Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed all parties to the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Richard Eddy.

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.

A Councillor expressed concern that the contamination documents referred to in the minutes for the Planning Appliaction related to Lower Ashley Road which was on the agenda for this meeting were not included with the application as indicated.

Officers confirmed that they were historic documents that were not available with the current application but to previous ones. It was agreed that the Committee would be provided with the relevant documents as soon as possible.

Officers also reminded members that the applicant had withdrawn their application for Lower Ashley Road and that therefore this item would not be considered at the meeting.

In response to a members’ question, officers confirmed that any documents accompanying a planning application would be automatically provided without requiring a Freedom of Information request.

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

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

Officers introduced this report and made the following comments:

Item Number 43 - Plot Of Land Fronting Former 164 - 188 Bath Road, Totterdown, Bristol BS4 3EF

The Committee was reminded that this had been split decision (1 part refused, the other approved). The applicant had appealed against the refusal but had been unsuccessful.

Item Number 46 - 55 Newfoundland Circus Bristol BS2 9AP - Delegated decision Appeal against refusal = 2 x No internally illuminated fascia signs.

This appeal had been allowed.

Item Numbers 61 and 62 - Cabot Circus Car Park Newfoundland Circus Bristol BS2 9AB - Retention of existing internally illuminated 48-sheet display and Replacement of existing internally illuminated 'backlight' landscape advertisement (6m by 3m) with an internally illuminated landscape D-Poster display (8m by 4m).

It was noted that these appeals had been dismissed.

To note enforcement notices.

The Committee noted the enforcement notices.

Anyone 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 16^th July 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 21^st July 2020.

Anyone who wishes 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 20^th July 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 -

The Committee considered the following Planning Applications:

It was noted that this application had been discussed at the previous meeting when the Committee had resolved that they were minded to refuse and had deferred a decision.

Officers confirmed that the application had been withdrawn and so would be discussed at the meeting.

Officers gave a presentation on the above application and made the following comments:

·         The issue of the land ownership of the site had been assessed. The land adjoining the public highway was owned by Picture House Court residents

·         The proposed development would take it across private land. Whilst it was possible to make an application for a site including someone else’s land, the applicant was required by law to make every effort to notify all owners in advance.

·         In accordance with this requirement, an advert had been placed in the Evening Post and a response received from one of the Public Participation Speakers confirming the list of properties affected. Four of these properties had not yet been contacted. In the event that the application was approved, these 4 properties would need to be contacted and 21 days’ notice would need to be given prior to any approval

·         Details of the location of the site were provided

·         The proposal would demolish the existing building and replace it with a 5 storey building

·         The scale and massing of the building was considered out of character

·         The proposed reduction in A2 Floor Space was not considered problematic

·         The scheme proposed 20 co-living apartments

·         An area of communal living space was proposed with 80 square metres internal space. It was devised as short term accommodation for young people

·         The draft London Local Plan recommended a minimum of 50 units. However, there was no national policy guidance to follow for these type of units.

·         The only comparable scheme was at Unity Street where 107 co-living units had been approved comprised of 7 to 10 unit blocks. This was fairly typical student accommodation with smaller rooms approximately 20.5 square metres

·         Whilst the overall accommodation was larger than proposed at Unity Street, the communal areas were smaller

·         There were a number of rear windows proposed for the development. These had prompted concern from occupiers of neighbouring properties. However, these did not affect any habitable rooms only the staircases

·         Whilst there were objections raised by urban design officers, any refusal needed to be made under an existing policy

·         Other objections were that the site did not comply with amenity needs, that  was in a Conservation Area and it was deemed harmful to this

·         The development would improve pedestrian movement

·         Details of arrangements were provided for refuse and recycling, drop kerb access and the response on sustainability. It was noted that the shading caused by solar collectors would impact on the sustainability credentials of the neighbouring development

·         A concern about cleaning maintenance for some of the proposed windows on the site had been addressed by the applicant by changing the angle

·         Whilst there had been a number of concerns expressed about the size of the unit, this was better than other examples of co-living and so refusal could not be made on this basis

·         Officers were recommending refusal due to the impact on the Conservation Area through the removal of existing buildings or merit, due to over  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

Officers made the following points in presenting this application:

·         Details of the site location and of the proposed application were provided

·         Materials had been chosen to match the existing site

·         There were separate bin and bike stores with no parking provision on site

·         Twelve objections had been received, including from the Westbury-on-Trym Society relating to the lack of amenity for the proposed development and the loss of employment use and the shortage of flat provision in the area

·         The application is the commercial core of the conservation area

·         The City Design Group didn’t raise any concerns at the pre-application stage

·         The nearest property was at 49 Westbury Hill and was approximately 15 metres away from the application site. The proposed development was approximately 20 metres from other residential dwellings

·         Two to three storey buildings were predominant within this commercial core

·         The required space standards would be exceeded for both flats and it was considered acceptable

·         Transport Development Management indicated they would not recommend refusal on the grounds of lack of car parking. Following objections, the applicant had agreed to re-locate the bin and bike storage at the ground floor level

·         Sustainability – the development would have a 22.3% carbon saving

In response to members’ questions, officers made the following points:

·         The new development rights would not allow the ability to negotiate space standards, affordable housing or sustainability criteria. There were likely to be very limited circumstances in which these would apply and would require examination in more detail in future

·         The site in question was not in a residents’ parking zone

·         Prior approval had been granted for a three bedroom flat. With the proposed increase in the application to 6 flats, it was noted that this was likely to generate an extra two to three cars

·         Waste bins would be installed using a ramp system and could be conditioned

·         Councillors’ concerns were noted as to how recycling would operate. However, they were reminded that there were only three steps leading up to the recycling area. There was a ramp internally within the ground floor and facilities within the building in the corridor

Councillors made the following comments:

·         There was unlikely to be a significant impact on street parking in this area. The arrangements with the car park ramp and bin seemed acceptable. The scheme should be supported

·         The attempts to make the development blend in were impressive and the scheme should be supported

·         This development is in accordance with the council’s urban living policy. It addressed the issue of the shortage of flats. There were lots of parks nearby so the lack of amenities on the site should not be a difficulty. There was a need for a residents parking zone in this area. Any concerns over the situation with the bins was not enough to refuse it and therefore the application should be supported

·         The frustration from residents about parking was understood. A Residents Parking Zone was the solution to this problem.

·         Waste Management on the site was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

The next meeting is scheduled for 2pm on Wednesday 19^th August 2020 as a remote zoom meeting.

It was noted that the next meeting would be held as a remote zoom meeting at 2pm on Wednesday 19^th August 2020.