Agenda and minutes

The Committee is requested to elect the Chair for the Development Control B Committee for 2018/19 Municipal Year.

Councillor Sultan Khan was nominated and seconded. There were no further nominations and it was therefore:-

Resolved – That Councillor Sultan Khan be elected as Chair of Development Control Committee B for 2018/19.

The Committee is requested to elect a Vice-Chair for 2018/19 Municipal Year.

Councillor Richard Eddy was nominated and seconded. There were no further nominations and it was therefore:-

Resolved – that Councillor Richard Eddy be elected as Vice Chair of Development Control Committee B for 2018/19.

The Committee is requested to note the Terms of Reference for Development Control Committees which were approved at Full Council on Tuesday 22^nd May 2018.

The Terms of reference as determined by Annual Council on 22 May 2018 was noted.

The Committee is requested to consider the following possible options for dates for future meetings for 2018/19 Municipal Year. 

15 August 2018 6pm

26 September 2018 2pm

7 November 2018 6pm

19 December 2018 2pm

30 January 2019 6pm

13 March 2019 2pm   

24 April 2019 6pm    

Please note the responses I have received from the Committee to the suggested change for all 6pm DC B Committee meetings to either 2pm and/or 10am:

Conservative Group – All meetings to be fixed for 2pm

Green Group – Continuing with some 6pm meetings would be preferable in terms of public accessibility.

Councillor Olly Mead has pointed out that it would be less convenient for the public if there were no 6pm meetings

Resolved – that the meetings for DC B Committee for 2018/19 were agreed as follows:-

6pm 15 August 2018;

2pm 26 September 2018;

6pm 7 November 2018;

2pm 19 December 2018;

6pm 30 January 2019;

2pm 13 March 2019;

6pm 24 April 2019.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Brook with Councillor Bradshaw as substitute,  Councillor Hance with Councillor English as substitute and Councillor Sergeant with Councillor Hickman as substitute and Councillor Clough.

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.

Councillor Hickman declared that she would stand down from application 18/01892/A - Public Footpath West Side of Bond Street South as she had submitted a Public Forum Statement on this.

To agree the minutes of the last meeting on 25^th April 2018 as a correct record.

Resolved – that the minutes of the above meeting be approved, subject to the amendment above, as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

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

The Head of Development Management referred to Items 9 & 10 – 131 Bridgwater Road and reported the appeal hearing was taking place today at City Hall and the outcome would be reported to the Committee once it was known.

To note enforcement notices.

These were noted.

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 5pm on Thursday 5^th July 2018.

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 Tuesday 10^th July 2018.

Statements will not be accepted after 12.00 noon on the working day before the meeting unless they have been submitted in advance to Bristol City Council but were not received by the Democratic Services Section. Anyone submitting multiple statements for an application should note that they will only be allowed to speak once at the meeting.

Please note that 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.

To consider the following applications for Development Control Committee B -

The Committee considered the following Planning Applications.

The representative of the Head of Development Management made the following points by way of introduction:-

1. The Committee’s attention was brought to the further representations received since the report was published as set out in the Amendment Sheet and to an email sent to the Committee members last night regarding transport and mitigation;

2. The application sought outline planning permission for a new mixed use University Campus including 1500 students beds with all matters reserved except access;

3. The application was currently indicative and further detail would be brought back to Committee at a later stage in the form of Reserved Matters applications;

4. Officers were engaging with the applicants to establish how the application might emerge. It had been established that it would have an active frontage with the campus building being accessible to students and the public;

5. A key consideration was the view of Historic England regarding the development’s height and its impact on Temple Meads Station. Ongoing work was taking place in this regard and a height plan had now been received;

6. The indicative proposals were amended to reduce the height and bulk and these had satisfied officers;

7. Information on the routes through the site which was within the Enterprise Zone was currently fluid;

8. The development would be car free save for disabled users;

9. The Head of Development Management, in summary, stated that the development was a work in progress and lots of improvements had been made so it was considered appropriate to bring to Committee. Officers would use their delegated powers to finalise the transport mitigation package and members would be updated regularly at agenda meetings.

The following points arose from debate:-

1. Councillor Denyer observed that there were many outstanding objections and asked whether it was better to wait for greater detail and mitigations to objections before outline planning permission was granted. The Head of Development Management acknowledged that there were a number of outstanding objections but officers would be in continued dialogue with the applicant to work through the transport issues. The City Design team had enough confidence in the scheme to allow issues to be dealt with through Reserved Matters and those matters would also be reported back to members at agenda meetings;

2. The Council was obliged to provide the University with a clear site and this work was underway. A decision today was crucial to that timetable but as the Local Planning Authority the Committee had to be satisfied with what was presented to it;

3. Quantums of the development were set out. The floor space and 1500 student beds were committed to and officers were working with the University to agree parameters and place-making principles;

4. It was confirmed that Reserved Matters could be refused should the design be unsatisfactory;

5. Conditions could be imposed regarding archaeologists excavating the burial ground;

6. Councillor Bradshaw appreciated that the application was outline but felt that there was insufficient transport detail and was informed that these would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 113.

