Agenda and minutes

These were done.

Apologies for Absence have been received from Councillor Carla Denyer (Clive Stevens substituting)

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Khan and Denyer with Councillor Stevens substituting for Councillor Denyer.

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.

To agree the minutes of the last meeting held on Wednesday 11^th July 2018 as a correct record.

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

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

These were noted.

The Committee also noted the Public Forum submission received in respect of Appeal Number 4 – land adjacent 131 Bridgewater Road.

To note enforcement notices.

The list of Enforcement Notices served since the last Committee Meeting was noted.

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 9^th August 2018.

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 Noon on Tuesday 14^th August 2018.

The statement should be addressed to the Service Director, Legal Services, c/o The Democratic Services Team, City Hall, 3^rd Floor Deanery Wing, College Green,

P O Box 3176, Bristol, BS3 9FS or email - democratic.services@bristol.gov.uk

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 Chair took the opportunity to thank the applicant and neighbours for their co-operation during the Committee’s site visit.

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

1. Mortimer House was a Grade II listed building located in the Clifton Conservation Area;

2. The application sought permission for landscaping and the conversion of the front garden to its original layout with car parking facilities to the rear accessed through a side wall controlled by a gate;

3. In 2016 planning permission was given for a change of use of the care home to an office with six car parking spaces to the front;

4. This application was referred to Committee by Councillor O’Rourke;

5. In January 2018 DC B Committee voted against the officer recommendation to grant and refused planning permission for landscaping and a car park to the rear of the building and for Listed Building consent for the harm it would cause to the historic appearance of the Listed Building and the level of car parking was unjustified given the highly sustainable location of the building;

6. The revised application before the Committee sought to address the reasons for refusal by reducing the level of car parking to eight spaces and adding two additional areas of planting at the eastern end of the garden;

7. This application attracted 30 objections, 7 in support of the scheme and a 98-signature petition objecting to the scheme;

8. The reinstatement of the historic landscaped frontage was supported by English Heritage and the Council’s Conservation Officer;

9. The transport arrangements were acceptable to Transport Officers and it was noted that the level of car parking was less than the maximum quantum allowed under the Parking Standards Schedule and that there was sufficient visibility for access. The Tree Officer was satisfied with the proposal noting that 9 trees would be planted to mitigate the loss of the Cherry tree, which was in excess of the agreed standard;

10. In summary, Officers recommended the application for approval subject to conditions.

The following points arose from questions and debate:-

1. It was confirmed that there would be no commercial use vehicles as this was purely an office. Deliveries of office supplies would use the drop off point at the front of the building. This was clearly set out on the site plan so would be enforceable without conditioning. It was emphasised that there would be no parking at the front at any time;

2. With respect to noise concerns from the rear of the site, Pollution Control officers were satisfied that there was not a significant impact on air quality, noise or vibration given the level of parking;

3. It was noted that in April 2018 the applicant submitted an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against the January decision. Officers did not know whether this appeal would be withdrawn if the current application was granted;

4. Officers considered the use viable as there was already a change  ...  view the full minutes text for item 126.

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 Bolton;

2. The application had previously been considered at the DC B Committee on 25 April where it had been deferred for officers to seek further amendments to the roof scheme due to concerns that it would result in unacceptable loss of light and amenity to neighbouring gardens;

3. In response, the applicant had submitted a revised application which included a hipped roof form at the eastern side of the building and the boundary fence being reduced to 1.8m height at the rear and redesigned to a stepped design to increase privacy for occupants and neighbours. There was also a revised sunlight assessment study;

4. Officers had reassessed the application and found that there was not unacceptable harm. The applicant had readdressed the roof impact and officers deemed the application acceptable and recommended grant subject to conditions.

