Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed all parties to the Meeting.

Apologies received from Cllr Olly Mead (Cllr Paul Goggin is substituting)

Apologies received from Cllr Mike Davies (Cllr Hibaq Jama is substituting)

Apologies received from Cllr Fi Hance (Cllr Martin Fodor is 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.

Cllr Hibaq Jama called in the Swift House application, so will not participate in it.

Cllr Mark Wright lives near to St Catherine’s Place, so will not participate in that application.

Cllr Steven Clarke is the ward Councillor for St Catherine’s Place but is not involved with the application, so is not predetermined.

Cllr Marg Hickman, is the ward Councillor for Swift House but is not involved with the application, so is not predetermined.

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

RESOLVED: the minutes of the meeting of 10 February 2020 are agreed as a correct record.

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

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

Item 64 is St Catherine’s Place. Following refusal of an earlier application, developer appealed but this was dismissed on 19 February. Amended application is on the agenda today.

Item 67 is Belgrave Hill in Clifton. The Committee decision was appealed, and costs were awarded against the Council. This site had originally sought permission for 2 houses, but this was refused as it did not meet minimum space  standards. A revised application for one property was made, but this was then refused on the grounds of transport. The appeal was allowed and  costs were awarded as the re-introduction of the transport reason for refusal was seen as unreasonable behaviour.

The officer advised the Committee that If they wish to  refuse an application against the recommendation, they must have a substantive reason and demonstrate what the harm would be. In these circumstances officers recommend using the cooling off period as this allow officers to provide further advice for Committee members on their intended reasons for refusal.

To note recent enforcement notices.

No enforcement notices have been 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 5pm on Friday 26^th February 2021.

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 Wednesday 3^rd March 2021.

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 Tuesday 2^nd March 2021.

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.

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 gave a presentation and summarised the report for this item.

•          The application seeks planning permission for a waste transfer station at Swift House, which was previously Gulliver’s vehicle hire. 

•          The amendment sheet shows more objections have been received. These largely relate to environmental impact, but there are also references to low employment density and low value economy.

•          The site is next to a nursery and MAT education centre. Central to St Phillips Marsh. In the local plan, this is designated as an industrial and warehousing area. There are some sensitive uses in the area, including 6 dwellings on feeder road, and other residential areas at the Paintworks, Temple Island university campus and Bath Road.

•          Waste management should be in principle industrial areas. Policy says this is a suitable area. We should have regard for environmental impact and if we find it unacceptable, we can reject the application. The intention is to eventually regenerate the area, but this should be given limited weight in consideration. It is not currently suitable as residential due to flood risk. Only alternatives will be commercial.

•          The proposal is for two large sheds on the site for waste and trailers, there is also a weigh station and admin office. The waste is to be sorted in the shed and sent for disposal. We have received feedback from all relevant officers, no objections on  grounds of noise impact, air quality or highways impacts.

•          On air quality arguments, this has been modelled based on sensitive receptors including the nursery. These are not monitoring stations but the model is based on data from monitoring stations. The site is not in the air quality management area. There is little impact in terms of Nitrogen Dioxide or particulates, the increase is negligible. We use the national criteria for air quality, 40mg No2 is the national standard beyond which there would be an objection, the area is already lower than this. Accounting for odour, there is some potential impact on the nursery, but this can be mitigated.

•          Highways impact, there is good site access, we have assessed vehicle movements and are happy there is enough space on the network for these vehicles.

•          Risk of flooding, officers consider that the Flood Risk Assessment indicates that the site can be made safe, but have requested delegated powers to finalise the conditions that relate to this.

•          The noise impact assessment shows noise from the waste centre is lower at the nursery than background noise. Odour impact assessment acknowledges that waste transfer stations can produce odour. The waste is commercial waste, not organic and will not be left on site for long periods. The building is orientated so the entrance is away from the nursery.

Questions for clarification:

•          The report says there is no odour at the nursery, but also that mitigation will be required. It is hard to say that there will be zero impact, but with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

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

•          This scheme has been at committee before. We are in the difficult position of needing affordable housing, but we cannot recommend this plan for approval. The design is not compliant with the heat hierarchy policies.

•          There was a briefing with members and the applicant, some changes were made but they are not significant enough to warrant approval. There need to be better plans on heat and daylight availability.

