Agenda and minutes

A decision-making diagram is attached for information.

The Chair welcomed all parties to the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Stephen Clarke and from Councillor Steve Smith (Councillor Richard Eddy 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 Margaret Hickman stated that, although she had been in meetings concerning the applications that were both in her ward, she retained an open mind concerning them.

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

The minutes were approved as a correct record.

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

The appeals contained in the report were noted.

To note recent enforcement notices.

The enforcement notices contained in the report were noted.

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

Anyone 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 30^th July 2020.

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 4^th August 2020.

Anyone who wishes to present their public forum statement, question or petition at the zoom meeting must register their interest by giving at least two clear working days’ notice prior to the meeting by 2pm on Monday 3^rd August 2020.

PLEASE NOTE THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW STANDING ORDERS

AGREED BY BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL, YOU MUST SUBMIT EITHER A

STATEMENT, PETITION OR QUESTION TO ACCOMPANY YOUR REGISTER TO

SPEAK.

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 a number Public Forum Speakers for this meeting.

Details of all Public Forum Statements including Public Speakers at the meeting were published as a supplementary dispatch for this agenda on the Bristol City Council website.

The Statements were heard before the application they related to and were taken fully into consideration by the Committee prior to reaching a decision.

To consider the following applications:

The Committee considered the following planning applications:

Councillor Afzal Shah entered the meeting after the commencement of this item and therefore did not participate or vote on it.

Officers introduced this report and made the following comments:

·         A number of errors in the report were corrected

·         The issue of the listed building was deemed a delegated decision for officers

·         Members attention was drawn to Page 74 of the report concerning flooding by NPPF which stated that “Access considerations should include the voluntary and free movement of people during a ‘design flood’

·         Page 78 of the report listed the Heads of Terms Legal Agreement. The principle of this was fully agreed

·         Any resolution by the Committee to approve the application would be subject to the Secretary of State

·         Details of the hybrid application covering 6 plots was outlined. It was a long thin site along the north of the canal

·         The site would include a new office/education building. No details had been provided as to exactly what the building would be used for. The West Campus would extend along Temple Meads Station

·         Plots 2 to 4 were Housing Units. Plot 4 involved the conversion of an existing building

·         Plot 5 was for the school. 2 pictures showed how these would be converted into sports facilities

·         Plot 6 would provide student accommodation

·         The Environmental Agency (EA) had raised 4 principle objections – the development was in a high risk flooding area, there were hazardous flood depths, there was safe operational access and the development failed to demonstrate that flood risk won’t be increased elsewhere

·         Officers believed that the proposed conditions would address these concerns

·         It was acknowledged that there was a managed risk required at the site since action to defend one part of the site from flooding increased the risk of flooding elsewhere. Therefore, parts of the site would be allowed to flood. The flood risk for the site was estimated at 1 in 200 years in 100 years’ time

·         Design flood levels on the site had changed on at least three occasions. Whilst it did not represent the worst case scenario, the site was protected to a degree. Details of the flood risk in 100 years’ time were indicated on the diagram shown to the Committee

·         The floor levels of all listed buildings would be above flood levels. Safe walkways were indicated on the plan

·         The applicant had indicated that he would mitigate flood risk in the event of a flood event. Indicative designs were shown and final details of this would be through a condition

·         There would be a flood gate to make it safe under the bridge

·         The EA had raised concerns about the proposed flood mitigation. They were concerned that the flooding of plots under the school building could result in it becoming clogged by debris if there was a flood event. They had also expressed concern that raised access to the canal side would be difficult to carry out works to make the area secure if there was a flood event. However, officers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19a

Officers introduced the report and made the following comments:

·         Details of the outline of the site were provided, together with changes since the application had last been considered

·         There was an additional staircase on the ground floor and a slight reduction to the retail unit

·         Officers were recommending approval subject to conditions listed in the report

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

·         Whilst the proposal from the Old Market Association was noted, Councillors were requited to consider the application before them

Councillors made the following comments:

·         The developer has listened to the Committee’s concerns and adjusted it accordingly

·         The developer should be thanked for the work he had put into improving the scheme

·         The scheme should be supported. There was no difficulty with the height of the proposal

·         The application was a great improvement

·         The scheme should be supported. It was refreshing to see a developer who had listened to members concerns

Councillor Paul Goggin moved, seconded by Councillor Mike Davies and upon being put to the vote it was

RESOLVED (unanimously) – that the application be approved including the conditions listed in the report.

The next meeting is scheduled for 2pm on Wednesday 2^nd September 2020 as a remote zoom meeting.

Members noted that the next meeting was scheduled for 2pm on Wednesday 2^nd September 2020.