proposed that the application be refused on the grounds that the site was within a designated Important Open Space, would be harmful to the character and appearance of the conservation area and that the further access would be detrimental to the site and affect the amenities of properties at 133 and 135 Newfoundland Road;

(4)   The property would be over 7 metres in height and consisting of 5 bedrooms;

(5)   Officers did not believe that public benefit outweighed harm to the site.

In response to questions from Councillors, officers made the following comments:

(6)   The Post Box would be re-located wherever possible. As this was not a Planning issue, it could not be addressed by officers;

(7)   Whilst the site would affect the Development Plan as it currently stood (since it was currently designated as an area of important open space), Councillors remained free to approve it contrary to this. However, Councillors were requested to give due weight to the existing plan and not to act in a way that would be premature, as Important Open Space designations would be reviewed as part of the forthcoming Local Plan review.

Councillors made the following comments:

(8)   There did not seem to be a significant amount of harm to the Conservation Area from this proposal. A family home would be less obtrusive than the previously approved flats. The application had been well thought through and was designed to only provide what the family needs. It would cause less than substantial harm;

(9)   The arguments concerning harm to amenity did not seem convincing. There was unlikely to be very much traffic arising from one house with a small access lane. In addition, the site was only 20 metres from Dundry and, therefore, there was green space nearby.

The Committee noted that the applicant had already arranged with Royal Mail to re-site the Post Box in the wall.

It was moved by Councillor Olly Mead, seconded by Councillor Mike Davies and, upon being put to the vote, it was

Resolved: (unanimously) – that the application be approved with appropriate conditions.

The next meeting is scheduled to take place at 2pm on Wednesday 6^th September 2017 in the Council Chamber, City Hall, College Green, Bristol.

It was noted that the next meeting was scheduled to be held at 2pm on Wednesday 6th September 2017.