Agenda and draft minutes

DC, Development Control B Committee
Tuesday, 23rd August, 2016 6.00 pm

Venue: The Council Chamber - City Hall, College Green, Bristol, BS1 5TR. View directions

Contact: Steve Gregory 

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies for Absence

To note Apologies for the meeting.

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Councillor Carla Denyer (substituted by Councillor Clive Stevens).

 

The Committee noted that Councillor Asher Craig had resigned from the Committee and was being substituted at this meeting by Councillor Steve Pearce until a permanent replacement member was appointed.

2.

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:

Councillor Khan declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of agenda item 7 (2) Shah Jalal Jame Mosque, being a member of the Mosque and confirmed that he would not take part in the debate or the decision process.

 

Councillor Shah declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of agenda item 7 (2) Shah Jalal Jame Mosque, as he sometimes attended the Mosque but confirmed that this would not prejudice his view when considering the Application.

 

Councillor Fodor declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of agenda item 7 (2) Shah Jalal Jame Mosque, as he had called in a previous Mayoral decision about digital advertising but confirmed that this would not affect his view when considering this Application.

3.

Minutes of the previous meeting pdf icon PDF 264 KB

To agree the minutes of the last meeting held on Wednesday 13th July 2016 as a correct record.

Minutes:

The Minutes of the Development Control Committee B meeting on the 13 July 2016 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair subject to the inclusion of the following wording, after numbers 1-5 of the second paragraph, in respect of Minute No. 12 (1) 16/00719/F – Avonbank Feeder Road, Bristol –

 

‘6.        Have receptors at relevant locations and heights to represent the exposure to 3-4 year olds at the nearby nursery, i.e. at lower than 1.5m above ground level.

 

7.         Account for start-up and shut-down effects (as highlighted by one of the public forum statements), not just divide the full-time-running emissions by the number of hours it will run’. 

4.

Appeals pdf icon PDF 39 KB

To note details of Appeals held since the last meeting.

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report of the Service Director - Planning, noting appeals lodged, imminent public inquiries and appeals awaiting decision.

5.

Enforcement pdf icon PDF 167 KB

To note details of Enforcement Notices since the last meeting.

Minutes:

The Committee was advised there were no updates for this meeting

6.

Public Forum

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item

 

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.  Public Forum items should be emailed to democratic.services@bristol.gov.uk and please note that the following deadlines will apply in relation to this meeting:-

 

Questions - Written questions must be received 3 clear working days prior to the meeting.  For this meeting, this means that your question(s) must be received in this office at the latest by 5 pm on Wednesday 17th August 2016

 

Petitions and Statements - Petitions and statements must be received on the working day prior to the meeting.  For this meeting this means that your submission must be received in this office at the latest by 12.00 noon on Monday 22nd August 2016.

Minutes:

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. An additional statement in respect of item 7 (3), which had been mislaid, was also included (A copy of the public forum list and statements are held on public record by Democratic Services).

7.

Planning and Development pdf icon PDF 2 MB

To consider the attached Planning Applications:

 

16/02785/F and 16/02786/A – 821 Bath Road, Re-submission of Application Number 15/06504/F – Proposed demolition of Existing Structures On Site. Construction of Class B8 Storage Facility (1.858sq.m), ancillary Class B1 start up office space (402sq.m) and construction of six Class A3 restaurant/café units (663sq.m) as well as site landscaping and parking. (Major Application). (and associated adverts) – Brislington East,

 

15/05596/A – Shah Jalal Jame Mosque, Easton – Erection of A Double Sided Digital Advertising Tower With Associated Logo Boxes – Easton, 3. 15/05503/F – Land East of Wesley College – Proposed Construction of Four New Residential Dwellings With Associated Access and Landscaping – Westbury-on-Trym and Henleaze,

 

15/05503/F – Land East of Wesley College – Proposed Construction of Four New Residential Dwellings With Associated Access and Landscaping – Westbury-on-Trym and Henleaze,

 

16/02301/FB – Proposed Creation of a Permanent Overflow Car Park for 66 Cars At Oldbury Court Estate – Frome Vale, 

Minutes:

(1)        (a) 16/02785/F - 821 Bath Road Brislington Bristol BS4 5NL Brislington East.

            (b) 16/02786/A - 821 Bath Road Brislington Bristol BS4 5NL – Brislington East.

 

The Planning Case Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application and emphasised that the first application related to buildings and the second related to advertisements. The recommendation was for approval of both applications subject to conditions.

 

It was considered that the development proposal would bring about significant benefits to the site in terms of visual amenity, contribute toward public transport infrastructure and increase the level of employment floor space in the south of the city. The design, landscaping, sustainability, drainage and land contamination / stability mitigation were considered acceptable but this would be subject to further evaluation. A condition was included to require such evaluation.

 

The Committee debated the Application and a summary of the main points clarified were –

 

1.         The overriding use of the development would be approximately 65% warehousing in broad accordance with Planning policy;

2.         Parking of vehicles on the site was a landowner issue and was not part of the planning application;

3.         The proposed food outlets related to café and restaurants and did not include fast food takeaway units;

4.         Noise issues eg deliveries, could be controlled by condition;

5.         The Application was submitted after consultation had been completed;

6.         Unexploded ordnance on the site had been fully taken into account by the Applicant;

7.         Concern expressed about potential use of air sourced heat pumps instead of ground sourced heat pumps which were considered a better alternative for environmental reasons.

8.         Concern expressed about confliction of pedestrians with vehicles. Highway officer clarified that work on this had mitigated risk with regard to school access and retail access, work still remained in respect of the drive through lane and the delivery area but it was considered that this could be controlled by an appropriate condition;

9.         There had been some loss of community facility however it was considered that this did not have a direct impact on the Carmel building so was not relevant with regard to this Application;

10.       Car parking rights had only been in actual use for approximately 2/3 years;

11.       Tree cover mitigation was covered by condition 9 Landscaping, however there was significant support amongst members for additional trees to be planted above and beyond the minimum amount and members asked that their wish be recorded in the Minutes.

It was moved and seconded to approve the recommendations as set out in the report.

 

The Committee was reminded that there were two separate applications and that they would need to be voted on separately.

 

On application 16/02785/F being put to the vote there were ten in favour, one abstention and none against.

On application 16/02786/A being put to the vote there were ten in favour, one abstention and none against.

 

Resolved –

 

1.         That application 16/02785/F be approved subject to the conditions and advices listed in the report;

 

2.         That application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.

Additional Information Relating To Agenda Item Number 7 pdf icon PDF 9 MB

To receive additional information for Agenda Item 7.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Additional information was noted as appropriate.