Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed those present and explained the process to be followed on hearing of each application.

Apologies received from:

Cllr C Denyer – substituted by Cllr C Stevens

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.

Cllr Clive Stevens asked that committee note his previous involvement in respect of agenda item 8(a):

·       As Chair of the Tree Forum in 2015 wrote a letter objecting to the loss of the trees

·       In June 2019 he wrote requesting a revised tree report that was provided in July 2019

On the matter of 8(a) he declared that he had not pre-determined the application.

Cllr Mike Davies asked Committee to note his intention to withdraw from the debate on item 8(a) to make a statement.

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

Resolved that the minutes of the 27^th May be approved 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 introduced the report providing an overview of the appeals in progress.  Drawing committees attention to item 63: SW Whitehall Road (Huawei) Whitehall Road Bristol BS1 5BT; update to existing telecommunications apparatus that was refused under delegated decision; the appeal was dismissed by the Planning Inspector; increase height and monopole would impact the visual amenity of the area; the proposed operators had not explored different options for placing the apparatus in the local area; so found harm to visual amenity and dismissed the appeal.

To note enforcement notices.

The Head of Development Management reminded committee that with the frequency of committee meetings updates notices reported as new will decrease however  we are reporting 2 enforcement notices as detailed in the report.

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 18^th June 2020.

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 Noon on Tuesday

23^rd June 2020.

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

Monday 22^nd June 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

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 -

Cllr Mike Davies stood down from Committee at the start of the public forum presentation and took no part in the debate or the decision making process.

Cllr Richard Eddy left the meeting during the course of the discussion and was not present for the final vote.

The Head of Development Management and his representative gave a presentation and summarised the report for this item including the following:

a.      Full planning application for the development of a 4-storey block of flats to provide 28 units of residential accommodation including affordable housing, cycle parking, refuse storage and amenity space.

b.      Contentious planning application; the Maple trees being the main area of concern for stakeholders; Committee was directed to give weight to the planning history set out in the report; In 2005 the trees were subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO);  Planning permissions granted in 2007 & 2016 included the loss of the trees; 1^st occasion no compensation payment for their loss was secured as the Bristol Tree replacement standard was not in existence; 2^nd grant in 2016 the strandard  had been adopted and on approval the applicant made the payment for replacement of the trees; the current position is that 50% of funds received have already been distributed by the local Area Committee to local tree planting.

c.      Student development is extant and can be implemented up to May 2021.

d.      Committee were reminded that the ‘Land ownership’ issues posed by objectors is outside the planning process; the matter was complicated because of the existence of contradictory information held on Bristol City Council website; Officers are now confident that the trees are situated on land under private ownership; committee was directed to determine the application before them and not the issue of land ownership.

e.      The Maple Trees Objections; Committee was directed to the historical grant that enabled the removal of the trees and as a consequence the trees cannot be protected under this current application; this objection was one that Committee could not give any weight in their deliberation.

f.       It was explained that if the current application was not granted the extant permission would result in the loss of the trees in any event and the affordable housing element in the application before committee would not be delivered.

g.      Committee was assured that those who had submitted Public Forum questions had received written answers copies of which were circulated in the public forum pack distributed to committee by Democratic Services.

h.      The Amendment sheet that was shared with committee included details of the additional representation received bringing the total to 375 objections to scheme; the major concerning the loss of trees; the sheet included recommended additional planning conditions and advice notes.

i.       Committee received a visual presentation that shared plans and images of the site and local area.

j.       The presentation compared the extant permission and proposed scheme highlighting the difference.

k.      New scheme: 2 parking spaces access from Gordon Rd: the footpath would be widened to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

The Head of Development Management and his representative gave a presentation and summarised the report for this item including the following:

a.      The application is for the development of 173 dwellings together with provision of public open space, play areas and landscaping; cycle parking and car parking provision together with related infrastructure works.

b.      The site is bound to the south by Airport Road, to the north by residential gardens and a Brook flows through the site.

c.      There were 8 representations received from the public and objections from 2 of the statutory consultees that remain outstanding.

d.      The following matters were highlighted when committee were shown the plans and images of the development and the site.

e.      The Environment Agency flood risk objection had arisen because of modelling used by the applicant.  The report and amendment sheet outlined the issues in detail but officers deem that the objection would be overcome on production of a further document explaining the modelling used by the application and final agreement on the necessary mitigation across the development. 

f.       Highway objection related to the width of the  shared cycle & pedestrian footpath that proposes to be only 3.5mtr therefore fails to meet the current cycling infrastructure plan.

g.      Officers recommended approval together with conditions and delegated authority as outlined in the amendment sheet.

Questions & Answers

h.      Officers confirmed that the cycle path was intend for use by cyclist to pass in both direction; that it was proportioned to allow 1.5mtr for cycleway and 2mtr for pedestrians; members asked if the path could extend out into the highway but that was not possible; that any adjustment to the path would impact the amenity of the development particularly the frontage of the property.

i.       A further explanation was provided on the challenges of finding a balance between the development and the hard boundary being Airport Road and the Brook. Negotiations with the developers had considered all aspects.  The final design is seen to provide the best frontage option for those units bordering the highway.  The proposed width of the cycle path supported this and is an issue that committee must be agree before residents occupy and the developer commences construction.

j.       The Brook that formed a natural boundary to the site did not appear to be of a width and depth to indicate the possibility of posing a severe flood risk.  Members sought to know the level of risk that existed. 

k.      The flood risk assessment (FRA) assesses the potential for 1/100 year event.  The EA is looking to the applicant to present the working outs for the FRA modelling used.  Officers viewed that as a technical detail that was not insurmountable therefore confident of a resolution under delegated authority.

l.       Details on council tenants tenure in the area were requested but Officers did not normal consider this statistic in the work they undertake, as mixed and balanced communities assessments normally focussed on house types.  They were able to confirm that the scheme would deliver at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

The Committee is requested to note that the next meeting is scheduled to be held at 2pm on Wednesday 22^nd July 2020 as a remote zoom meeting.