Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Amal Ali and Councillor Lesley Alexander (Councillor Jonathan Hucker 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.

There were no Declarations of Interest.

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

RESOLVED – that the minutes of the above meeting be confirmed 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 Action Sheet was noted.

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

The Committee noted the report on appeals.

To note enforcement notices.

The Committee noted the report on enforcement action.

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 13^th July 2023.

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 18^th July 2023.

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 IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK AT THE COMMITTEE, YOU ARE REQUESTED TO INDICATE THIS WHEN SUBMITING YOUR STATEMENT OR PETITION. ALL REQUESTS TO SPEAK MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A WRITTEN STATEMENT.

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 published online prior to the meeting. Each statement was heard before the application it related to and taken fully into consideration by the Committee prior to reaching a decision.

The following supplementary questions were asked by Tony Pitt in relation to the written responses he had received to his questions, with verbal answers given by officers as indicated:

Supplementary Question 1 – can the officers confirm that the report relates to dual allocation purposes?

A: This is confirmed for use in relation to both housing and business purposes.

Supplementary Question 2 – in view of the situation relating to the Town and Village Green land bordering the site, won’t this affect deliverability?

A: Officers indicated that they would address this issue during the debate.

Supplementary Question 3 – Shouldn’t there have been a formal reconsultation since much of the original consultation was carried out during COVID?

A: It was standard practice for there to be wide consultation for any such application involving all parties at each stage including for all amendments.

Supplementary Question 4 – Does the plan accurately show the Site of Nature Conservation boundaries?

A: Officers relied on the map with which they were provided to indicate the appropriate boundaries since they were not directly involved in drawing up the plan.

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 comments during their presentation:

·       The application Was for land to the west side of Novers Hill and was for 144 dwellings with 30% affordable housing, two access points and a public open space

·       A slide underlined how steep the site is and the applicant had been required to address to deal with the design

·       The site had been historically allocated for housing and business with a sliver of an SNCI (Site of Nature and Conservation Interest).

·       The site had been allocated for a long period and was reaching the end of the current local plan period

·       The law indicated that a Local Planning Authority should follow local plan allocations unless there was very good reason not to

·       It was also noted that there was a strong need for housing within the city

·       Officers noted the decision concerning Brislington Meadows and the comparatively low weight given by the Planning Inspector to ecological issues

·       However, there remained outstanding ecological issues on this site which the applicant had failed to resolve

·       The major cause of concern for officers was the steepness of the site

·       The topography of the site indicated only one entrance with a very steep narrow hill with no provision for walking or cycling

·       The new network needed to be built to adoptable standards and would require significant infrastructure which would affect viability and require approval

·       It was important that a site of this size should be sustainable. However, the site only had indicative walkable and cycling routes which was not satisfactory

·       Given the topology of the site, anyone using the site would be car dependent particularly if there were no regular bus connections to Hartcliffe. The further application had not addressed these issues

·       The gradient was approximately the same as for Park Street with less space for movement and did not pass a safety audit.

·       The proposed retaining wall would also cause difficulty with viability and implementing to an acceptable standard

·       A slide indicated the steepness and that there was no safe connection to the public highway with no comfort walking or cycling facility

·       In addition, the site would be unsafe for anyone who lived or worked below it or for the river below. The issue of road safety was a major concern

·       Whilst this was a sensitive site which would require a great deal of work to deliver, the main concerns remained steepness and the safety for future residents

·       The hedgerows were designated as a Town and Village Green and any impact of the housing on the site would also impact on this

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

·       The developer would need to obtain approval from the infrastructure Team for the proposed retaining wall

·       It would be very strenuous for anyone living on site and day to day living would be very difficult, particularly for those who were care dependent

·       It was the responsibility for the applicant to ensure viability

·       Officers explained the colour coding on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22a

The next meeting is scheduled to be held at 6pm on Wednesday 6^th September 2023 in the Council Chamber, City Hall, College Green, Bristol.