Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and issued the safety information.

Received from Councillor Breckels.

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 as a correct record.

These were moved and seconded and it was:-

Resolved – That the minutes of 26 June 2024 be agreed as a correct record.

No outstanding actions.

There were no actions.

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

The Deputy Head of Planning reported that there was a higher number of appeals allowed recently and this was of concern. Officers were reviewing appeals to understand if there were themes and findings would be reported to the next DC Leads meeting. It was confirmed that appeals allowed because of non-determination due to the recent backlog would be part of the review.

To note enforcement notices.

The Deputy Head of Planning reported that there were 4 enforcement notices currently with legal colleagues and these would be issued imminently. The update report was highlighted and it was noted that a new graduate planner had joined the enforcement team. It was intended to provide a member briefing on enforcement in the near future.

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:

A total of three 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 12 September 2024.

Petitions and statements:

Petitions and statements must be received by noon two working days prior to the meeting. For this meeting, this means that your submission must be received at the latest by 12.00 noon on 16 September 2024.

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.

If you have any further questions, please see the Development Control B Committee Public Forum FAQ for more information

https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s98400/Development%20Control%20Public%20Forum%20FAQ%202024.pdf

Members of the press and public who plan to attend a public meeting at City Hall are advised that you will be required to sign in when you arrive and you will be issued with a visitor pass which you will need to display at all times.

Members ofthe Committeereceived PublicForum Statementsin advanceof themeeting.

The Statementswere heardbefore theapplication theyrelated toand weretaken fullyinto consideration by the Committee prior to reaching a decision.

To consider the following applications for Development Control Committee B -

The following applications was considered by the Committee:-

The Committee had regard to the contents of the Amendment Sheet.

The report was summarised for the benefit of the Committee and the S106 & CIL Project Manager also provided an overview of contributions. The following points arose from questions:-

1.      The 43 affordable units would be spread around the development so that they were not all in the area where there was least light. They could also move around the development as units did not have to stay the same type of unit. It was quite a different concept to a development operated by a social housing provider;

2.      The latest a viability review could be undertaken would be prior to the point of occupation;

3.      Affordable housing policy was set out in the Local Plan but there was flex. The level of infrastructure required could impact the level of affordable housing. Transport officers would have to justify their requirements to Development Management which would be set out in a legal agreement;

4.      It was not generally advised to condition the size of the units as this could have an adverse impact in the future but it was possible;

5.      Developers were only able to increase viability upon review and legislation prevented them decreasing it. However, there was nothing to prevent a developer submitting a new application for consideration;

6.      Historic England had advised that there was minor harm because certain views of St Mary Redcliffe Spire would be obstructed by the development but were content for the minor harm identified to be balanced against any wider public benefit. Officers had consistently assessed this and were satisfied that the vast majority of views were protected and that the wider public benefit outweighed the harm;

7.      The site would be investigated to ascertain what the contamination was and to set out what mediation was required to make the site safe and this was all secured by conditions. It was noted that it was unlikely to be severe contamination as it had previously been a garage;

8.      Officers had worked with the developer to make the best possible design improvements to the units. It was a large development so needed height and 50% of units would now have balconies, some with single aspect. 89% had full balconies or dual aspect;

9.      The units had been designed to maximise sunlight in the living area and met the levels required;

10.  The development would be connected to the district heat network and there was additional PV roofing so officers were satisfied that the building was sustainable and that energy usage was good.

The following comments arose from debate:-

1.      This was a landmark building spot and what people would see on arriving at Temple Meads. The elements of shadow, fresh work, carriageway for the activated ground source, brick work and hand cut bricks were highlighted as good. The monolithic nature of it referenced back to the bonded warehouses of the past. The explanation regarding numbers of affordable units provided reassurance and approval was supported;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

The report was summarised for the benefit of the Committee and the following points arose from questions:-

1.      Officers had considered the impacts on neighbours and wildlife and were satisfied with what was before the Committee. Any amendment to Conditions 3 & 4 concerning lighting and hours of use respectively would require the Committee to be satisfied that they were reasonable and necessary. It was also possible to impose a condition requiring the applicant not to play amplified music;

2.      Officers were satisfied that the ecological reports undertaken by the applicant were in line with guidance. It was noted that prior to becoming padel courts the area was tennis courts. The application was submitted in January 24 and an enforcement case based on a complaint was opened on 14 December 2023. The fact that it was retrospective was not a material planning consideration;

3.      The racquets and balls for padel tennis were different from tennis and there was a part mesh part glazed area within the padel tennis court. The padel tennis racquet is harder than a tennis racquet so the noise is different and noise may also be heard when the ball rebounds off the Perspex glass. However the glass area could also act as a barrier to noise. The noise of the ball on the racquet was likely to be louder if the player was more experienced;

4.      The lighting enabled padel tennis to be played during certain parts of the day of the darker months of the year;

5.      The scale of the development did not require community consultation by the applicant, but the normal planning consultation process had been carried out albeit retrospectively;

6.      The two padel courts had been assessed for noise impacts in accordance with guidelines and impacts were found to be below the recommended levels provided by Sport England and WHO and was not intrusive. A number of noise assessments were carried out as well, and the noise impact report included the use of library data. It was noted that since the padel courts were in use there had been no complaints from nearby residents about noise;

7.      There was only a small area of habitat that had been affected by the change to padel courts and with the proposed landscape planting, officers were satisfied that any loss in habitat had been mitigated;

8.      The Local Nature Reserve was not within the application site. The area of the habitat that had been taken out to accommodate the development was within an ecological “cul de sac” and was not considered to be valuable for bats, due to its lack of connectivity. Best practice had been used in terms of ecological assessment for a development this size and the ecological information submitted was proportionate to the scale and nature of the development;

9.      The applicant was required to inform the LPA by condition how many trees had been lost and they would be required to replace them.  The number of trees required to be replanted would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

6pm 30 October 2024.

20 November 2024 at 2pm