Venue: Virtual Meeting - Zoom Committee Meeting with Public Access via YouTube. View directions
Contact: Jeremy Livitt
Link: Watch Live Webcast
The Chair welcomed all parties to the meeting.
Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Olly Mead (Councillor Paul Goggin substiuting) and Councillor Nicola Bowden-Jones (Councillor Jo Sergeant substiuting).
Declarations of Interest
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 an interest in Agenda Item 8(b) Planning Application Number 19/04167/F Telephone Exchange St Johns Road Clifton Bristol BS8 2EU as he had submitted a Public Forum Statement and Questions for this application.
In accordance with the Council’s Code of Practice for Councillors on Planning Matters, he indicated that he would withdraw from the meeting for the duration of this item.
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 advised the Committee that there had been a recent surge in appeals and he made the following comments:
Items 7 to 13 relating to Hamilton House – the hearing for these applications was taking place today (ie Wednesday 9th December 2020)
The hearing in respect of the site of the former Giant Goram Public House was likely to be held in the New Year. It was noted that it would be held as an informal hearing on 12th January 2021. Anyone wishing to attend would need to register to do so and would be able to submit evidence to it.
Two appeals were taking place in respect of Former Pring and Street Hill Limited, Malago Road. The hearings would take place on Tuesday 15th January 2021.
The Public Inquiry for St Catherines Place Shopping Centre East Street Bedminster was scheduled to take place on 26th January 2021 and would be held as virtual meetings.
To note enforcement notices.
It was noted that enforcement action had been taken in respect of 420 Sandwell Road.
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:
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 3rd December 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 8th December 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 - firstname.lastname@example.org
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 7th December 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
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 each application they related to and were taken fully into consideration by the Committee prior to reaching a decision.
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.
The Committee received a statement from David Sweeting in respect of Planning Application Number 20/02274/F which was previously approved at DCB Committee on 19th August 2020 –Address: Unit 7 Merton Road, Bristol.
Officers advised the Committee that the enforcement team had written to the developer for this application to request that they comply with the required pre-commencement conditions and that they desist from their current works which were different from what was approved. It was noted that this matter could be escalated further as necessary.
Committee members expressed concern at this situation and made the following comments. Officers responded as indicated:
• In situations such as this where conditions were repeatedly violated, the local community suffered. Urgent discussions were required with building and planning enforcement and the matter needed to be dealt with quickly.
• This was a matter of great concern as applications were frequently only approved on the basis that certain conditions were adhered to. However, officers confirmed that conditions were legally binding
• Whilst there had been attempts to negotiate with this developer, there seemed to have been difficulties with communications
• Decisions were made on the understanding that conditions would be adhered to and these should be properly enforced. Notwithstanding any legal constraints, the process needed to take place quicker
• Officers confirmed that they would check to see the number of complaints that had been received concerning enforcement and details of response rate. There were performance management statistics that could be provided. They acknowledged members concerns but pointed out that following a reduction in resource the enforcement team only consisted of 3.5 people for the whole city. Therefore, these could no longer operate on a proactive basis as they previously had done but relied very heavily on responding to complaints.
• In response to concerns as to when officers could take action in such circumstances, officers confirmed that the management protocol in these situations required an initial period of negotiation and a small window of opportunity for the developer to act prior to enforcement action being taken. If a breach had occurred and compliance did not take place, an application could be made to the magistrate for enforcement action. However, care did need to be taken to follow the approach properly as the appellant did have a right of appeal. In the event that the Local Planning Authority were deemed to have acted in an excessive manner, they could be liable for compensation
• Officers confirmed that the existing resource model for enforcement operated for a 5 year period and was ... view the full minutes text for item 40.
To consider the following applications for Development Control Committee B -
The Committee considered the following applications set out below:
The Committee noted that this application was being reconsidered in accordance with Committee procedure following the decision at the previous Committee meeting that it was minded to refuse the application on the grounds of impact to visual amenity, impact to amenity to existing residents and parking impacts.
Members were reminded of the details of the application which needed to be considered in accordance with Government legislation relating to prior approval under permitted development rights.
Officers drew members’ attention to the report which set out the reasons under which the Committee might refuse the application based on the visual impact of two additional stories on neighbouring properties and existing residents, highways impact due to the lack of on street parking and the external appearance of the proposed building.
