Agenda and draft minutes

Remote Zoom Meeting, Development Control B Committee - Thursday, 15th April, 2021 6.00 pm

Venue: Virtual Meeting - Zoom Committee Meeting with Public Access via YouTube. View directions

Contact: Jeremy Livitt 

Link: Watch Live Webcast

Items
No. Item

1.

Welcome, Introduction and Safety Information pdf icon PDF 401 KB

Additional documents:

2.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

Cllr Stephen Clarke sent apologies

Cllr Mike Davies sent his apologies, Cllr Fabian Breckels is substituting.

3.

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.

 

 

Minutes:

None received.

4.

Minutes of the previous meeting held on 17th March 2021 pdf icon PDF 182 KB

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

Minutes:

RESOLVED the minutes of the previous meeting on 17 March 2021 were agreed as a correct record.

5.

Appeals pdf icon PDF 51 KB

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

Minutes:

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

·        Item 10 on p.13 relates to the former police dog and horse training ground. Committee granted an application to move Baltic Wharf Caravan Club to that location. Due to potential flooding issues, the application had to be referred to the Secretary of State, who has called it in. There will be an enquiry from 20 July 2021, and we will need to field witnesses to defend that decision.

ACTION GC to send an update email to RE about item 57 (Dancey Mead).

 

6.

Enforcement pdf icon PDF 17 KB

To note enforcement notices.

 

Minutes:

The Head of Development Management reported that 3 new notices had been served since the last meeting. There were no questions from committee.

7.

Practice Notes - Information Item pdf icon PDF 457 KB

Minutes:

This report was NOTED.

 

There was agreement at a recent Development Control leads meeting to add practice notes as standing items on DC meetings to make sure all members are up to speed on the relevant legislation. This particular update relates to space standards and climate change and sustainability.

 

8.

Public Forum pdf icon PDF 70 KB

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 4.30pm on Friday 9th April 2021.

 

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 12pm on Wednesday 14th April 2021.

 

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

 

Members of the public who wish 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 Tuesday 13th April 2021.

 

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.

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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.

9.

Planning and Development pdf icon PDF 91 KB

To consider the following applications for Development Control Committee B

Minutes:

The Committee considered the following Planning Applications.

9a

20/04474/F We The Curious, Millennium Square pdf icon PDF 7 MB

Minutes:

An Amendment Sheet was provided to the Committee in advance of the meeting, detailing changes since the publication of the original report.

 

The Planning Officer summarised the application as follows:

a.     The proposed location contains lots of existing attractions and listed buildings, including the We the Curious science museum, cathedral, cathedral school and central library.

b.     The committee was shown the existing elevation of the We the Curious building alongside the Planetarium, and then with the addition of the Arc. The capsule rests on the roof of the WtC building. Total height of the Arc is 79m. The cabin floor is 67m from ground level. Base is 3m diameter. 42 people are carried in the capsule for 20-minute session including boarding and offloading. There will be a guide on board to describe points of interest. It will operate for a maximum of 18 hours per day. It will be in the air for 60% of the run time and be at its highest point for half of that. It is expected to draw around 250k visitors per year.

c.      Some views have been raised from the Bristol Walking Alliance and the Bristol Civic Society about the impact of the Arc base on traffic flow and the fulcrum going overhead distracting people in Millennium Square. It could inhibit use of the fountains, pools  and  there may be insufficient space for cyclists and pedestrians in the pinch point between Millennium Square and Anchor Square.

d.     The Arc will be visible from College Green over the Cathedral, impacting on the skyline. It would also appear above the Cathedral School and the historic gatehouse. It will be visible from most parts of the harbourside. Planning within the harbourside has a general principle of keeping views of the cathedral unobstructed.

e.     There have been 35 responses. 32 in support and 3 against. Points in support are tourism, economy, employment, raising Bristol’s profile and education. Points against are the impact on the square, harm to the skyline, bulky design, exclusivity of use and similar views being available elsewhere.

f.       There were mixed  views on the design. In itself, it is a high-quality design but very different to the existing  context. Therefore, there is not a conclusive stance on design. There is harm to heritage assets, but this is classed as ‘less than substantial harm’ so should be weighed against the public benefit. It is the view of Historic England that the public benefit does not mitigate harm to the existing heritage assets.

g.     In terms of education, there will be a guide on the Arc talking about the history of Bristol. 10% of profits would go to a social innovation programme to improve access to the Arc for people  from disadvantaged   backgrounds. This would work out to 1% free tickets of the projected 250k annual total. The economic benefit will be significant. National policy is that great weight must be given to heritage asset protection, in this case the Cathedral, other grade II* and grade II  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9a

9b

19/03660/F Astry Close, Lawrence Weston pdf icon PDF 20 MB

Minutes:

The Planning Officer summarised the application as follows:

a.     There is a lot to commend the application, officers regret that they are recommending refusal. There has been a lot of effort to negotiate to make this workable, but there has been no attempt to compromise by the developer over the past 18 months.

b.     Local people are in support and have a valid view on the application, but so does the planning authority. When a planning officer goes through scheme, they look at quality of design, what would it provide, would it realistically work?

c.      In 2012 the site had 16 houses in 8 pairs in precast concrete, which have been demolished and cleared. The site has been vacant for a long period. It is a challenging site due to the steep gradient.

d.     36 dwellings are proposed, with 32 houses and 4 flats. All are classed as affordable. There is a good mix of semi-detached, terrace and flats. Construction is grey brick. All properties have private gardens. There are 48 parking spaces and 23 trees. The properties are supplied with air source heat pumps and solar panels. There is a substantial split level on the site with a large retaining wall. A public realm “heart space” is proposed between two rows of terraces in the centre of the development.

e.     There are 19 support statements, including the ward councillors. The Council’s City Design and Landscape teams have objected. The estate has green verges to provide an attractive open and airy environment. The local plan says they should be retained. DM17 policy is not to develop an open space with visual amenity. This application will be building on a verge, which is a major reason for referral to committee. The Development of 5 terraced properties on Goodring Hill would be beyond the existing building lines.

f.       Houses in the middle and far end of the site have 90-degree angles causing proximity issues, the change in height also compounds this. There is 4m height difference between houses. The spacing between facing windows is only 11m. Recommendations are 18m spacing, with some leeway for dense inner-city areas, but this cannot be justified in a suburban location. The short distance between properties will impact on residents.

g.     The gardens are small as is the proposed ‘heart space’. The terraces in the heart space face each other with a 9m spacing. This is not a high-quality shared space. It includes steps, which present access issues. Public use of the space is likely to be a nuisance to residents in the central terraces.

h.     Officers recommend refusal. We accept there are positives and commend the community engagement, but this development falls short of several fundamental planning principles.

 

Questions for Clarification:

i.       The area plan is a statutory document. The dispute is between BCC and the development forum. Community led engagement should be given weight, but committee should also be mindful of the policies and the creation of a quality living environment. We have granted high  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9b

10.

Date of Next Meeting

No meetings have yet been fixed for 2021/22 Municipal Year pending the forthcoming Bristol City Council elections.