Venue: The Council Chamber - City Hall, College Green, Bristol, BS1 5TR. View directions
Contact: Jeremy Livitt (0117) 9223758
All parties were welcomed to the meeting.
Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence have been received from Councillor Harriet Bradley (Celia Phipps substituting) and from Councillor Jo Sergeant.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Harriet Bradley (Celia Phipps substituting) and from Councillor Jo Sergeant (Don Alexander substituting). In addition, it was noted that Councillor Mike Davies was travelling back from the Labour Party Conference and was unlikely to be back in time for the meeting.
Declarations of Interest
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 none.
To agree the minutes of the last meeting held on Wednesday 15th August 2018 as a correct record.
These were agreed as a correct record subject to the inclusion of Councillor Eddy in the attendance list acting as Chair in Councillor Khan’s absence and subject to the removal of the duplicate text relating to the Minute for the Mortimer House Application.
In response to a question from Councillor Eddy, the Head of Development Management stated that, in addition to the verbal update that he would be providing under Agenda Item 5 (Appeals), a more detailed report could be provided at the next meeting on 7th November 2018 if Members wished.
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.
The Head of Development Management made the following comments:
8. Hamilton House – The hearing for this appeal would be held on Tuesday 2nd October 2018.
10. Old BRI – This appeal was held in abeyance. Whilst the developers UNITE had challenged the listing of the chapel, Bristol City Council had recently extended the Conservation Area to cover the appeal site which provided additional protection for the Old BRI building. Officers would update the Committee at the next meeting with regard to the status of the appeal as the current period of abeyance was about expire.
66 and 67 - 131 Bridgwater Road
66. This had been allowed and granted. The reasons for refusal were for a failure to provide a commuted sum towards off-site affordable housing. The decision letter set out in detail how the Inspector had considered the viability issues. Regrettably, the Inspector had accepted the appellant’s view on key inputs into the viability issue and had concluded that the development could not provide any affordable housing, which was a cause for frustration for officers. The Committee indicated that they were satisfied with the detail provided in the verbal update and so a further written report was not required.
67. The Planning Inspector had dismissed this appeal and refused the application.
To note enforcement notices.
The Service Manager – Development Management made the following comments:
1. Belvoir Road – A Section 215 Notice had been issued in respect of this site. It was noted that such notices are issued as a means of requiring the landowner to clear up the site if land was in poor condition and harmful to amenity.
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:
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 20th September 2018.
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 12Noon on Tuesday 25th September 2018.
The statement should be addressed to the Service Director, Legal Services, c/o The Democratic Services Team, City Hall, 3rd Floor Deanery Wing, College Green,
Members of the Committee received Public Forum Questions (including written answers) and Statements in advance of the meeting.
The following verbal supplementary question was asked and response given by officers:
Q. If the application is approved, will homeless people be allowed to bring dogs with them to the hostel/
A: Yes. There was a maximum of 3 dogs allowed per person on the site.
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:-
The representative of the Service Manager – Development Management made the following comments:
• The application was for temporary facilities and services from October 2018 to March 2019 and then for October 2019 to March 2020
• Local residents had been consulted on the proposal over a 3 week period
• The officers’ report reflected the fact that the site had been designated as a principal industrial and warehousing area. However, there were other material considerations since it is for temporary use and, therefore, will return to employment use once this period had expired
• The proposal was for emergency accommodation in an existing commercial building. Therefore, there were very limited internal alterations and no external alterations
• The surrounding area was situated in Flood Zone 3 and, therefore, a Flood Evacuation Plan needed to be in place
• There was access to the upper floor but no alterations would be made there
• There were no proposed alterations to the fabric of the building
• The existing showers would be retained
• The council’s ecologist had assessed the wooded area to the rear of the site and concluded that there would be no adverse impact
Officers responded to questions raised by Councillors as follows:
• There was a mixture of employment and residential properties near the site. All parties with a shared boundary with the site had been consulted as required and in addition some slightly further away
• Councillors’ frustration was noted concerning the lack of proactivity concerning consultation on housing matters. However, whilst planning officers were aware of many aspects of this part of the consultation (such as leaflet drops), this was an entirely separate process to the planning consultation
• Planning officers had assumed that at least two members of staff would be on site at all times
• Since the application was for temporary accommodation, there were minimum proposed internal alterations including ventilation for showers, the kitchen and toilets. This planning application was the first stage of the process – a dialogue would take place with the developers concerning building regulations in the event that the application was approved
• Councillors’ concerns were noted about the distance between the City Centre and the application site (2.6 Miles), as well as the fact that service users might try to get to the site on the off chance that a space is available and then find it difficult to travel back to the City Centre. Whilst Councillors might be minded to consider approving permission for 1 year and then revisiting the application, this would not be appropriate as the project was based on a 2 year period. The application needed to be considered on its own merits for a 2 year trial. The operation of the arrangements would be very largely dependent on the Management Plan which will allow the developer to address any lessons that are learnt and the interim report required by condition to reflect on the experience of the operation of the site. Ward ... view the full minutes text for item 139.
The representative of the Service Manager – Development Management made the following comments:
• A brief explanation of the site was provided. It was noted that it would involve the enlargement of the basement and proposed construction work using either diamond drill or hand held drill
• Objectors had expressed concerns about noise and disturbance during construction, the potential for damage to neighbouring properties and impact on highways. There had also been objections to the previous construction by the developer
• Since this was a designated conservation area, the impact on the neighbouring amenity needed to be considered
• The extension was proposed for residential use. Since this was at ground level, there would be no impact on neighbouring properties
• Noise during construction – whilst officers sympathised with residents concerning this issue, they had little control over contractors in this area. Conditions had been proposed to minimise impact. It was a requirement that the construction was carried out in accordance with the structural engineer’s report. However, any damage to neighbouring properties during construction was a civil matter
The representative of the Service Manager – Development Management made the following comments in response to Councillors’ comments:
• The application could not be refused on the basis of noise made during the construction process nor could it be made on the basis of hearsay of what the applicant may want to do in future at the property. Any change of use to a care home would require a new planning application that would be consulted on and considered on its merits. A previous application for a care home at the site had been withdrawn after various concerns had been raised by officers.
• Legislation was in existence concerning construction noise in relation to environmental health and pollution control. Residents were free to report issues relating to excessive noise which would then be investigated. Similarly, there could be no requirement to restrict noise levels during construction to a certain decibel level. In addition, the equipment in the previous construction involving the developer was JCB excavators which would not be the case with the current proposal
• Unfortunately, it was no longer possible for proactive monitoring of enforcement to take place. However, officers would respond to any complaints that they received. If the applicant breached the hours and/or method of construction, they could be subject to a breach of condition notice which in the event of a failure to comply would result in the matter being referred directly to the magistrate’s court. The magistrates’ court would consider evidence that the offence had occurred and failure to comply with the breach of condition notice in making its decision
• Alleged ownership of the property was not a relevant planning consideration
• The Committee could not take into account any possible future applications that might be submitted by this applicant. Each application needed to be considered on its own merit
• There was no indication as to whether or not the road would be closed ... view the full minutes text for item 140.
It was noted that this planning application had been withdrawn at the request of officers and with the agreement of the Spokespersons of the Committee and would be reconsidered at the next meeting to be held at 6pm on Wednesday 7th November 2018.
Date of Next Meeting
The next meeting is scheduled for 6pm on Wednesday 7th November 2018.
It was noted that the next meeting was scheduled to be held at 6pm on Wednesday 7th November 2018 in the Council Chamber, City Hall, College Green, Bristol.
The meeting ended at 4.05pm