Agenda and minutes

The chair welcomed all parties to the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Lesley Alexander.

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.

Declarations of Interest were received from:

Councillor Richard Eddy in respect of Planning Application Number 20/01930/F - Police Dog & Horse Training Centre Clanage Road Bristol BS3 2JY – as a former member of Destination Bristol who have a stake in this application. However, he indicated that his views were not influenced by them.

Councillor Chris Jackson in respect of Planning Application Number 20/01930/F - Police Dog & Horse Training Centre Clanage Road Bristol BS3 2JY – as a member of the Caravan and Motoring Club. However, he retained an open mind concerning this application.

Councillor Clive Stevens indicated that he had written a book about Local Democracy and was a member of the Bristol Tree Forum until 2016. However, neither of these impeded his ability to consider both planning applications at today’s meeting with an open mind.

Councillor Fi Hance who used to have a child at Cotham School. However, this did not affect her ability to consider Planning Application Number 20/03288/VP Stoke Lodge Sports Ground Shirehampton Road Sea Mills Bristol on its merits.

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

Councillor Tom Brook moved, seconded by Councillor Richard Eddy and it was

RESOLVED - that the minutes of the above meeting be confirmed as a correct record.

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

Officers made the following comments concerning this report:

Number 11 - Ground Floor Hamilton House 80 Stokes Croft Bristol BS1 3QY – Notification for Prior Approval for a proposed change of use of a building from use class B1 (Office) to a Dwelling House (Class C3). Block C, Ground Floor - 1 Unit.

Confirmation was awaited concerning the virtual hearing and this would then be followed by an exchange of written representations.

Number 60 - Plot Of Land Fronting Former 164 - 188 Bath Road Totterdown Bristol BS4 3EF - Removal of the 3 no. existing hoarding advertisement signs, and installation of 2no. illuminated digital advertisements on support legs

The Committee had approved one application and refused the other. However, this appeal had been allowed. The Inspector felt that on balance the digital advert would not be a distraction for drivers. However, no costs had been applied for.

Officers confirmed that the applicant could not re-apply with their application that had been considered on its own merits. They would continue to argue that any potential distraction from hoarding advertisement signs needed to be taken into account in any decision but would always feed back to the Committee the implications of any appeal decision in such cases.

To note enforcement notices.

Officers drew attention to the two enforcement notices that had been served since the last meeting.

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 8^th October 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 13^th October 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 12^th October 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.

Please note, your time allocated to speak may have to be strictly limited if

there are a lot of submissions. This may be as short as one minute.

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 set out below:

Officers introduced this report and made the following comments:

·         The Ash Tree in question was shown on a diagram displayed to the meeting, including an aerial photograph from 2016.

·         A photograph showed the footpath, as well as the ash tree, tower and fence

·         A rough drawing of the position of the tree highlighted its form

·         A wound on the branch of the tree was causing decay. Other branches were growing around the pavilion.

·         The benefit of pruning the tree is that it would only subsequently require a single further occurrence of pruning to recover. If the branches around were not removed, it would touch the branch due to future growth and cause damage

·         Regular pruning requires significant resources and will ensure the building does not damage the tree for several years. This would allow recovery over a 10 year period

·         Tree Management Policy (TMP) – Bristol City Council’s TMP did not authorise the removal of nuisance trees subject to proof that they were overhanging. However, the resident has a right in common law to prune the tree back to the boundary. In addition, it reduced the financial burden to Bristol City Council not to prune all the branches

·         The tree needed careful management

Officers made the following responses to Councillors’ questions:

·         There would be a very small proportion of the tree that needed to be pruned. Pruning back the trunk would allow the trees’ natural defences to seal over and for it to recover. This was urgently needed and would create a worse situation if the pruning did not take place

·         The Local Planning Authority received 3 to 4,000 applications under the Planning Act. In each case, an assessment had to be made and a judgement taken by officers under delegated authority. The Local Member, Councillor Goulandris, had exercised his right to refer this matter to Committee under the ward member referral system. Since the constitution uses the word application for Development Control Committees, it had been deemed that this does cover Tree Preservation Orders

·         In assessing whether or not a tree needed pruning, officers assessed the proportion of canopy that would need to be removed and the impact on the trees’ ability to photosynthesise. It was only a small amount in this case and in the professional opinion of the Tree Arboricultural Officer it would not be dangerous to the tree. However, when a branch was pruned, it took a lot of stored energy to callous over a wound and so reducing the amount of times that pruning took place was important

·          The Committee needed to consider the application in front of it and could not therefore request the one branch hitting the tree to be removed

·         Whilst there would not be any short term difficulty in just removing the one branch, the other branches would interact with the building and cause problems in five to ten years’ time

·         The assessment of each individual tree was done according to British Standard 399A and to prevent any further  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

Officers introduced this report and made the following comments:

·         The site location was a disused railway line

·         The plan was to bring it back into use on the eastern side. On the western side was Ashton Gate, to the south is Bedminster Cricket Club and other open areas, to the east is the city and Brunel overpass with the River Avon running along the eastern side of the site

·         A Public Right of Way surrounded the site but the site itself had been disused for some time and was previously occupied by Avon and Somerset Police. A footbridge allows access to the city

·         The southern part of the site was undeveloped – various images were shown of the buildings inside the site

·         The caravan club operates an alternative site at Baltic Wharf including 62 pitches (58 were all weather), 4 grass pitches and a proposal for the erection of 3 buildings. There was one single access area to the central part of the site lowering the boundary wall

·         The site was in the green belt and in Flood Zone 3 adjacent to the Ashton Court Estate which was a Grade 2 listed building

·         The application was similar to the 2016 application that had been refused on the grounds of the Green Belt, Impact on the Conservation Area, Highways Land and Flood Risk. Officers’ view was that there had been little change in the proposal apart from the highways situation

·         Since the area of land was in the Green Belt, an exception could be made if it was a brown field site. However, the policy was to keep the area of land open for use. Whilst part of the site was brown field, the southern part of the site including the Caravan Site was not included in any of the exceptions and any exception would be noticeable. The policy stated that an application could therefore only be approved in very limited circumstances

·         Whilst it was noted that there were no other sites available and that there were economic and tourism benefits to the site since the caravan club was popular, none of these factors overrode the issue of the impact on the Green Belt

·         The Conservation Area and City Docks were noted. The purpose of this area was to retain a buffer between the city and Ashton Court Estate

·         An image of the proposed 58 pitches was shown. These would be materially different to the rest of the site and would be prominent

·         Officer’s view was that the caravans were not discrete and would operate almost to full occupancy all year round which would conflict with the Conservation Area and Green Belt

·         Whilst officers noted the comment from the applicant that the parcel of land could be used for the Bristol to Portishead Railway Line, it was noted that this had not yet been approved.

·         The proposed 57 lights would create an illuminance from the caravans themselves. Therefore, officers were recommending refusal on heritage grounds

·         There was a high  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

The next meeting is scheduled to be held at 2pm on Wednesday 11^th November 2020 as a remote zoom meeting.

It was noted that the next meeting is scheduled to be held as a remote zoom meeting at 2pm on Wednesday 11^th November 2020.