Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed all parties to the meeting.

Apologies for absencewere receivedfrom Councillors Nicola Bowden-Jones, substitute Jo Sergeant; and Fi Hance, substitute Martin Fodor.

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.

The following Declarations of Interest were received and noted:

Councillor Brook – Called In Item No. 20/02274/F Unit 7 Merton Road and would not be participating in the item.

Councillor Stevens – Visited the site of Item No. 20/01491/F Old Shoe Factory this morning  with other Members of the Committee and officers.

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

Resolved – that the minutesof the abovemeeting be confirmed as acorrect record and signedby the

Chair.

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

The Head of DevelopmentManagement introduced the report and summarised it for everyone. He drew     attention to Items Nos 5 to 11 (all Hamilton House) and advised that they are still awaiting a decision on the date of the Hearing.

In response to a question concerning Item No. 16 (Casa Mia, Bramble Lane, Stoke Bishop), he confirmed that this relates to a delegated decision not a Committee decision and that the Inspectorate’s assessment of the appeal will not be affected by the fact that this is an appeal against non-determination as opposed to an appeal where the Council had made a decision.

To note enforcement notices.

The Head of DevelopmentManagement introduced the report and summarised it for everyone.

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. 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 13^th August 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 Noon on Tuesday 18^th August 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

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 17^th August 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 theCommittee receivedPublic Forum Statements in advanceof the meeting.

The Statements were heardbefore theapplication they relatedto and were takenfully 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:

Councillor Jackson joined the Meeting during this item and did not participate in it.

The Head of Development Management and his representative gave a presentation and summarised the report for this item highlighting that this is an application for the conversion of commercial building into single dwelling house, with upper floor extension.

Answers for clarification:

·     Although there has been a recent Committee decision in relation to nearby premises in Whiteladies Road, each application has be to judged on its own merits; this is a very overlooked site and the bedroom would have a poor outlook

·     The reasons for the previous refusal are contained in the report; this is the third application based on the current design and the applicant has provided additional information, however the key elements that have led to a recommendation of refusal are still present – a poor outlook in a constrained backland location

·     The property at 118 Whiteladies Road is a first floor flat in residential use which has several windows at that level; one of the windows has a reasonable view

·     This application meets the BRE Regulation of 25 degree rule and allows enough light but still has a poor outlook

·     It is a very built up site with large walls in close proximity

·     It would not be a sustainable development

·     There are elements of the application that are acceptable on balance, but it has no decent level of outlook and no garden

·     The narrow access lane to the property is a low quality means of access  due to the proximity of other buildings and the site’s situation behind existing development

·     The quality of the living accommodation is a balanced decision and this application is not considered to be acceptable

·     The scheme only just meets space standards and is not considered to be acceptable when assessed cumulatively and in conjunction with the other planning concerns that have been upheld. The internal layout has required a mezzanine floor to be included and this adds to the cramped layout

Debate:

·                Members did not agree with the Officer Recommendation

·                The scheme was considered to be acceptable for a single person who wants to live in the area

·                Although it is not a highly desirable property the quality is considered to be acceptable and it is an infill site

·                It adds to the housing stock and will be attractive to some people

·                The building may not be developed if it is not used for this scheme

·                Members could understand the Officer Recommendation but did not agree with it

Councillor Brook moved the Officer Recommendation for refusal. However this Motion was not seconded so it fell and no vote was taken.

Councillor Davies moved that the application be granted with Officers delegated to include appropriate Conditions in the approval.

Councillor Eddy seconded this Motion and on being put to the Vote it was

Resolved – (voting 9 for, 0 against) that the application be granted with Officers delegated to include appropriate Conditions in the approval.

Councillor Brook did not participate in this item, so Councillor Eddy took the Chair.

The Head of Development Management and his representative gave a presentation and summarised the report for this item highlighting that this is an application for the removal of temporary store and construction of 3 No. single storey business units Use Class B1 (c) - Light industrial.

         Answers for clarification:

·        The issue of air pollution can be taken into account

·        Residential amenity has been addressed through Conditions that would be attached to any permission granted

·        There are Conditions relating to noise on site as well as noise generated by plant; working hours would also be conditioned

·        There can only be Conditions imposed relating to this site; enforcement can only relate to the site covered by this application

·        A Condition relating to the prohibition of burning on site can be added

·        The new Local Plan would have limited weight at this point in time

·        Light industrial uses are allowed to take place in residential areas

·        Although the number of jobs that would be created once this development is in operation cannot be confirmed, the applicant has stated in the submitted application form that there will be 6 new employees

·        A condition could be added explicitly stating that fires shall not be lit within the application site

·        An Advice Note suggesting a meeting between the local residents and users of the industrial units can be added

           Debate:

·        The reasons for the application being Called In were understandable

·        A Condition relating to the prohibition of the lighting of fires  on the application site should be added

·        The application is an improvement on what is on the site at present

·        The development would create jobs

·        Most of the important questions relating to the application have been answered

Councillor Sergeant moved that the application be granted subject to the addition of a Condition relating to the prohibition of the lighting of fires on the application site.

Councillor Khan seconded this Motion and on being put to the Vote it was

Resolved – (voting 9 for, 0 against) that the application be granted subject to the addition of a Condition relating to the prohibition of the lighting of fires on the application site.           

The next meeting is scheduled to be held at 2pm on Wednesday 16th September 2020 as a Remote Zoom meeting.

It wasnoted that the next meetingwould be held as a remotezoom meeting at2.00 pm on Wednesday 16^th September 2020.

Noted.