Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed all parties to the meeting and explained the arrangements in the event of an emergency evacuation procedure.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Marley Bennett (Councillor Chris Jackson substituting).

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.

Councillor Guy Poultney and Councillor Ani Stafford-Townsend declared non-substantial Interests in Agenda Item 9(b) Planning Application Numbers 21/06128/F and 21/06129/LA at 80 St Andrews Road, Montpelier as they had previous dealings with the applicant.

The minutes for the last meeting held on 12^th October 2022 are not available for the meeting and will be submitted to the next meeting for approval as a correct record.

The Committee were advised that the minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 12^th October 2022 had not yet been finalised and would be submitted for approval to the next Development Control B Committee meeting, together with the minutes of this meeting.

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

It was noted that all previous actions had been completed.

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

Officers advised that a decision in respect of Agenda Item 11 493 - 499 Bath Road Brislington Bristol BS4 3JU, was likely to be received shortly and available for the next meeting. Key issues relating to this appeal were amenities and design with an on site meeting to take place in relation to heat hierarchy.

To note enforcement notices.

The Committee noted the enforcement action listed in the report.

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 20^th October 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 25^th October 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.

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.

To consider the following applications for Development Control Committee B -

The Committee considered the following Planning Applications:

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

·       Details of the amendment sheet provided an update on the sustainable city team and a list of conditions

·       On 23^rd October 2022 there had been a briefing by the Development Team

·       The application site was a 1.6 hectare inner city location in Ashley Ward St Pauls. Details of the surrounding areas were provided

·       A building located to the north of the site was the closest residence and 13 to 17 Dove Lane was the closest business to the application

·       Details of the proposed development were provided, including 55 car parking spaces. 5 comments had been received to the proposal, including two objections, 1 expressing support and 2 neutral. Objections commented on the impact on the road network, the building heights and amenity impact

·       Details of the plots within the site were provided to the Committee

·       Vehicular access was a key issue. Movements will continue along Wilson Place and Newfoundland Road

·       An aerial view was shown to put the development in context with surrounding buildings

·       Historic England had raised no objection in relation to any impact on St Pauls Church

·       Measures would be put in place to ensure noise insulation was implemented to ensure business use of the site was safeguarded

·       Contributions would be made to public transport as part of the proposal

·       Officers recommended approval subject to conditions and a Section 106 agreement

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

·       There would be a gain of 63 trees on the site as there were currently none. There was a proposed detailed landscaping condition so officers could see if this number could be increased. There was a scheme for local people which would see if job opportunities could be maximised

·       The proposal for 20% affordable housing was consistent with housing practice policy in the central area. This would be subject to the building being completed within 18 months and would be reviewed if it was not achieved within this timescale. The affordable housing part of the scheme would be secured through a Section 106 agreement

·       Whilst there was always a possibility that the amount of affordable housing offered by the developer could be increased, this could not be enforced through a Section 106 agreement

·       Whilst the scheme could encourage more grant funding, a viability assessment did not apply for this application

·       Officers confirmed that the development was policy compliant

·       Affordable and social housing would be split between social rented and registered landlord housing at a rate that someone on housing benefits can afford. The remainder would be at discounted market rent value

·       C2 block would be set back from the parking area of the school and a large easement with the drain provided through Wessex Water. A study had been carried out on neighbouring properties and confirmed that there was no impact on any windows

·       There was a public realm gain with this development. It was proposed to have green rooves as part  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9a

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

·       Details of the application were provided. It was explained that there was no access between the two sites

·       The sites were located in the Montpelier Conservation Area and were Grade 2 listed

·       Adjacent to the site was a coach house which would have an ancillary

·       Details of the view facing north and south were provided

·       The site was currently overgrown and in a poor state of repair

·       The proposed front elevation and street scene elevation were shown to the Committee

·       There had been three rounds of consultation, with 30, 15 and 21 objections respectively. Most objections focused on the impact of listed buildings, building in a Conservation Area and the impact on local parking provision

·       The site is sustainable and is characterised by mews houses, strongly influenced by the gardens within them

·       The urban design team had no objection to the overall scale and design of the development

·       This would be the first residential development to the rear of Richmond Terrace with primarily ancillary buildings but some mews properties further up from the site

·       The conservation officer has raised no objection and has stated that the development is proportionate

·       Amenity Impact – the overall footprint is the same as other properties. The separation distance is consistent

·       Obscure glazing would be installed to ensure there was no overlooking to Richmond Terrace

·       Officers believed the scheme was acceptable and so recommended approval.

