Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed all parties to the meeting and explained that this meeting was being held under recent emergency government legislation enabling remote meetings.

At its meeting on Thursday 21^st May 2020, Full Annual Council will appoint the Chair of the Development Control B Committee for 2020/21 Municipal Year. Confirmation of this appointment will be made at this meeting.

The Committee noted that Councillor Tom Brook had been elected as chair of the Development Control B Committee for 2020/21 Municipal Year at Annual Council on Thursday 21^st May 2020.

At its meeting on Thursday 21st May 2020, Full Annual Council will appoint the Vice-Chair of the Development Control B Committee for 2020/21 Municipal Year. Confirmation of this appointment will be made at this meeting.

The Committee noted that Councillor Richard Eddy had been elected as Vice-Chair of the Development Control B Committee for 2020/21 Municipal Year at the meeting of Annual Council held on Thursday 21^st May 2020.

The membership of the Committee is as set out below:

Councillor Lesley Alexander (Conservative)

Councillor Nicola Bowden-Jones (Labour)

Councillor Harriet Bradley (Labour)

Councillor Tom Brook (Labour – Spokesperson)

Councillor Mike Davies (Labour)

Councillor Carla Denyer (Green - Spokesperson)

Councillor Richard Eddy (Conservative – Spokesperson)

Councillor Sultan Khan (Liberal Democrat – Spokesperson)

Councillor Fi Hance (Green)

Councillor Olly Mead (Labour)

Councillor Celia Phipps (Labour) – Role Share

Councillor Jo Sergeant (Labour) – Role Share

The membership of the Committee for 2020/21 Municipal Year was confirmed as follows:

Councillor Lesley Alexander (Conservative)

Councillor Nicola Bowden-Jones (Labour)

Councillor Harriet Bradley (Labour)

Councillor Tom Brook (Labour – Chair and Spokesperson)

Councillor Mike Davies (Labour)

Councillor Carla Denyer (Green - Spokesperson)

Councillor Richard Eddy (Conservative – Vice-Chair and Spokesperson)

Councillor Sultan Khan (Liberal Democrat – Spokesperson)

Councillor Fi Hance (Green)

Councillor Olly Mead (Labour)

To Be Confirmed (Labour)

Please find attached for information the Terms of Reference of Development Control Committees scheduled to be approved at Full Council on Thursday 21^st May 2020.

The Terms of Reference for Development Control Committees were noted as re-adopted by Annual Council at its meeting on Thursday 21^st May 2020.

The Committee is requested to consider approval of the following dates for Development Control B Committee meetings for 2020/21 Municipal Year subject to any changes that may be required at a later date due to the CoVID-19 outbreak:

(all at 2pm on Wednesdays unless otherwise indicated)

24^th June 2020

22^nd July 2020

Thursday 20^th August 2020

16^th September 2020

Thursday 15^th October 2020

11^th November 2020

9^th December 2020

3^rd February 2021

Thursday 18^th March 2021

Thursday 22^nd April 2021

The Committee discussed the proposed dates for 2020/21 Municipal Year.

Some Committee members were concerned with the proposal that all meetings should start at 2pm since this would be difficult for some Councillors if they had work commitments.

Following a brief discussion, the Committee agreed that all dates should alternate between 2pm and 6pm throughout the municipal year as follows:

(all on Wednesdays except where indicated)

6pm 24^th June 2020

2pm 22^nd July 2020

6pm 20^th August 2020

2pm 16^th September 2020

6pm 15^th October 2020

2pm 11^th November 2020

6pm 9^th December 2020

2pm 3^rd February 2020

6pm 18^th March 2020

2pm Thursday 22^nd April 2020

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Olly Mead.

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 no Declarations of Interest.

To agree the minutes of the last meeting as a correct record held on Wednesday 29^th April 2020 as a correct record.

Resolved – that the minutes be approved as a correct record.

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

The Head of Development Management drew the Committee’s attention to the following:

Items 43 and 44 – There was a reference to costs not being awarded. It was noted that, unlike court hearings, applications for costs do not necessarily follow the decision. In these cases  costs had been applied for but had not been accepted by the Inspector as the Council’s  decisions had been made on a reasonable basis.

To note enforcement notices.

The Committee noted that five notices had been served since the last meeting. Officers advised that they would enter into dialogue with any business which received an enforcement notice to resolve a particular situation in the current lockdown situation.

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 Wednesday 20^th May 2020.

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 26^th May 2020.

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 public who wish to present their public forum statement, question or petition at the zoom meeting must register their interest by giving at least two clear working days’ notice prior to the meeting by 2pm on Friday 22^nd May 2020.

PLEASE NOTE THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW STANDING ORDERS AGREED BY BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL, YOU MUST SUBMIT EITHER A STATEMENT, PETITION OR QUESTION TO ACCOMPANY YOUR REGISTER TO SPEAK.

In accordance with previous practice adopted for people wishing to speak at Development Control Committees, please note that you may only be allowed 1 minute subject to the number of requests received for the meeting.

