Agenda and minutes

Development Control B Committee
Wednesday, 26th April, 2017 6.00 pm

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

Contact: Allison Taylor 

No. Item


Welcome, Introduction and Safety Information pdf icon PDF 92 KB


These were done.


Apologies for Absence


Apologies were received from Councillor Phipps with Councillor Alexander as substitute and from Councillor Hickman.



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.




There were none.


Minutes of the previous meeting pdf icon PDF 187 KB

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


These were agreed as a correct record.


Resolved – that the Minutes of the Meeting held on 15 March 2017 be agreed as a correct record of the Meeting and signed by the Chair.



Appeals pdf icon PDF 26 KB

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


The Representative of the Service Director – Planning introduced the report, summarised it for everyone and drew the Committee’s attention to:-


1.     Item 3 – 541 – 551, Fishponds Road. A Public Inquiry had started last week and was due to conclude on 28 April 2017. The Planning Inspector would give no more than an indicator regarding the decision timescale. Officers would communicate the decision to members as soon as it was made available;

2.     Item 4 – Old BRI Building, Marlborough Street. This Committee refused an application on 28 September. The applicants have requested a Public Inquiry which is yet to be decided. At the same time, the applicants were engaging with officers in a pre-application process and with the local community before submitting a fresh application;

3.     Item 8 – Shal Jalal Jame Mosque 468 – 470 Stapleton Road, Eastville. The Planning Inspector had taken the same view as the Committee ie. the digital screen coming in was acceptable but the outbound screen was not supported as it was considered a distraction;

4.     Item 15 – Avonbank, Feeder Road. Committee refused this application on 28 September and the Planning Inspectorate had agreed to consider the appeal through the written representations process. Officers did not object to this process as it was less costly. Campaign groups would submit evidence to the Inspector;

5.     Item 29 – 1, Eaton Close, Fishponds. This was an 8 bedroom HMO refused under delegated decision. The Inspector did not like the standard of accommodation which fell short of the minimum standard. With respect to 3 parking spaces for 8 bedrooms, the Inspector noted there were parking restrictions in the locality and as it was in an accessible location, access to a car was not needed so on street parking was acceptable. The Inspector, however, dismissed the appeal on the grounds of unacceptable standards of accommodation.


Councillor Davies asked whether Officers would have to defend the BRI appeal even though there was a new application in the process and was informed that Officers would be expected to defend a Committee’s decision. The new application would be assessed on its merits and both processes would run side by side. The Chair gave an example where this had recently happened and reiterated that there was an expectation that Officers would defend Committee’s decisions.



Enforcement pdf icon PDF 8 KB

To note enforcement notices.



The Representative of the Service Director – Planning reported that there had been 4 notices since the last Committee. In response to a question regarding Item 2 – 310 – 312, Fishponds Road, he agreed to report back to Councillor Khan outside of the Committee.




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:



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 20 April 2017.


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 25 April 2017.


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 -


Please note, your time allocated to speak may have to be strictly limited if there are a lot of submissions. This may be as short as one minute.





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. (A copy of the public forum list and statements are held on public record by Democratic Services).


At this point, Councillor Shah arrived.



Planning and Development pdf icon PDF 10 KB

To consider the following applications for Development Control Committee B -


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




16/06074/F - 9 Ebenezer Street Bristol BS5 8EF pdf icon PDF 2 MB


(1)        16/06074/F – 9, Ebenezer Street, Bristol.


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


The Chair noted that Councillor Shah had arrived after the start of Public Forum so would not be able to participate in the debate or vote on the application.



The following points were made in the Officer presentation:-


1.     The application had been referred to Committee by the Ward Councillor, Asher Craig;

2.     The building was last used as a film studio and is now empty;

3.     This application is in response to a previously refused application for the division of the building in to four houses in multiple occupation;

4.     This application proposes three cluster flats – defined as dwellings with shared accommodation and including  one, one bedroom self-contained flat;

5.     This application included a condition requiring a Premises Management Plan with a Manager on site between 8pm and 8am in order to manage any potential noise or disturbance from the tenants;

6.     The issue of parking had been the biggest concern from objectors. A survey had been undertaken by the applicant, Highway Officers and the Planning Officer. The Planning Officer reported a minimum of 8 spaces with a maximum 300m from the site. The side streets were constrained with the majority of parking around Beaufort Road;

7.     The application was in a sustainable location as it was close to a main bus route;

8.     The Highway Officer added that he had undertaken a survey in December 2016 and found 18 parking spaces on nearby streets and in March 2017 when 11 spaces were found. Five spaces were found just outside the 200m recommended walking distance. On this basis, Highways Development Management had withdrawn their objection as it was considered that the surrounding streets have the capacity to accommodate any additional parking from the development;

9.     The Planning Officer recommended the application be granted with conditions.


The following points arose during discussion:-


1.     The flats were not affordable housing in terms of the planning definition but were at the lower cost end for such housing. It was for the Committee to determine what part of the housing needs this application meets and weigh it against issues relating to the application;

2.     This development did not easily fall into Government space standards for new dwellings as the development proposed shared kitchens. The double bedrooms were 14 sqm and the minimum standard was 11 sqm. Overall, the 3 cluster flats were under minimum standards for a one bedroom two person flat but this did not include a kitchen. The development  did however meet HMO licence standards;

3.     It was noted there was an error in the report regarding the level of CIL which said £1517.72. The correct figure was £15,717.72;

4.     ‘Cluster flats’ were another term for shared accommodation. The kitchen space was communal;

5.     The bike storage number of 20 was based on the number of bedrooms with one space  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.