In response to members’ questions, officers made the following points:

·       The Richmond Road site had Listed Buildings status

·       The impact of thew mews houses was a factor in the original approval of the site. This plot was removed due to potential harm. However, the situation was now different due to changes in local and national planning policy, together with the increased housing need

·       The original proposed scheme had been much bigger and had been considered too large. There had been amendments to design following three rounds of consultation. Following a reduction in height, it was now considered acceptable

·       Details of the garden plot were provided. The single storey garage is the main part of the development

·       It was recommended that this development would be exempt from both types of permit ie resident and visitor. New dwellings within the RPZ should not benefit from the Residents Parking Zones but this is purely for advice. Applications for a residents permit could still be made

·       All developments within Conservation Areas and involving listed buildings were assessed according to criteria as to whether or not they were appropriate to avoid any precedent being set

·       The 2020 application was withdrawn due to concerns about the scale and design. The proposed scheme was noticeably smaller than the one which had originally been submitted. Stands for bins and the location for bins were located at the front

·       Policy DM21 confirms that the development does meet the required policy. A previous application in Clyde Road had been similar and was refused by the Committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9b

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

·       The site was not located in the Conservation Area

·       The development was a mix of buildings both commercial and industrial

·       Different views of the site were provided, including an electricity sub-station at 68 to 70 Church Road

·       Two rounds of consultation had been taken with 14 objections, followed by a further 7. Concerns raised by objectors included the issues of height, scale and massing

·       Following the omission of the second floor from the original proposal, this had reduced the size of the proposed development.

·       Measures had also been proposed to add additional lighting to the first floor and to prevent overlooking

·       The views from the north of the site for the proposed development showed the separation distances

·       The development would be car free. Previous developments had not been refused on transport grounds

·       Officers recommended approval for this Planning Application

In response to members’ questions, officers made the following comments:

·       Subject to the proposed changes relating to lighting, the development could be approved. The proposed arrangements for the entrance to the door of the flats and specification would be an advice note to the applicants who were aware of the design requirements

·       The Coal Authority did not object to the proposed development. It was noted that the development was in a high risk coal mining area. However, following a review of this site, this was not considered a reason to refuse the application. However, the Committee might deem it appropriate to provide an Advice Note for this application

·       Councillors’ concerns about the possibility of fire in the chimney were noted. However, neither the Fire Authority nor Health Authority had raised any objections

·       The applicant was proposing an in fill timber panel for the development with high window and roof lights. They had also submitted a landscaping scheme

·       It was not yet clear whether or not the property would be rented out or sold

Councillors made the following comments:

·       This was a past coal mining area and all housing required a survey first to assess whether or not it would be suitable. Measures were in place to deal with this issue

·       The site had been an eyesore since the 1990’s and empty for a long time. Whilst the exact location was not perfect, it was a huge improvement. The proposed curved style of building suited the development well

·       The proposal was good subject to an advice note being added to recommend that the developer carried out a full coal mining assessment survey on the site

·       This development was a good mixed use of employment and space and could breathe new life into the area

Councillor Ani Stafford-Townsend moved, seconded by Councillor Guy Poultney and it was

RESOLVED:  that the application be approved subject to the conditions included in the report and the proposed amendment to Condition 26 set out in the Amendment Sheet, with an additional Advice Note also to be included urging a detailed and thorough coal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9c

The next meeting is scheduled to be held at 2pm on Wednesday 7^th December 2022.

It was noted that the next meeting was scheduled to be held at 2pm on Wednesday 7^th December 2022.