Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies were received from Councillor Olly Mead.

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 following were received and noted:

Councillor Stephen Clarke stated that Application No. 18/04367/F – 1 to 3 Ashton Road (The Old Brewery) is in his Ward. He also stated that in relation to Application No. 18/05390/F – Mooring North of Pero’s Bridge, Narrow Quay, he has a small number of shares in the ferry company (worth about £100). This was too small to be disclosed as a pecuniary interest and, following advice, he felt that was also not a non-pecuniary interest under the Council’s Code of Conduct.

Councillor Mark Wright stated that he had submitted a Public Forum Statement in relation to 18/05390/F – Mooring North of Pero’s Bridge, Narrow Quay and would not participate in the Item.

Councillor Clive Stevens stated that Application No, 18/05051/F – 7 High Street is in his Ward. He called in a previous application for this site which was withdrawn. He has since facilitated conversations between residents and the applicant, the proposals have changed, and he had not pre-determined the application.

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

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

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

He also drew Members attention to the appeal decision concerning ND6 Temple Quay. The appeal was upheld but costs were not awarded.

The Planning Obligations Manager described the key issues and the reasons for the appeal being upheld.

The question of the Council pursuing a legal challenge in relation to the appeal decision was raised. The Head of Development Management stated that, whilst a legal challenge did not readily seem likely, this is an issue that could be raised with colleagues in Legal Services. It was considered that a more fruitful approach would be to  write to the Planning Inspectorate concerning the appeal decision seeking clarification on the weight to be given in future to the NPPF and the RICS guidance on valuations.

To note recent enforcement notices.

The Head of Development Management introduced the report and summarised it for everyone.

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item *Democratic Services Officer check time limit for your particular Committee*

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 *name deadline date*

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 *name deadline date*.

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

The Head of Development Management and his representative presented this item highlighting the following:

·                     This is a full application for the demolition of existing buildings and a development including residential dwellings,  office accommodation, flexible  commercial space, car parking, etc

·                     A full description of the site and the application

·                     The nature conservation officer has requested that an additional Condition be added requiring bird boxes

·                     The Key Issues including Affordable Housing

·                     Responses to the consultation

·                     The reasons for recommending approval of the application

The Planning Obligations Manager explained the viability and affordable housing issues.

Answers to questions

·                     This application had been withdrawn from the Agenda for the previous Meeting as an issue over land ownership had arisen at a late stage; this has now been investigated and resolved as far as Planning issues are concerned, and a new ownership certificate has been issued in relation to the application

·                     An adjacent bus stop will be moved to accommodate the zebra crossing; another bus stop on the other side of the road will be slightly altered

·                     A viability review has been carried out and assessed by the Council’s advisors

·                     Building K is for commercial use and the applicant is happy to accept a Condition that restricts office use

·                     The S106 Agreement will include a viability review after 18 months if development does not commence

Debate

·                     There are other buildings of similar height in the area; there is no reason to refuse this application

·                     Most aspects of the scheme are satisfactory, including the positive re-use of heritage assets, although there are some concerns about parking issues

·                     It was noted that the height of the proposed block had increased following pre-application consultation even though it had been requested that the height of the building be reduced; there were also concerns about parking

Councillor Breckels moved that the application be granted subject to a Planning Agreement, Conditions in the report, the additional Condition requested by the Nature Conservation Officer and a Condition limiting B1 office usage.

Councillor Davies seconded this motion. On being put to the Vote it was

RESOLVED – (9 for, 1 against) that the application be granted subject to a Planning Agreement, Conditions in the report, the additional Condition requested by the Nature Conservation Officer and a Condition limiting B1 office usage.

Councillor Mark Wright did not participate in this Item.

