Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed all parties to the meeting.

The Committee is requested to note that Councillor Ani Stafford-Townsend was appointed as Chair of the Development Control B Committee for 2021/22 Municipal Year by Annual Full Council at its meeting on Tuesday 24^th May 2022.

The Committee noted that Councillor Ani Stafford-Townsend had been appointed as Chair of Development Control B Committee by Annual Full Council on Tuesday 24^th May 2022 for 2022/23 Municipal Year.

The Committee is requested to note that Councillor Chris Windows was

appointed as Vice-Chair of the Development Control A Committee for 2022/23

Municipal Year by Annual Full Council at its meeting on Tuesday 24^th May 2022.

The Committee noted that Councillor Chris Windows had been appointed as Vice-Chair by Annual Full Council on Tuesday 24^th May 2022 for the 2022/23 Municipal Year.

The membership of the Development Control B Committee for 2022/23 Municipal Year is set out below:

Councillor Ani Stafford-Townsend (Chair)

Councillor Chris Windows (Vice-Chair)

Councillor Lesley Alexander

Councillor Marley Bennett

Councillor Fabian Breckels

Councillor Andrew Brown

Councillor Lorraine Francis

Councillor Katja Hornchen

Councillor Guy Poultney

Councillor Chris Jackson is nominated as a general substitute.

The membership of the Committee for the 2022/23 Municipal Year was noted as follows:

Councillor Ani Stafford-Townsend (Chair)

Councillor Chris Windows (Vice-Chair)

Councillor Lesley Alexander

Councillor Marley Bennett

Councillor Fabian Breckels

Councillor Andrew Brown

Councillor Lorraine Francis

Councillor Katja Hornchen

Councillor Guy Poultney

Councillor Chris Jackson is a Labour Group substitute.

The Terms of Reference for Development Control Committees are attached for information.

The Terms of Reference for the committee were noted.

The Committee is requested to consider the following dates for DCB Committee for the remainder of the Municipal Year:

(alternating between 2pm and 6pm – all on Wednesdays)

6pm on 3rd August 2022

2pm on 14th September 2022

6pm on 26th October 2022

2pm on 7th December 2022

6pm on 18th January 2023

2pm on 1st March 2023

6pm on 5th April 2023 (5 weeks to avoid dispatch clashing with Easter)

2pm on 10th May 2023

RESOLVED – that the following dates and times for meetings of Development Control Committee B in 2022/23 Municipal Year be approved:

(alternating between 2pm and 6pm – all on Wednesdays)

6pm on 3rd August 2022

2pm on 14th September 2022

6pm on 26th October 2022

2pm on 7th December 2022

6pm on 18th January 2023

2pm on 1st March 2023

6pm on 5th April 2023 (5 weeks to avoid dispatch clashing with Easter)

2pm on 10th May 2023

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Chris Windows.

To note any interests relevant to the consideration of items on the agenda.

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 no Declarations of Interest.

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

RESOLVED – that the minutes of the meeting held on 18^th May 2022 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee is requested to note any outstanding actions listed on the rolling Action Sheet for DCB Committee.

The Committee noted that there were no outstanding actions.

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

The Service Manager (Development Management) drew members’ attention to Item Number 38 concerning The Windmill 14 Windmill Hill & 3 Eldon Terrace Bristol BS3 4LU - Appeal against refusal First-floor and raised single storey rear extensions. Change of use of The Windmill Public House – conversion into flats.

He made the following points:

·       The Committee had originally refused this application as they believed it had not been demonstrated that it was no longer viable to continue to operate a public house on site as required under the policy test

·       Following an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, the appeal was considered through written representations. The Inspector had considered the issue of the definition of a locality in terms of providing alternative provision and whether walking routes were deemed unsafe.

·       He also indicated that he would give due regard to the needs of underrepresented groups in relation to the public sector equality duty and detail about which locations would not be deemed a satisfactory alternative

·       The Inspector felt that there were 2 existing alternative provisions within 200 metres of the site together with a further 8 along the routes in question. He felt they were safe and within a reasonable walking distance

·       The Inspector believed that the application did satisfy that criteria of the policy but accepted that the basis on which the Committee had made the decision

·       The Inspector believed that the application met the alternative provision criteria. The appeal was allowed and the application granted

·       The applicant applied for an order of costs on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour. However, the Inspector recognised the two criteria under which the application had been considered and felt that the Council’s grounds were clear and not vague or generalised and noted the high number of representations outlining the issue about alternative provision.

