Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcome those present and explained the process to be followed on hearing of each application.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Windows who was substituted by Cllr Eddy.

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.

Cllr Clive Stevens advised that he would step down from Committee at the start of the debate on 18.02902.F Land North Side of Belgrave Hill

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

Resolved – that the minutes of the above meeting be approved as correct record and signed by the Chair.

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

The Head of Development Management referred to the following items on the Appeal schedule;

1.     Item 10 – Old Bristol Royal Infirmary Building: The current position was that the appeal had been withdrawn; the Council had applied for costs against Unite, the Inspectorate felt that Unite had behaved unreasonably so agreed that a formal claim for costs could be made.

2.     Item 11 – 8-10 Station Road Shirehampton: Appeal against refusal; The Inspectorate supported the Council’s position and dismissed the appeal.

a.     Members asked whether costs were recoverable: the principle of appealing is that both parties cover their own cost but an award of cost can be made if a party is deemed to have acted unreasonably.

To note recent enforcement notices.

The Head of Development Management referred committee to the Enforcement notices drawing attention to:

·       A noticed served to remove an advert that had been on display far beyond the designated time.

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:-

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 12.00 noon on Tuesday 8^th January 2019.

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 considered the following Planning Applications

Prior to the commencement of public forum Cllr Clive Stevens stepped down from Committee in order to present his statement in opposition.

The representative of the Head of Development Management made the following points by way of introduction:

a.      The application  had been deferred from 17^th October 2018 committee and Officers were recommending that the application is granted subject to conditions.

b.      Committee were reminded of the proposal details and were shown the site photographs and plans 

c.      The revised report addressed the issue of; the space requirements for the development; provides an extend view on the land stability in line with policy

d.      The previous application was granted in 2014 subject to conditions

e.      The Local Planning Authority instructed a specialist engineering geologist consultant (Arup) to review the information submitted by the developer.  They found that the developers had addressed the risk relating to land instability.

f.       Drainage issue:  it is proposed to construct a new drain between the properties within its design using specialist mesh to prevent blockage from leaf fall.

g.      Rock fall: the development included a concrete roof in mitigation

h.      Emergency vehicle access: Committee raised concerns about how an emergency vehicle, fire engine, would access the site along a narrow road, further restricted by park cars. 

i.       Highways service sent a case officer to visit the road and consider whether it met the standards outlined in the Manual for Streets Guidance on the key requirements for the fire service access.

j.       The Officer considered the 3.7m kerb to kerb; the allowable reduction to 2.m for an appliance to reach a dwelling; fire pump appliance within 45m of single houses.

k.      The findings are detailed in full in the report that the road met the requirements but that the road was impacted by the vehicles parked along it.  Removing on street parking along Belgrave Hill under a Traffic Regulation Order(TRO) to provide double yellow lines would resolve the issue.  This would allow unimpeded access to the site by Emergency vehicles but would result in the loss of approximately 9 -parking spaces; the Resident Parking Zones would need to be re-evaluated as part of the process.

Member questions for Clarification

l.       Clarification was sought on the issue of the TRO and impact on parking spaces; Officers were unable to state with certainty the exact numbers of spaces that would be lost; neither could they say that the RPZ would be implemented because it must be agreed by those living along Belgrave road.

m.    Officers advised that as Members raised the issue of the access to the development for emergency vehicles, if they were not satisfied that guidance had been met it would be reasonable grounds to refuse the application.  Advised that the impact of the re-evaluation of the RPZ could be considered by members.  The planning inspectorate accept that any mitigation by the developer would have to be done in partnership with the Council.

n.      When asked whether the Fire Service could have access if  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20a

The representative of the Head of Development Management made the following points by way of introduction:

a.      That the application is for the creation of a mixed development of 67 residential dwellings, with landscaping and parking and associated works; on the former site of Kellaway Building Suppliers and Winterstoke garage land.

b.      The development will deliver 100% affordable Housing managed by United Communities Housing Association.

c.      The site is accessed from Luckwell Road and Winterstoke Road via a private access lane to the Winterstoke Centre, also Lynwood Road which is a no through road providing access to site and current Winterstoke Centre loading bay.

d.      The public consultation has resulted in a number of issues but the prominent issue concerned the shared access & loading bay area between the residential development and the Winterstoke Centre.

e.      The report addresses the issues brought to the attention of planning but clarification was provided by Transport Development Management, that the Winterstoke Centre has a right of access;  a unrestricted right to wait to load and unload but this does not include a right to park.  This right of access will be retained as part of the application and the existing Winterstoke Centre loading bay improved and extended. The land however will not be adopted by the Council as a consequence the two parties, that is the Developer and the Winterstoke Centre will need to negotiate a way forward as the issues are deemed to be a private law matter.

f.       Officers were recommending approval with the Conditions outlined and the section 106 settlement.

