Agenda and minutes

The chair welcomed all parties to the meeting.

Councillor Don Alexander substituted for Councillor Nicola Bowden Jones

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 none.

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

Resolved that the Minutes of the meeting held on the 25^th February be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

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

The Head of Development Management introduced the report bringing the following to Committee’s attention:

1.       Items 11 & 12: The hearing date for the appeal has yet to be issued.  Committee were reminded that applicants had a right of appeal for non-determination to the Secretary of State where a decision has not been made within the 8-week statutory timeframe.

2.       Item 36: 7 Belvedere Road, scheduled as at agenda item 8(a); The application had been withdrawn from the agenda; Planning Inspectors decision was released after the publication of the agenda; the decision made was that the appeal against refusal was dismissed; the Inspector in the decision set a number of factors on the matter of the Highway that are of material significance that now need to be considered by officers and commented on in any future report on this application. Committee was asked to note that;

a.        there was no award of costs

b.       The Inspector agreed with the transport position put forward by the Committee

To note enforcement notices.

The Head of Development Management reported that no new notices had been served since the last meeting.

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’s notice prior to the meeting by 2pm on Friday 12^th March.

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.

Any member of the public or councillor 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 11^th March.

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 12.00 noon on 16^th March.

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

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 Application

The application was postponed to a future meeting.

An addendum report together with the Amendment sheet was provided to the Committee in advance of the meeting, and published in the committee papers.

The Head of Development Management introduced the report:

a.       The application was considered by committee on the 25^th February and at that time it was resolved to defer the application to allow officers to prepare a further report setting out reasons for refusal.

b.       The grounds given by committee for refusal were the issue of road safety; scale and massing and design; and impact on heritage assets.

c.       Members were referred to the additional reports, marked as Addendum 10 and 10a(i); setting out key issues for further consideration; in the reports officers worked through the case for refusal on each of the grounds given in (b); considered which of the grounds would stand up to challenge if committee resolved to refuse the application; and explained why a combined reasons for refusal relating to design and impact on heritage assets was viewed as stronger than separating these reasons out and also that a reason for refusal on transport impacts would not be a robust reason.

d.       Acknowledged the difference in the membership of the committee but gave reassurances that members had been provided with all reports and additional papers, together with the link to the previous broadcast to ensure all were fully informed to enable sound decision-making.  Officers were happy to answer any questions about the proposals and could also show the previous presentation.

The Planning officer provided an overview of the plans and site layout, the following questions for clarification was posed:

e.       Officers were asked what was meant by ‘standing up in an appeal’.

f.        The Head of Development Management commented that where committee resolved to make a decision contrary to officers recommendation that could result in an appeal; that every effort was made to craft reasons that would substantiate the decision made and support the case when it was brought before the Planning Inspector.  In particular, officers were keen to advise the Committee on reasons for refusal that could be substantiated and would not attract an award of cost against the Council.

g.       The improvement in the public realm sat well with the overall aspiration of the City to shift the common mode of transport to cycling and public transport.  The application would bring improvements to the safety of road users in the area.

h.       Officers were asked to set out what process of consultation was undertaken by the applicant and officers.

i.         The Service Manager advised that.

                                  i.            The UoB had engaged a service provider to lead on the consultation process and had exceeded expectation

                                 ii.            This had resulted in a citywide consultation process across digital platforms; a website set up on the project; stakeholder events and an extensive media exercise.

                               iii.            The team had engaged with Stakeholders as set out in page 77 of the report.

                               iv.            Over 300 comments had been received and fed into the process.

                                 v.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Thursday 15^th April 2021 at 6pm

Thursday 15^th April @ 6pm