The Head of Development Management and his representative presented this item highlighting the following:

·                     This is an application for the approval of the mooring of a 57m long barge to the north of Peros Bridge

·                     A full description of the site and the application

·                     Responses to the consultation

·                     The reasons for recommending refusal of the application

Answers to questions

·                     The reasons for recommending refusal relate to context, the character of the area and heritage issues. Policy directs the Local Planning Authority to assess whether harm to heritage assets is outweighed by the public benefits of any proposed development.  The mooring of the barge at the proposed location was  is considered to cause harm to heritage assets for the reasons set out in the officer report and presentation

·                     If Members were minded to approve the application the issue of suitable Conditions could be delegated to Officers or a decision deferred and a further report brought back to the next Committee Meeting

Debate

·                     No reason to refuse the application – arguments in favour of the proposals are clear

·                     There are a lot of boats moored in the harbour, and that is its role

·                     Bristol has a maritime heritage and an ongoing maritime industry

Councillor Breckels moved that the application be granted subject to suitable Conditions delegated to Officers including one that limits deliveries to between the hours of 9.00 am and 6 pm.

Councillor Windows seconded this motion and on being put to the Vote it was

Resolved – (8 for, 0 against, 1 abstention) that the application be granted subject to suitable Conditions delegated to Officers including one that limits deliveries to between the hours of 9.00 am and 6 pm.

Councillor Shah left the Meeting.

The Head of Development Management and his representative presented this item highlighting the following:

·                     This is a full application for the erection of a single storey house

·                     A full description of the site and the application

·                     Responses to the consultation

·                     The reasons for recommending approval of the application

Answers to questions

·                       The dwelling will be self contained

·                       Any tree work would be subject to normal controls; the cherry tree would not be touched; the view from the bottom of steps would remain the same; trees are to be retained and hedging will surround the building

·                       The distances to adjacent properties are sufficient to not merit refusal

·                       Parking permits would not be granted but disabled parking would be allowed

·                       Much of the construction will take place on the site

Councillor Davies moved that the application be granted subject to Conditions including those relating to conservation and a method statement.

Councillor Breckels seconded this motion and on being put to the Vote it was

Resolved – (5 for, 1 against, 3 abstentions) that the application be granted subject to Conditions including those relating to conservation and a method statement.

The Head of Development Management and his representative presented this item highlighting the following:

·                     This is an Application for the installation of a canopy and portakabin to create a car valeting service along with signage

·                     A full description of the site and the application

·                     Responses to the consultation

·                     The reasons for recommending approval of the application

Answers to questions

·                       An Impact Assessment in relation to the noise that will be generated has been carried out

Debate

·                     Concerns were raised about potential modern slavery however it was noted that this is not a planning issue and would be an issue for the Police

·                     There were no concerns about noise

Councillor Davies moved that the application be granted subject to Conditions.

This was seconded by Councillor Windows and on being put to the Vote it was

Resolved – (6 for, 0 against, 3 abstentions) that the application be granted subject to Conditions.

The Head of Development Management and his representative presented this item highlighting the following:

·                     This is an Application for the change of use of the public house and conversion to 6 flats, etc.

·                     A full description of the site and the application

·                     Responses to the consultation

·                     The reasons for recommending approval of the application

Answers to questions

·                     Public benefit has to be considered

·                     Storage for refuse and cycle has to be provided in an accessible way, although the solution arrived at isn’t ideal

·                     There are Conditions to preserve the interest of the listed building

·                     Whilst meaningful marketing was not carried out there are a number and diverse range of other pubs in the immediate area the proposal complies with policy. Weight should be given to the period of vacancy that the PH had not been serving the community.

·                     There is a Condition restricting the construction hours which could be amended if required.

Debate

·                     It was noted that there is an inconsistency in the signage proposed for the building, compared to the existing signage, and a condition was proposed to cover this.

·                     There was disappointment that the premises were no longer viable as a pub

Councillor Clarke moved that the application be granted subject to Conditions and the start time for construction work be changed to 8.30 am Monday to Friday. He also asked that the inconsistency in the proposed signage be resolved through a condition.

This was seconded by Councillor Carey and on being put to the Vote it was

Resolved (7 for, 1 against, 1 abstention) - the application be granted subject to Conditions and the start time for construction work be changed to 8.30 am Monday to Friday, and that the inconsistency in the proposed signage be resolved through a condition.

Wednesday 15^th May 2019 at 1.00 pm.

15^th May 2019 at 1.00 pm.