1. The Chair expressed concern regarding this application given the level of Public Forum and suggested that it might be prudent to undertake a Site Visit;

2. This was supported by Councillors Bradley and Eddy.

3. Councillors Mead and English felt able to determine the application as set out in the report;

4. Councillor Denyer was conflicted due to the high number of public who had taken the time to attend the meeting;

5. Councillor Bradley moved that a site visit take place and this was seconded by Councillor Eddy and on being put to the vote it was:-

Resolved (6 for, 4 against) – that the application be deferred pending a site visit.

Councillor Hickman stood down. This left 9 Committee members to vote on this item.

 The Head of Development Management introduced the report stating that the Council was a party to the application in its property role in partnership with the advertiser and would benefit from some revenue. He emphasised that officers gave no weight at all to this fact when considering this application and the officer recommendation was based on amenity and public safety. The Committee was asked to determine the application on its merits.

The representative of the Head of Development Management made the following points by way of introduction:-

1. The application was referred to the Committee by ward member, Councillor Hickman;

2. The application sought consent for the erection and display of a single sided advertising structure to be used to show illuminated advertisements capable of automatic change image;

3. The display would be 11m high and 5m wide;

4. The consent would be for a 5-year period;

5. Following consultation, 37 responses were received with an additional 2 since publication of the report;

6. The key issues for consideration were public safety and amenity. The proposed display was away from residential properties and the nearest heritage asset was a public house 80m away;

7. The location of the display was an appropriate scale for the surrounding buildings and Transport Development Management officers had no concerns after a public safety audit was carried out;

The following points arose from debate:-

1. Councillor Mead questioned the Transport Officers’ assertion that the panel was visible far enough away so as not to cause a last minute distraction and allow drivers the opportunity to assimilate the road layout;

2. Councillor English felt the proposal raised serious road safety issues and was too dangerous to consider granting. The display would be a huge distraction and there was insufficient research on their use near roads. The Committee was informed that officers had been involved in pre-application proposals and a great deal of work was undertaken to get the proposal to this stage which they considered acceptable. It was noted that lessons had been learned from appeal outcomes for similar applications that had been refused at Committee and where the Inspector had sometimes disagreed that they were a road safety hazard or an impact on amenity;

3. Councillor Davies expressed concern that drivers would be distracted by the display and fail to notice a pedestrian running across the crossing and was informed that Transport Development Management officers had considered the crossing to be far enough away to allow sufficient time for drivers to view the road ahead before driving;

4. Councillor Bradley wondered why this site was chosen when drivers often changed lanes and it was badly signalled. She believed this was one of the worst locations to position a display.  She was informed that the applicants had originally proposed Newfoundland Circus where there was much greater movement which officers had recommended against so was withdrawn;

5. Councillor Denyer disagreed with the officer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 115.

Councillor Hickman returned to the Committee. 10 Committee members to vote on this item.

The representative of the Head of Development Management made the following points by way of introduction:-

1. The application had been referred to Committee by Councillor Paul Smith, and not Councillor Hickman as set out in the report;

2. The application sought the erection and display of a single sided advertising panel to show illuminated advertisements capable automatic sequential change for a 5-year consent;

3. The site was located within the central reservation on Temple Way;

4. The display was 11m in height and 5m in width;

5. The application had received 50 objections including two from Councillors, and another objection was received since publication of this report. The objections included distraction to drivers, street clutter, impact on the character of the area and risk to pedestrian safety;

6. Officers assessed there was no impact on the character of the Conservation Area and recommended approval.

The following points arose from debate:-

1. Councillor Denyer felt the same arguments applied as in the previous application and moved that the application be refused for the same reasons as set out in the previous decision and this was seconded by Councillor Mead, noting that the bus lay-by element was not relevant to this application;

2. Councillor Bradshaw noted that the site was largely commercial so believed that the same issues did not apply as the previous application. The road safety issues previously raised did not apply in this case;

3. Councillor Hickman agreed stating that the site was more spacious, less busy and believed a refusal in this instance would be more open to challenge;

4. The Chair was minded to support this application;

5. Councillor Mead maintained his concerns for highway safety but was less concerned on amenity grounds;

6. On being put to the vote it was:-

Resolved (5 for, 4 against, 1 abstention) – that the application be refused for the following reasons:-

1. The impact on visual amenity;

2. The impact on highway and pedestrian safety, including the proximity of the proposed signage to a pedestrian crossing and also the loss of part of the existing bus lay-by.

The representative of the Head of Development Management made the following points by way of introduction:-

1. The application was before the Committee as the applicant was a ward member;

2. The application sought the demolition of an existing kitchen extension and erection of side and rear extension;

3. Following officer advice, the applicant had reduced the elevation so as not to cause harm to the amenity of the property by virtue of overbearing and overshadowing;

4. Officers were therefore satisfied that the application was acceptable with regards to design and amenity.

The following points arose from debate:-

1. It was noted that the 1 objection received was not a ‘neutral’ objection as set out in the report officers confirmed that the revised proposals satisfied that objection;

2. Councillor Eddy acknowledged that the application was before the Committee for transparency purposes and therefore moved the officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Davies and being put to the vote it was:-

Resolved (Unanimously) – that the application be granted subject to conditions.