Modern.gov Breadcrumb
- Agenda and minutes
Modern.gov Content
Agenda and minutes
Venue: The Council Chamber - City Hall, College Green, Bristol, BS1 5TR. View directions
Contact: Jeremy Livitt
Link: Watch Live Webcast
No. | Item | ||
---|---|---|---|
Welcome, Introduction and Safety Information Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and issued the safety information. |
|||
Apologies for Absence Minutes: These were received from Councillor Bador Uddin substituted by Councillor Richard Eddy and Councillor Mohamed Makawi.
|
|||
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.
Minutes: There were none. |
|||
Minutes of the previous meeting To agree the minutes of the last meeting as a correct record. Minutes: These were agreed as a correct record.
Resolved – that the minutes of 18 September 2024 be agreed as a correct record.
|
|||
Action Sheet No outstanding actions. Minutes: No outstanding actions. |
|||
To note appeals lodged, imminent public inquiries and appeals awaiting decision. Minutes: The Deputy Head of Planning highlighted the following appeals:-
1. Appeal 82 – This was a delegated decision refused on 8 grounds. The Inspector dismissed the appeal but did not agree with all the LPA’s grounds for refusal. There was a separate current application with the LPA and might well come before a Committee in due course; 2. Appeal 83 – An appeal against an enforcement notice was dismissed.
|
|||
To note enforcement notices.
Additional documents: Minutes: The Deputy Head of Planning confirmed that a member briefing on Enforcement would take place in early 2025.
|
|||
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 14 November 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 18 November 2024.
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, 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 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.
Minutes: Members ofthe Committeereceived PublicForum Statementsin advanceof themeeting.
The Statementswere heardbefore theapplication theyrelated toand weretaken fullyinto consideration by the Committee prior to reaching a decision.
|
|||
Planning and Development To consider the following applications for Development Control Committee B - Additional documents: Minutes: The following applications were considered by the Committee:-
|
|||
Minutes: The report was summarised for the benefit of the Committee and the following points arose from questions:-
1. There was a preference for ‘the harbour’ to read ‘Bristol Harbour’; 2. The original wording had been drawn up by the History Commission; 3. The matter could have been delegated to Officers.
The following points arose from debate:-
1. The events of 7 June 2020 were a stain on Bristol’s long past and criminals and hooligans had vandalised a statue that should have been protected by the LPA. The actions of BCC and the Police were pitiful. The deletion of the reference to Colston being a benefactor was historical revisionism. Many Bristolians had benefited from him through education and health care. It would not be supported; 2. The words on the plinth should have been delegated to officers. The events were now contextualised with the wording and was supported; 3. The revised wording was small but meaningful and was supported. Two Councillors had previously questioned the wording and they were now content with the revised wording; 4. The revised wording was supported – it was important to get the plaque as soon as possible; 5. Historians would tell the story of Colston as the benefactor. The revised wording was supported.
There being no further debate an amendment to the substantive motion was moved and seconded as follows:-
That ‘the harbour’ be amended to read ‘Bristol Harbour’.
On being put to the vote it was:-
Resolved – (2 for, 6 abstentions) That ‘the harbour’ be amended to read ‘Bristol Harbour’.
The substantive motion as amended was moved and seconded and it was:-
Resolved – (7 for, 1 against) That the details as amended be approved.
|
|||
Minutes: The report was summarised for the benefit of the Committee and the following points arose from questions:-
1. It was possible to tweak Condition 5 to ‘amplified sound’ to cover the use of the outside seating area with TV; 2. Any breaches of conditions would be investigated; 3. Lighting sensors were in place and consent granted would include a condition stating that the courts must not be floodlit when not in use. The LPA would have the option to enforce against this condition; 4. Artificial lights could impact bats. However, guidelines about how to make lighting more bat-friendly needed to be balanced against the need for the floodlights to facilitate safe playing of Padel tennis. The ecology report had concluded no unacceptable impacts on bats, and the Nature Conservation officer agreed with this assessment. 5. A revised plan had been submitted to show replanting of vegetation that had been removed, with suitable species. A condition would be added to require adherence to this plan. The new planting would have a positive impact on lightspill, since the new planting was located in an area where there was currently a gap in the vegetation. In addition a condition had been added to require the applicant to submit a plan showing removed trees, and proposals for replanting in accordance with the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard; 6. Some residents on the Southmead side would be able to see the floodlights but there would be no lightspill into their bedroom windows; 7. The Pollution Control Officer noted that there were a number of sources of noise on the site but felt that the cumulative affect of the noise was not a particular problem. He did not dispute there was noise from the padel courts but it was less than that from the traffic. He did not feel that the hitting of the padel racquet sounded like gunshots; 8. Officers were satisfied that no bat roosts were affected and therefore no legislative offence had been committed; 9. Some members had a different perception of noise on the site visit than others.
The following points arose from debate:-
1. There were 2 courts being used compared to the previous one tennis court. There was also noise from socializing, jet washing and plant noise so there was some form of loss of amenities; 2. The site visit did not provide any additional information that was not already in the report. The closest dwelling was the school which was approximately 250 yards away and the closest house was approximately 100 yards away. There would be no harm from noise or light with robust conditions in place. The lightspill on the footpath might be helpful for safety reasons. There was no ecological damage. The application was supported; 3. The application was supported subject to an amendment to Condition 5 stating ‘amplified sound’ and the hours of use being confined to 08:00 to 21:00 Monday to Sunday; 4. Noise was a subjective matter. The distances were measured and were 57m ... view the full minutes text for item 38a |
|||
Minutes: The report was summarised for the benefit of the Committee and the following points arose from questions:-
1. The only planning considerations for digital display adverts was safety and amenity; 2. The Transport Development Manager confirmed that the application was assessed on current standards and the application met those standards. The location did not present the same concerns as other locations previously considered; 3. Condition 9 detailed that the images would fade and dissolve and not be a jarring change causing a distraction for road users; 4. The red line of the site was the vicinity and there had been no accidents as assessed by the Police in the last 3 years and assessed in relation to this application; 5. The emerging policy was secondary and did not therefore have the weight of adopted policy; 6. Amenity could only be considered in terms of the application before the Committee.
The following points arose from debate:-
1. There was no planning grounds to refuse the application; 2. This type of advertising was not safe and should not be approved; 3. There being no further debate the officer recommendation was moved and seconded and it was:-
Resolved – (5 for, 3 against) That the application be granted subject to condition(s).
|
|||
Date of Next Meeting 11 December 2024 at 2pm. Minutes: 2pm 11 December 2024.
The meeting ended at 4.20pm.
Chair __________________
|