·       He felt that the reasons for refusal were complete, precise and relevant to the application. Therefore, the Council had not acted unreasonably and costs were not awarded against them

To note enforcement notices.

The Committee noted there were no enforcement matters to report.

The Service Manager (Development Management) confirmed that some outstanding cases were currently with the legal team and would shortly be moving to a  formal notice stage. As soon as this happened, these cases would be reported to the next available Development Control meeting.

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. Please note that the following deadlines will apply in relation to this meeting:

Questions:

Written questions must be received three clear working days prior to the meeting. For this meeting, this means that your question(s) must be received at the latest by 5pm on Thursday 23^rd June 2022.

Petitions and statements:

Petitions and statements must be received by noon on the working day prior to the meeting. For this meeting, this means that your submission must be received at the latest by 12 Noon on Tuesday 28^th June 2022.

The statement should be addressed to the Service Director, Legal Services, c/o The Democratic Services Team, City Hall, 3^rd Floor Deanery Wing, College Green,

P O Box 3176, Bristol, BS3 9FS or email - democratic.services@bristol.gov.uk

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.

In accordance with previous practice adopted for people wishing to speak at Development Control Committees, please note that you may only be allowed 1 minute subject to the number of requests received for the meeting.

The Committee received Public Forum Questions before the meeting to which written answers were provided.

Q1 - Jo Sergeant, Save the Giant Goram & CAMRA Bristol Pubs Group – Change of Use of Pubs

Ms Sergeant asked the following supplementary question to the written answers provided:

Question: Can more information be provided concerning the 800 metre and 1300 metre walking distances used in the viability criteria?

Answer: As part of a learning experience in this area, supplementary guidance was being prepared by officers as part of the assessment. The ideal situation would be if there was a standardising method for walking distance but applied locally to each locality.

BQ1: Mark Ashdown – Chair, Bristol Tree Forum – Agenda Item 14 (b) – Planning Application Number 21/06762/F – Public Convenience Circular Road

Mr Ashdown asked the following three supplementary questions to the written answers provided:

Question 1: Is the Committee today operating under the same constitution as on 6^th April 2022 when it decided to reject the application?

Answer 1: It was not unusual for a membership to change between meetings as the committee was a collective body. The Committee had not refused the application but deferred it pending provision of a further report which would provide reasons for refusal. These would be available to the Committee should it decide to refuse it when it returned to a future meeting for re-consideration. The Committee had not fettered its discretion in any way when deferring the application.

Question 2: Can officers respond to my concern that the minutes are inaccurate and have they provided a decision on this?

Answer 2: Officers would address this question as part of the presentation by the case officer when it set out the background to the original decisions that had been made on this application.

Question 3: In relation to the alternative proposal for offsite location which had been identified, there had been consultation required by the Downs Committee when trees had previously been planted on this site in 2019. Therefore, it was surprising that officers believed that no consultation was required in this instance. Would officers like to comment on this?

Answer 3: Officers recognised that it was unfortunate that this information had been received recently. However, officers believed that in any event conditioning would be required for any proposed location in relation to planting and species mix.

Members of the Committee also 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.

To consider the following applications for Development Control Committee B -

The Committee considered the following Planning Applications.

Officers introduced this report and made the following points during their presentation for this application:

·       The Council’s Delivery Team had prepared this application for a housing scheme in Stockwood on the south side of Lacey Road

·       The site had formerly been the location of an Elderly Persons Home which had been demolished in 2020

·       The amendment sheet clarified details of the Planning Application which had been missed in the planning history. There was a 2016 application for a care home which had been withdrawn in 2018 as Bristol City Council could not afford the high specification costs and solutions to enable people to remain in their homes

·       The application would cover the existing hard boundary areas. All trees would be retained except for those near the access site

·       This was a brownfield site and whilst it was not currently in the Local Plan it was scheduled to be part of the Local Plan review

