Agenda and minutes

The Committee is requested to electthe Chair for the2019/20 Municipal Year.

The Clerk to the Committee invited Members to propose a Chair & Vice Chair.

Cllr Eddy moved the election of Cllr Alexander as Chair this was seconded by Cllr Davies.

When put to the vote it was;

Resolved (9 for 0 against) that Cllr Alexander be Chair.

Cllr Carey moved the election of Cllr Windows as Vice Chair this was seconded by Cllr Breckels.

When put to the vote it was:

Resolved (9 for 0 against) that Cllr Windows be Vice Chair

The Committee is requested to electthe Vice-Chair for 2019/20Municipal Year.

The Committeeis requested to note theTerms of Referencefor Development

Control Committeeswhich were approved atFull Council on Tuesday 21stMay

2019 and remain unchanged.

Members resolved to accept the terms of reference for the operation of Development Control Committees.

The Committeeis requested to consider dates for future meetingsfor 2019/20

Municipal Year.The following dates areproposed:

allon Wednesdays

24^th July 2019 at 6.00 pm

4^th September 2019 at 2.00 pm

16^th October 2019 at 6.00 pm

20^th November 2019 at 2.00 pm

22^nd January 2020 at 6.00 pm

4^th March 2020 at 2.00 pm

8^th April 2020 at 6.00 pm

Members resolved to agree the proposed meeting dates set out in the report.

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

Apologies were received from Councillors Stephen Clarke and Chris Windows (substitute 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.

There were none

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

Resolved that the minutes of the 15^th May be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair

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

The Head of Development Management introduced the report providing and overview of the appeals process.  He highlighted appeal no.51 Stoke Lodge Playing Fields which had been refused by the Committee in June 2018 and the appeal had been dismissed  with the Inspector strongly supporting the Council’s case in relation to highway safety.

To note recent enforcement notices.

There were none

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 13 June 2019.

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 18 June 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 Head of Development Management and his representative gave a presentation and summarised the report for this item including the following:

1. Construction of 152 new residential dwellings contained in three buildings comprising of a 15+2 storey tower; ground and lower ground floor for commercial office space; car & cycling parking; refuse & recycling storage.
2. Informing committee that the application came at the end of two years negotiations with all parties; taking into account the decision outcomes following an appeal in 2009; had regard for the Urban Living SPD; national and local planning policy.
3. Public consultation resulted in 99 objections; challenging the proposed height of the buildings and the impact of traffic on the Bath Road and overspill parking onto nearby streets amongst other issues. 
4. Officers had considered in full all objections and areas of concern in the report.
5. The height of the building:  Officers had measured the development against all relevant policies and the Temple Quarter Spatial Framework that support the view that this location was appropriate for a tall landmark building.  Together with the issue of the height impact on local heritage assets specifically: Grade II listed Holy Nativity Church tower; Grade II listed Thunderbolt pub; Arnos Vale Cemetery.
6. The development will provided 20% affordable housing (30 affordable dwellings) to be secured through a Section 106 Agreement as outlined in the report.
7. The proposed dwellings exceed the minimum space standards; many apartments have a balcony.
8. The proposed travel plans intends to discourage residents owning cars; the developers have agreed to make a financial contribute to a future resident parking scheme that may need to be considered should parking in the vicinity of the development become an issue.
9. Officers sought delegated authority to continue the discussion on  trees.

Questions of clarification

10. Heat Network:  a condition will be imposed to direct that the development joins the heat network when it is available.
11. Affordable Housing: 20% affordable housing is secured that will include 5 shared ownership units; the development may provide additional affordable units but this would be a commercial decision  and not one for planning to consider.
12. Urban Living SPD; Members questioned whether the principles were being set aside to enable this development.  Officers reassured committee that the development performed well against the SPD and this rationale was detailed in the report.
13. Stability of the River Bank:  Concerns were raised over the development sliding into the river;  Officers advised that a ground investigation would be conditioned; that at the request of the Environment Agency the development was moved back further away from the river this adjustment is detailed in the current  plans to satisfy the concern raised; there is a requirement that the building includes piled foundations in its construction to ensure stability.
14. Fire Safety:  In light of the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy the single stairwell design was challenged.  Officers assured committee that:

The Head of Development Management and his representative gave a presentation and summarised the report for this item including the following:

1. The application is for the demolition of existing buildings and construction  of new building forming 50 units; 2 flexible commercial units on a site that would set the context for future development in the area.
2. The site plans and overview of the setting was shared with Committee.
3. The Old Market Quarter Neighbourhood Planning Forum had objected to the development and Officers sought Committee’s views on the proposal.
4. Officers presented the design of the development explaining that due to certain contextual features personal to the site and its surroundings, it is acceptable for elements of the proposal to not meet the Design Guidance included within Appendix to the Old Market Neighbourhood Quarter Development Plan.
5. Members attention was drawn to aspects of the report notably that; the ground floor flats were near to street level; the intention was for the development because of its location to be car free; the area had existing restricted parking areas; the intention is to provide two disabled car parking spaces; two car club spaces; and to secure a financial contribution to support the improvement to existing bus stops.
6. Officers explained why the mix of accommodation offered was acceptable as it would meet an existing need for 1 and 2 bed affordable units.
7. The recommended planning obligations were set out to Members.
8. Officers requested that Committee grant the application as it was of a good standard providing 100% affordable 1/2 bed units and would be the start of the overall improvement to the public realm.
9. Officers explained that the proposal would meet the majority of the policies included within the Old Market Neighbourhood Quarter Development Plan, apart from policies T2 and C5, and this was acceptable due to the reasons set out within the presentation and report.

Questions of Clarification

10. Members queried the percentage of affordable to social housing;  30 units affordable rent and the remaining 20 would be shared ownership.
11. Members were aware of the demand for 3-4 bed properties in the Lawrence Hill Ward and therefore wanted to know why the development did not include bigger units.
12. Officers advised that on the decision was based on the advice of the Bristol’s Housing Delivery, that there was a high demand for 1-2 beds units.
13. The design indicated that the exterior façade would compose of red brick that when compared with the design of the Dings estate, made the development appear dark.  Members asked whether other materials could be incorporated to lighten the appearance of the build.
14. Officers referred to the power point presentation to illustrate that the design did incorporate different colour bricks to give character.
15. Officers confirmed that the Neighbourhood Plan operated independently as the area although close to central Bristol, was deemed to be a separate entity.

Member Debate

16. Cllr Wright applauded the developers for taking on board comments and making adjustment to the design.
17. Cllr Mead supported the provision of a development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

This item has been withdrawn from the agenda and will not therefore be considered by the Committee.

With the agreement of the Chair this item was removed from the agenda as the application had been formally withdrawn by the applicant.

24^th July 2019 at 6.00 pm.

The date of the next meeting is the 24^th July 2019 @ 6pm