The following points arose from questions and debate:-

1. It was confirmed that the full application was before the Committee for approval based on its merits. However the minutes for the previous application were a public document and the Committee should give great weight to them in their deliberations;

2. It was noted that the application fell within the Conservation Area for Bedminster and the building was listed which were material planning considerations. However, officers found the design not so harmful as to warrant refusal and the loss could be justified;

3. The applicant had considered amending the other side of the roof but this would not impact on light and would alter the internal layout;

4. Councillor Brook stated the design was of a high quality and sympathetic within a Conservation Area. This proposal was a great improvement on the existing building;

5. Councillor Clough believed the amendments to the roof design did not address the previous Committee’s reasons to defer the application and was minded to vote against the officer recommendation;

6. Councillor Hance expressed concern that the massing had not been addressed and questioned whether the design was an improvement on the current building.  She was minded to vote against the officer recommendation;

7. Councillor Bradley questioned whether the applicant had sufficiently addressed the overshadowing and felt the internal design layout was not a valid argument;

8. Councillor Davies was content with the application and moved the officer recommendation and this was seconded by Councillor Brook. On being put to the vote it was lost – 2 for, 7 against, 1 abstention. The Chair then proposed that the application be refused due to unacceptable overshadowing of surrounding residential properties and loss of light caused by the design of the roof, the impact on residential amenity and that the application was within a Conservation Area. This was seconded by Councillor Clough. On being put to the vote, it was:-

Resolved (7 for, 2 against, 1 abstention) – that planning permission be refused for the following  ...  view the full minutes text for item 127.

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

The following points arose from questions and debate:-

1. The application was before the Committee due to the high level of local objection to the proposal. It was noted that many of the objections followed the same template and related to the loss of the stone boundary wall and the harm to street trees;

2. The proposal was for a two-storey detached, 3-bedroom house on land to the rear of the site fronting Trelawney Road;

3. The proposal was in a highly sustainable location with access to public transport and shops;

4. The design was acceptable and the materials used were in keeping with a Conservation Area;

5. Officers recommended approval subject to conditions.

The following points arose from questions and debate:-

1. Councillor Mead noted that the use of residential gardens for new housing proposals was already evident in nearby properties. The use of materials was sympathetic and the trees were protected. He would support the officer recommendation;

2. There were no other comments so Councillor Bradley moved the officer recommendation and this was seconded by Councillor Brook. On being put to the vote, it was:-

Resolved (Unanimous) – That planning permission be granted subject to conditions set out in the report.

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

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

1. It was noted that application 17/06957/X had been withdrawn by the applicant;

2. It was noted that the published report contained some errors and the corrections were set out in the Amendment Sheet. In particular it was reported that the carbon offset contribution would be £13, 534 and not the figure as set out in the report;

3. This was a section 73 application which sought changes and revisions to an extant planning permission granted in 2016. The changes were as follows:-

Ø  To change the appearance of the additional storey from a mansard style roof to a more modern flat-roofed storey;

Ø  The approved renewable energy of Air Source Heat Pumps had proved problematical and the applicant therefore wished an array of PV panels to the roof of no. 40. Officers have assessed that a full array would cause harm to heritage assets so a reduction had been negotiated to cover one quarter of the roof. As this reduction would result in only a 5.5% reduction in carbon emissions and not the full 20% a carbon off-set contribution of £13, 534 had been secured with the applicant;

Ø  The air conditioning plant was to be relocated from the basement to the front part of the roof facing Berkeley Square.

4. The application had attracted 22 objections mainly from residents of Berkeley House;

5. There was a close relationship between this building and its neighbour with a gap of only 9m at its closest. This was an existing situation and could not be changed;

6. Officers were satisfied with the appearance of the extension and that it would not cause harm within a Conservation Area;

6. A noise and daylight assessment had been carried out and officers were satisfied that the scheme met requirements. It was noted that properties 19-36 of Berkeley House would be affected but the impact was not sufficient to warrant refusal;

7. In summary, Officers recommended approval subject to a Planning Agreement.

The following points arose from questions and debate:-

1. It was the view of the Conservation Officer that PV panels presented a cluttered roof;

2. The Carbon off-set contribution would be spent on Council owned assets to achieve an overall reduction in CO2;

3. The gap between the buildings was already impacting residents but could not be addressed by this application;

4. The applicants had declined the installation of soundproofed glass around the roof terrace. Officers could not insist on this as Pollution Control Officers had advised that the noise would not create additional harm. A condition limiting the use of the roof terrace from 9am to 6pm weekdays and not at all on weekends and Bank Holidays provided some protection to residential amenity;

5. Officers perceived the reason for the roof terrace to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 129.

It was noted that the next meeting of Development Control B Committee was scheduled for 2pm on Wednesday 26^th September 2018 in the Council Chamber, City Hall, College Green, Bristol

26 September 2018 at 2pm.