Agenda and draft minutes

DC B, Development Control B Committee
Wednesday, 28th September, 2016 2.00 pm

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

Contact: Allison Taylor 

Items
No. Item

9.

Apologies for Absence and Substitutions. pdf icon PDF 91 KB

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Councillor Margaret Hickman (substituted by Councillor Donald Alexander).

 

10.

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 Quartley declared that his wife worked for the BRI but he remained open-minded when considering the application.

 

Councillor Khan declared that he had some knowledge of the BRI in relation to other Council business but he remained open-minded when considering the application.

 

11.

Minutes of the previous meeting pdf icon PDF 182 KB

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

Minutes:

These were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

12.

Appeals pdf icon PDF 35 KB

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

Minutes:

            The Representative of the Service Director – Planning referred to Item 40, the demolition of an existing store building and erection of two storey dwelling. This was a delegated decision and was refused on the grounds of loss of heritage aspect and potential loss of amenity for surrounding properties. On appeal it was allowed, the Inspector finding that the applicants had made reasonable efforts to retain the building and the flat roof was not used in association with the property. The applicants applied for costs and these were awarded which officers considered was a harsh award as the Council had not acted unreasonably. He then referred to Item 42 – Avon Gorge Hotel Pergola. The application was for the retention of a Pergola and this had been refused under delegated decision. On appeal, the Inspector dismissed it stating that the structure was unacceptable. The owners would now need to remove the structure.

 

 

13.

Enforcement pdf icon PDF 7 KB

To note enforcement notices.

 

Minutes:

The Committee was advised there were no updates for this meeting.

 

 

14.

Public forum

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 22 September 2016.

 

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 12.00 noon on Tuesday 27 September 2016.

 

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

 

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 (1) which had been mislaid, was also included (A copy of the public forum list and questions and statements are held on public record by Democratic Services).

 

Questions were also received in relation to Item 7 (1). The Committee noted the responses and the Chair stated that he would hear two supplementary questions per submission.

 

These were as follows:-

 

Bruce Yates.

 

He strongly disagreed with the response to Question 1.

 

Question 2 – a tier 4 engine could be purchased but it was four-times the price of the proposed engine and the applicants did not wish to spend the money.

 

 

Stuart Phelps.

 

Questions 1 and 2 – Not properly answered.

 

Question - A QC’s view was that the application had to be refused – will you refuse it?

 

Answer – The QC’s opinion had been circulated to officers and was in the public domain. Officers were attaching some weight to the recommendation. Officers have a view having assessed carefully the impacts but it was for the members to decide. The application had been assessed in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework and took account of economic, social and environmental benefits and impacts without hierarchy. The role of the Director of Public health was to provide a strategic enabling role with the NHS and was not to provide a source of medical expertise for planning applications.

 

Liz Beth.

 

Question 2 – To be clear, the higher limits above compliance were unacceptable but there were still health impacts below compliance. It could be refused on worsening health grounds and it did not need to exceed limits to be refused.

 

Answer – Officers worked to European and UK guidelines values and were tied by those values and assessed applications against them as standards.

 

Question 4 – The assessment was based on a short term exceedance whereas the annual average exceeded the Air Quality Management Area. This development would worsen air quality significantly. The Council had declared the area an AQMA to improve the air. How could it then justify an application which would worsen it ?

 

Answer – the air quality assessment looked at the annual impact along the Bath Road and the development site. The impacts on the annual objectives were classed as slight. This was a balanced recommendation between the need for the development and the air quality impacts.

 

Simon Holmes.

 

Question 3 – This balanced recommendation could cost mean a child’s life. There had been 350 objections. Could the officers respond to the serious consequence of approving this application ?

 

Answer - Children’s health was of course an emotive matter. The planning process was dispassionate and evidence based. Any decision needed to be defendable from legal challenge or at appeal.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

15.

Planning and Development pdf icon PDF 2 MB

To consider the following applications for Development Control Committee B –

 

1.  16/00719/F -  Avonbank, Feeder Road, Bristol

Proposed installation of low carbon, bio-diesel powered generators and associated infrastructure for the provision of a Flexible Generation Facility to provide energy balancing services via the capacity market for the National Grid.

 

2.  16/01888/F -  Old Bristol Royal Infirmary Building

Conversion of the Old BRI Hospital building, including two upper storey additions and partial demolition, to accommodate 6,112 sq.m. office floorspace (Use Class B1) and 3,990 sq.m. Medical School (Use Class D1); and erection of a part 10, part 12 and part 13 storey building to the rear for student accommodation (Sui generis) comprising 738 student bedspaces; communal areas and refurbishment of Fripps Chapel for communal student facility with ground floor commercial use (Use Class A3); associated landscaping, car parking and cycle parking. An addendum report is attached setting out proposed additional conditions and comments from the City Design Team.

 

3.  16/02137/F - Land adjacent to 2 Southernhay Avenue

Proposed four storey, three bedroom single dwelling house.

 

4.  16/01193/X -  Eastgate Retail Park- Application for removal of condition No 6 following grant of planning permission 15/00907/X (Insertion of additional mezzanine floorspace into combined Units C/D and alterations to the front and rear of Units C/D - to now allow the sale of food from Unit J)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered the following reports of the Service Director, Planning -

 

(1)        16/00719/F – Avonbank, Feeder Road, BRISTOL.

 

            An Amendment Sheet was provided to the committee in advance of the            meeting, detailing changes since the publication of the original report.

 

            It was noted that Councillor Shah was not present at the beginning of Public Forum for this item and would therefore not take part in the debate or vote.

 

            The representative of the Service Director – Planning reported that this application had been before the Committee in July and was deferred to respond to specific issues. Consideration should therefore focus on those matters.

 

            The following points were presented by officers:-

 

·       Data showed that oxide exceedances around the nursery were not a risk to public health;

·       The noise assessment concluded that a worst case scenario impact would not be detrimental in terms of the school and the nearest residential property. The Pollution Control Officer therefore supported the application subject to conditions;

·       Given the findings, officers recommended approval in line with the recommendations at the previous meeting.

 

 

            The following points arose from debate:-

 

·       Councillor Denyer reminded the Committee that the application was also deferred in respect to the noise assessment of diesel engines and the tonality in start-up and shut down. The Officer replied that start-up and shut down was included in the air quality assessment; Councillor Denyer acknowledged the reference to start up and shut down in the air quality assessment however this did not cover tonality. The Pollution Control Officer was unable to give a response to this matter in regards to the noise assessment.

·       Councillor Clough asked whether it was possible to condition the operating hours so that they did not operate when the nursey was open and was informed that this was technically possible but was not part of the proposal and could therefore be appealed against;

·       The Chair asked whether it was possible to condition the type of motor used in order to mitigate its impact and was informed that the proposal had to be assessed on its own merits and as this was not part of the proposal this would be an unreasonable condition;

·       The Chair asked whether there were any controls to ensure that it did not operate beyond the 200 hours it proposed to operate per year and whether there were greater financial benefits to breaching than the sanctions imposed. The Committee was informed that the developer would have to submit annual reports and if these were exceeded a breach notice would be issued, if the breach continued there would be a prosecution at the magistrates court and fines for planning breaches were significant. It was not possible to comment on the company’s financial benefits of breaching;

·       Councillor Khan expressed surprise that 200 hours per year could be viable and suggested if this was granted a variation might follow. The Committee was informed that it was not possible to comment on the viability of the hours but was similar to other proposals  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

16.

Additional information relating to Agenda Item No. 7 pdf icon PDF 28 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Noted.

 

 

 

CHAIR  __________________