In response to members questions, officers made the following comments:
• The Committee was free to consider the application on the merits of the evidence provided, including lack of evidence in relation to the time of the day of the parking survey that was carried out
• Since the application was next to a Conservation Area but not within it and due to its status as a prior approval planning application, there were more limited grounds on which it could be considered
• The reference to external appearance as one of the suggested reasons for refusal could still be considered by the Committee and could be defended at appeal
• Residents’ views on the appearance of the building could still be considered in making the decision
Councillor Richard Eddy moved, seconded by Councillor Sultan Khan and upon being put to the vote, it was
RESOLVED (9 for, 1 against) – that the application be refused on the following grounds:
1. The application is not supported by sufficiently robust evidence to demonstrate that there is adequate on-street parking capacity to accommodate parking arising from the development without safety and congestion issues. In addition to existing on street car parking relating to adjacent schools, bowling club, church and homes, car parking relating to the proposed flats would cause excessive congestion, increased complexity in navigation and manoeuvring as well as reduced visibility. This is of particular concern given movements of pupils accessing the adjacent schools. Increased conflict between pedestrians, cyclists and drivers would lead to a material decrease in highway safety. The development therefore fails to contribute to a safe environment which minimises conflicts between all highway users. The development also fails to address the needs of people with disabilities and reduced mobility through lack of any car parking provision. These factors would represent unacceptable transport and highways impacts and conditions which are contrary to policy outlined at Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The development therefore fails to pass the test outlined at Condition A.2 – (1) (a) of Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of The Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020.
Impact to external appearance
2. The proposed extension would disproportionately increase ... view the full minutes text for item 42.
Councillor Clive Stevens withdrew from this item as indicated above and did not participate or vote on it.
Officers responded to supplementary questions (two per speaker) as indicated below:
Responses to Councillor Clive Stevens
(1) The applicant has provided a search area where replacement equipment needs to be located. There is no replacement that they can share and no evidence that they have actively co-ordinated as there were other approved sites. Therefore, officers believed that Policy DM36 (2) had been met
(2) The search area is based on an area as close to the equipment as possible. The applicant was only required to demonstrate that they are as close to existing coverage as currently exists. Since all providers had received a notice to quit, this suggested there were no other providers available. This was based on evidence that there were no existing installations that can be shared.
Responses to Janet Lee
(1) Whilst it was usually possible to upload all documents when submitting an objection to a planning application, it was noted that this had not been possible in this instance. However, the diagram and photos that had subsequently been submitted were acknowledged and taken into account
(2) Whilst it was noted that developers had been able to submit a large number of photos, they had legal requirements to submit a wide range of documents including photos which were required as part of the application
Officers indicated that they would investigate whether the planning portal could be adapted to make it easier to submit a wider variety of photos.
Questions By Rob Lee
(1) Durdham Downs provides coverage for this area. The applicant has made clear that they needed to ensure coverage could be provided for an installation nearby
(2) The 2017 replacement was for partial coverage whereas the proposed installation would provide a complete coverage
Questions by Richard Durrant
(1) Officers had only been able to include certain documents since some were too large. We included a coverage plan and two views from the applicant which provided a visual interpretation. However, a critical assessment had been provided of the view and adjusting it. All Councillors had been able to access and review the comments made and the images
(2) The Committee have to be satisfied that they have all the information available to make their decision. Members also had the option of deferring a decision for further information if they chose to do so
Questions from Merche Clark
(1) Officers did not know the numbers of residents who would have their views interrupted by the proposed masts
(2) In relation to the Conservation Area, the views from St Johns Road and Alma Vale were they key views in assessing where the equipment was most harmful and apparent and therefore these had been taken into account.
Officers gave a presentation on this application and made the following points:
· Details of the site were provided
· Alma Church was not listed as suggested by a number of people submitting Public Forum ... view the full minutes text for item 43.
Date of Next Meeting
The next meeting is scheduled for 2pm on Wednesday 27th January 2021 to be held as a remote zoom meeting.
The Committee noted that the next meeting was scheduled for 2pm on Wednesday 27th January 2021 as a remote zoom meeting.