Public forum correspondence and items must be e-mailed to democratic.services@bristol.gov.uk.

Further information can be found within the relevant section of the public information sheet attached to this agenda for Agenda Item 1.

The Committee received Public Forum Statements for this meeting.

They also received requests to speak from the following people who addressed the committee remotely:

Marc Willis

Mary Carroll

Laura McEwen

Oliver Bennett

Samantha Mant

Mark Dowds

To consider the following applications for Development Control Committee B -

The Committee considered the following applications set out below:

Councillor Sultan Khan was not present for the duration of this item as required under the Council’s Code of Practice for Planning Meetings and was therefore not permitted to participate in the debate or vote on this application.

The Case Officer introduced the report and made the following comments:

•            Details of the application were provided

•            There had been a total of 77 comments concerning the application. Most concerns related to scale and massing and the impact on parking in the building

•            There had been 2 Public Forum Statements – one from the applicant and the other from an objector expressing concerns about the impact on traffic and the height on the building

•            Design - the massing had been reduced to a level that was deemed acceptable by the City Design Group.

•            Transport – this was considered sufficient. A parking survey had assessed that there were 16 and 17 spaces available within 150 metres of the site.

•            Residential Amenity – The orientation of the building would not lead to overshadowing. Proposals were in excess of the 21 metre separation distance required and screens would be provided to stop overlooking.

•            The scheme was recommended for approval subject to 30% affordable housing and contributions to the travel plan and car club

Responses By Officers to Committee Questions

·       The requirement for gated access is a standard condition and was one part of some minor changes to an earlier plan

·       The sustainability team were satisfied that the development would not result in unacceptable overheating of units. They were happy that this would be mitigated through mechanical ventilation and heat recovery. It was acknowledged however that it would be better for future applications to devise natural shading to prevent the need for such mitigation.

·       The plan was incorrect and so there should not be any difficulties with accessing bin stores as might have been the case with the previous plan

·       Nine units are to be secured as affordable in perpetuity. It will be 100% affordable but we can only require the amount required by Policy in perpetuity

·       Walk up Flats – whilst members concerns about walk up flats were noted, walk up flats were considered to be a good way to create dual aspect units as sought by the Urban Living SPD.

·       The original plans included a small amount of shared amenity space to the rear but this was considered more valuable to use for parking. Each of the units would have gardens, balconies or terraces and the site was a few minutes’ walk to Victoria Park so it was believed that this caters well for play space for children.

·       The privacy screens on the top deck would either be metal or translucent glass

•            Safety – there is a railing along rear roof terrace. The development needed to comply with Building Regulations and this would receive separate consideration.

Comments from Councillors

·       The site seemed impressive. This application should be supported

·       The site was in an unused space  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

Councillor Lesley Alexander did not attend from the beginning of this item (including Public Forum Statements relating to it) and therefore in accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, she was not permitted to participate in the debate or vote on it.

It was noted that this item had been deferred from 29^th May 2020 meeting pending a further report as Councillors were minded to refuse this application.

Among the areas of concern raised by Members at the meeting were: traffic and parking; an over concentration of Care Homes in the area affecting the mixed and balanced community; and the rationale for considering the site as being near to shops and services due to the nature and limited mobility of the likely residents.

The case officer introduced the report and made the following comments:

·       A further review of the applicant’s parking survey (2019) had been conducted and a further site visit made. On the basis that the survey identified parking spaces that were unavailable (dropped kerbs), and that a vast number of representations including photos had been made demonstrating the parking challenges of the area, officers had revised their recommendation and considered that the scheme should be refused.

·       Officers assessed the impact that the change of use would have on the mix and balance of the local community, however they recommended to Members that there would not be an overconcentration of such uses.

·       It was also noted that enabling access to shops and services by staff was important as well as visitors and this increased parking could also have an impact on the site.

Officers Response to Questions By Councillors

·       Policy did not explicitly define at what point an overconcentration of one particular type of use (such as a care home) in a particular street or area became unacceptable. Councillors should undertake a careful assessment against the criteria of Policy DM2, which defines some of the issues which could be considered to demonstrate such a concentration.

•     The assessment in the report considered the uses of each of the buildings on the streets. Whilst there may be higher level of occupation for care homes, compared to residential homes, there was no data available for the occupancy of every single property. At the census level every person in Redland and the Manor Park LSOA could be accounted for but these figures were dated to 2011 and so out of date and covered a much larger area than just Belvedere Road.

•     The level of disturbance was assessed by BCC’s environmental health officer and was made on the basis of registered complaints. As no complaints were registered it was difficult to define whether there was an impact in terms of noise and disturbance.

•     Whilst representations to councillors could be considered by the Committee, officers were not able to give them the same weight as if they were recorded complaints

•     At appeal, objectors would be able to raise with the Inspector all issues that they deemed to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

Subject to approval at Agenda Item 6, the next meeting of this Committee is scheduled to be held at 2pm on Wednesday 24^th June 2020 as a remote zoom meeting.