·       There was an estimated capacity of 32 dwellings on the site

·       The site was 600 metres from the local centre at Stockwood Road and there were satisfactory bus routes. It was therefore deemed sustainable

·       There were 26 dwellings proposed on site with a mix of bungalows, 2 storey and 1/2/3 bedroom properties with 6 properties having 2 beds, 8 properties having 1 bed and 2 properties having 3 beds. The properties were 100% affordable

·       There were 34 parking spaces (at a 1 to 1 ratio) with 3 blue badge spaces

·       Shared ownership was no more than 23%

·       All properties were Category 2 compliant and the bungalows were Category 3 compliant, accessible to wheelchair users

·       44 objections had been received relating to neighbouring amenity, the inappropriateness of the site for social housing, the noise from the traffic that would be caused by additional dwellings. Highway safety, vehicular access and insufficient parking, the ecological impact and the removal of trees

·       Shadow Study – this had been carried out in March, June, September and December to show the impact on neighbouring properties. The studies in September and December showed the worst extent of overshadowing but considered acceptable. A picture of the site showed that the boundary trees provided useful screening

·       Overlooking – There was a minimum distance of 20 metres for most properties throughout the site with the exception of a few instances of less than 16 metres. These would be dealt with by screening.

·       Highways – there was no objection from highways. They believed that the impact would not be significant

·       Refuse Vehicle Access – analysis had shown that vehicles would be able to enter and manoeuvre on site. Refuse vehicles had been using the site and there had been no reports of any problems

·       Tree Loss – 19 trees would need to be removed near the entrance site (16 Category C, 3 category B, with a further 9 also proposed to be removed since they were in poor condition. 21 new trees would be provided on site with the developers to make a contribution to  further 8  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

The Chair referred to the first line of the application on the presentation and expressed concern that this could be misleading.

Officers confirmed that, whilst any previous application needed to be taken into account by Councillors in making their decision, the weight which they chose to give it was up to them.

Officers introduced this report and made the following points as part of their presentation:

·       A previous meeting on 6^th April 2022 had considered this application. This report was attached for members. Officers had recommended that this was approved but it was not carried. The Committee had deferred the application to a future meeting with  a request for officers to include reasons that the Committee could use if they chose to refuse It in relation to biodiversity, the change in footprint and the case for the Education Centre if it was deemed ancillary to the development

·       Following the last meeting, further representations had been received and consultation taken place

·       The site was indicated showing the Downs Conservation Area within which it was located and neighbouring the Sneyd Park Conservation Area. The Downs are in an area of nature conservation interest, local historic garden and important open space. It was noted that the Avon Gorge nearby was an SSSI and special area of conservation

·       The adjacent building known as Towerhirst is Grade 2 listed

·       The existing toilet block was constructed in the 1950s and was in a poor state of repair

·       Images across the Downs were shown which indicated the toilet block from different locations

·       The proposed building would be a single storey building of lightweight construction with a frame to floor ceiling glazing. The toilet  block would be clad with timber – the flat roof includes a green roof. The site layout plan has been updated following the 6^th April 2022 meeting to include details regarding existing footprints

·       The existing toilet footprint is 43 metres with the hard surfacing and footprint taken together being 188 square metres

·       The proposed building would be located slightly to the south of the existing toilet block but in a broadly similar position

·        

·       The café, toilet block and education both would be 75 square metres with the hard surface and building taken together being 239 square metres

·       The floor plan showed there would be a timber decking surrounding it with chairs and café one end, toilets centrally and the education booth at the other end

·       The wider site plan showed the potential for offsite planting in the form of a proposed wildflower meadow 200 square metres in area. The applicant was in discussion with the Parks department concerning this issue.

·       An updated biodiversity net gain assessment had been provided by the applicant from their ecologist which was included in the report

·       Following a further consultation,  an additional 45 objections had been received since the last meeting, including from both Ward Councillors

·       Biodiversity – further comments had been received from the Council’s nature conservation officer on the further information submitted by the applicant.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

Subject to the approval of the proposed dates for future meetings in Agenda Item Number 6, the next meeting is scheduled to be held at 6pm on Wednesday 3^rd August 2022.

The Committee noted that the next meeting was scheduled to be held at 6pm on Wednesday 3rd August 2022.