Members questions for Clarification

g.      Clarification was sought on the bus stop on Marsh lane;  the bus stop because of its location could not facilitate the installation of a shelter because of the potential loss of land on the development and therefore would not have real time information displayed.  Members queried this, citing a number of bus stops without shelters throughout the City that did have real time information with a new bus shelter.   Officers confirmed that they would look into this.

h.      Question was asked on whether committee could condition the way a large lorry accessed the loading bay at the Winterstoke Centre.  The Highways Officer confirmed that there is a right of access and a right to load and unload but no conditions were possible.

i.       Members queried the use of private contractors to collect the waste; the on cost to residents of the affordable housing development;  Committee were advised that Bristol Waste did not collect refuse and recycling from an unadopted highway.

Member Debate

j.       Cllr Stevens: noted that unload and loading at the Winterstoke Centre may require a vehicle to be on the access road for up to 3 hours. 

k.      Cllr Eddy: Considered the development positively as it delivered 100% affordable housing which was unique as some development failed to deliver the required 20%.  The development was in a sustainable location; good bus and cycle route; no negative impact on existing residential properties; only one issue  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20b

The representative of the Head of Development Management made the following points by way of introduction:

a.      The application is for the creation of containerised self-storage facility with ancillary office, with altered access and associated car parking.  The application had been revised following comments made by the Local Planning Authority.

b.      Plans with photos and 3-D imagery of the proposed development was shown allowing committee to view the boundary wall, formation of the stacked containers and impact on neighbouring properties.

c.      Following local consultation concerns were raised over noise from the site and increase traffic flow along local residential roads into the site.

d.      The previous consent granted for the site, was for office and associated warehousing.

e.      The self-storage would run along the lines of similar business in that users must sign a contract to use the site, agreeing to the terms & conditions for use; in addition users would be requested to confirm that the containers would not be used to store any hazardous combustible material or substances and/or explosives substances.

f.       Officers were recommending approval as the current application was similar in nature to the previous permission granted.

Members questions for Clarification

g.      Concerns were raised about lighting the facility at night and the nuisance this could cause residents.  Officers advised that the scheme could not commence until a report detailing the lighting scheme and predicted illuminance levels at neighbouring residential properties had been submitted and approved.

h.      Members asked whether the types of vehicles entering the site could be conditioned and were advised that this was not possible.

i.       Concerns were raised about the impact on residents during the construction period and Officers provided reassurance that such matters would be outlined in the Management Plan required by a condition.

j.       Questions arose relating to the previous application that was granted and Members sought to know the reason why it was not implemented.

k.      Concerns was raised over the public realm and amenity and many saw no benefit of the application to local residents wondering if any alternative was possible.

l.       Officers advised that the previous application was a material consideration for determining the current application.  The previous application was granted in 2011 for the site to be used as offices and commercial storage.  The site has remained vacant following a fire in March 2013.

m.    Chair reminded members that the applicants is seeking to use the site for storage that is similar to previous warehousing application granted and were unable to consider any alternatives as that was not before committee for consideration.

n.      Officers confirmed that no developer, to date, have submitted a housing scheme for the site  and no application for use had been refused. 

Members Debate

o.     Cllr Carey: noted that the site had been sold for a specific purpose and that the applicants were within their rights to make this application.

p.      Cllr M Davies: Commented that there was a rise in the number of self-storage units across the City and that he believed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20c

The Head of Development Management made the following points by way of introduction:

a.      The application was for the proposed demolition of existing extension and erection of replacement single storey rear extension.

b.     The application had been brought to committee because the applicant was a Bristol City Council Planning Officer and to avoid any question of bias the process outlined in the  Member and Officer Code of Conduct had been implemented.

c.      The plans and photograph of the site and re-design was shared with committee.

d.     There were no objections.

e.      The matter had been considered by an independent consultant to prevent interaction between the applicant and any other Officer.

f.       Officers recommend approval subject to conditions.

Members question of Clarification

g.      There were none

Member Debate

h.     There was none

i.       Cllr M Davies proposed that the application be granted subject to officer conditions.  Seconded by Cllr Eddy.

j.       On being put to the vote

Resolved (11 for and 0 against) unanimous decision that the application be granted subject to conditions.

The next meeting: 27^th February 2019.