Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed all parties to the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Sultan Khan (substituted for by Councillor Tony Carey).

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.

Councillor Clive Stevens declared a general pecuniary interest in planning matters having co-written a book concerning this issue.

He confirmed that he had been advised by the Monitoring Officer that he had been advised to declare this interest at each Development Control Committee that he attended as a Committee Member with voting rights.

He stated that he did not have a predetermined view on either of the applications to be considered at the meeting and would therefore not need to withdraw from the meeting for either of them.

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

It was moved by Councillor Tom Brook, seconded by Councillor Richard Eddy and upon being put to the vote it was

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

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

Officers made the following comments concerning appeals:

·         The previously cancelled hearing for a number of applications relating to Hamilton House in Stokes Croft had now been rearranged for 9^th December 2020. These were subject to prior approval for Planning Development rights to allow conversion of Class B1 use to Class C Residential Use without planning permission. The original applications had all been refused as there was inadequate evidence that these properties were in lawful Class B1 use.

·         The Appeal relating to 21 Moorlands Road, Fishponds, Bristol BS16 3LF had now been changed to a hearing process and was likely to commence in January 2021. In response to a member’s question, officers confirmed that they would advise the Committee who had requested the change. However, it was likely that it was usually at the appellant’s request. This was frequently more positive for the community as they could then express their views directly to the Inspector. These were usually held in public session, although the situation may be different for virtual meetings

·         Officers noted members concerns that the process for the St Phillips sign appeal would not allow parties to write in with their views and would not therefore be a democratic process. They confirmed that they had made representations to the Inspectorate for the process to be reverted to a normal appeal process and would advise the Committee of the situation in due course

To note enforcement notices.

Officers reported that there had been no cases of enforcement 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 5^th November 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 10^th November 2020.

The statement should be addressed to the Service Director, Legal Services, c/o The Democratic Services Team, City Hall, 3rd 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 9th

November 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.

8. Planning

Members of the Committee received Public Forum Statements in advance of the meeting.

The statements were heard before each 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 applications set out below:

Officers introduced this report and made the following comments:

·         This application would be considered under permitted development rights. Whilst officers had expressed concerns over the operation of these during the consultation process for their introduction, this application had to be assessed within these constraints

·         This application could not be assessed against the Council’s planning policies and were required by the Government to operate under a lighter touch

·         The current site consisted of a 3 storey detached block of 21 flats built in the 1970s with a flat roof and built in the 1970s and with a buff coloured brickwork

·         It was an extensive sit with a small parking area out front that was accessed from Grange Court Road in a typical suburban street. There was a Catholic Church opposite the property that was next to Redmaids School.

·         Grange Court was outside the Downs Conservation Area which was indicated by a yellow line

·         The development was for a two-storey extension with an increased height from 9 metres to 14 metres and with an extension that mirrors that existing building and including matching materials

·         All proposed new flats would have three bedrooms and would be open plan with a kitchen and dining area. Existing bin storage and garages would be retained. There would be additional space for 30 cycle places

·         There were a large number of concerns about this application that was understandable. However, the Local Planning Authority could only consider the amenity of existing residents and of adjacent properties, as well as highways issues. Officers believed the proposed development fell within the confines of the legislation as a detached block of flats

·         Complaints received concerning this application related to fire safety, the effect on views of the building from the surrounding area, the fact that residents were not pre-informed properly of the proposal and the impact on the financial viability of existing properties

·         There had been 268 objections and one letter of support

·         The application had been referred to Committee by three Councillors. Concerns had also been raised by Darren Jones MP

·         The proposed development complied with all criteria set out in the legislation for this type of development

·         The Committee’s attention was drawn to the criteria under which prior approval applications could be considered which included transport and highways, external appearance and the impact on amenity

·         The development was approximately 600 metres to the Town Centre and 300 metres to Henleaze with shops being easily accessible. It was also 400 metres from two bus stops with direct links to the City Centre. It would also reduce reliance on car use since there would be a total of 30 cycle parking spaces with two per flat

·         The development met the necessary transport criteria. There would be no additional car parking and any proposed parking would be on nearby streets. The parking survey had identified good car parking availability with approximately 70 parking spaces being available on the two evenings that the survey was undertaken. During the day, the nearby  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

Officers introduced this report and made the following comments:

•          The proposed development was for a change of use from a pub to 5 flats including the reinstatement of the basement of Eldon Terrace

•          Details of the site were shown to the Committee including where the 1st Floor extension would be added

•          The proposal would include a single storey rear extension to Unit 2 with a subdivided rear garden and a bike store at the back

•          The 1st Floor windows would now be obscure glazed with a vertical timber screen

•          The basement would operate as a normal residential basement

•          Since the original proposal for Unit 2 has not been deemed acceptable, it had been extended into a big full glazed door. The flat would not be occupied until the screen was in place

•          There were some concerns about the impact of the development on local parking

•          Members’ attention was drawn to Policy DM6 which stated that such a development should only be permitted if the former pub was no longer economically viable or there were a diverse range of public houses within the locality, as well as requiring any extensions or alterations to not create any harm to the amenity

•          The pub had been unsuccessfully marketed since January 2019 and had been closed prior to the lockdown due to COVID-19 in March 2020

•          The Rising Sun, Victoria Park and Windmill Hill Pubs, amongst other pubs, were already nearby the site

•          The pub had been added as an asset to the Community Value Register for 2008/09 and had been the subject of crowd funding but could not find anyone to take it on

•          The applicant had met with a community group and had agreed to turn down a major offer for the site to allow them to raise funds for the pub but they had been unable to do so

•          The Transport Team were satisfied that this was a car free development with on street parking available

•          The refuse, recycling and cycle storage provision were considered acceptable

•          All flats were considered a suitable size

•          There would be no impact on trees

•          There would be a construction management plan

•          The development was considered sustainable

•          The principle of conversion to flats was in accordance with the policy

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

•          The basement would not be part of the flat but would be converted back to a separate residential use

•          No comparison was required against CAMRA’s criteria (the Campaign Group for Real Ale)

•          The site was a 400/500 metre walk uphill

•          Since there were other offers available, there was no further financial requirement

Members made the following comments:

·         The issue of loss of privacy now seemed to be solved with the introduction of a timber fence with a missing panel which would allow the occupier to see out but not allow anyone to look in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

The next meeting is scheduled to be held at 6pm on Wednesday 9^th December 2020 as a remote zoom meeting.

It was noted that the next meeting is scheduled to be held at 6pm (later with the agreement of Spokespersons changed to 2pm) on Wednesday 9th December 2020.