•          Full planning permission is sought. This application was deferred from 2 Sep 2020 and is for 146 residential units. There was a briefing on 30 Sep and a revised application was submitted in November and December. BCC is under target for house building. We should presume to grant unless the harm outweighs the benefits. 146 dwellings are in 5 blocks. 32 affordable dwellings have social rent, the others are unsecured affordable housing.

•          Previous resolution was about recreation space and better corridors and light access. There have been relocation of patio doors and bedroom units. A high proportion of units are single aspect dwellings. Earlier proposals were overly reliant on electric resistant heating, now more are supplied by heat pump. Unfortunately, there are still 109 dwellings on electric resistant. Heat compliance has increased from 12 to 37 dwellings.

•          The applicant is not seeking connection to the heat network. Low carbon power is priority for all new builds. It is feasible to supply 58 more units with heat pumps. These are more expensive to build, electric resistant is the cheapest option. BCC officers do not accept the applicant’s estimates for additional costs (£18k unit), BCC estimates £8k per unit. £18k is based on retrofit, not new build. BCC has set aside grants of up to £10k per unit to support low carbon heating. Central Government expects minor role for electric heating in future and BCC is planning to decarbonise the city economy. Electric resistant is 100% efficient, ground pump 200%, heat network 300%. Electric resistant heating is expensive to run and puts a burden on the grid.

•          Officers think the scheme is non-compliant on heat, quality of design and wellbeing of residents. The adverse impact outweighs the benefit in this proposal.

Questions for clarification:

·         Grants are given to the organisation providing the heating system.

·         The report says the proposal fails to contribute to affordable housing. This is  because at the date of committee a Section 106 Agreement had not been entered into to provide the agreed 32 affordable dwellings. Should the scheme be refused and the applicant appeals to the Planning Inspectorate, then the Council and the applicant can enter into the Section 106 Agreement and present this to the inspector at the appeal, at which point this reason for refusal would fall away.

Discussion:

•          Disappointed that the applicant did not do enough to adjust their heating strategy, it is possible to comply, but they have not.

•          On  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

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

•          Amendments and additional conditions can be found in the amendment sheet. This is a hybrid application for 180 dwellings, 320 cycle parks and commercial space.

•          There are 100 responses from public consultation, with a fairly even split between 43 supporting and 59 objecting. Objections are related to the height of the project and lack of affordability. Supports are related to local businesses, shops and regeneration of the local area.

•          There are 7 phases of plots. The biggest development is 121 units in block 3. 815m2 of commercial space is included. There have been changes to increase separation distance of buildings, changes on external aspects and improved public realm. The buildings are more set back with additional street trees, a pocket park and amenity space of 20x30m. Positioning and building footprint is reduced. Now the building protects the courtyard from external noise. The housing mix is mostly 1 and 2 bed flats. The Council is pushing high density dwelling in this area and consider this an acceptable mix.

•          This is the 4th time that we have received an application for this site. It is a hard scheme to develop with high costs. Bedminster has not benefited from this kind of development before. The Paintworks only got affordable housing in the 3 and 4 phase once phase 1 and 2 had raised the property value. The development is feasible in planning terms. Officers recommend approval with no affordable housing currently, but with 2 reviews during the scheme to see if this is possible in future.

•          Issues on height and massing the block near East Street have been improved. Block 3 has much less mass than previously, allowing better light and relationship with St Catherine’s House. Improvements in public realm and private amenity. 43 additional trees. Height of building is below the previous grant. Much reduced bulk compared to previous applications.  Slight improvement in access to sunlight. 10% of windows have poor access to light.

•          There are objections on transport or ecology. Officers recommend granting subject to planning agreement.

Questions for clarification:

•          Appreciate the viability work that has been done here. Is it feasible that a new viability on affordable homes could be done after each phase? Phase 1 is only 2 small units, so would not be worth doing at that stage. Phase 2 is the commercial space. Phase 3 is the big block so would be the appropriate time to review. We have conditioned if phase 3 has not started in 18 months, they will have to review. 6 months after phase 3 they will have to review.

•          Block 3 is compliant with the Bedminster Green framework, it is in the tall building opportunity for 10+ floors. It also improves on previous applications.

•          Is viability through phase 3, based on the success of the development locally or the housing market generally? It is about  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

The next meeting is scheduled to be held at 2pm on Wednesday 31^st March 2021.

The next meeting is 31 March 2021.