Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed all parties to the meeting and explained the arrangements in the event of an emergency evacuation procedure.

Councillor Katja Hornchen was welcomed as a new Committee member and replacing Councillor Zoe Goodman.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Chris Windows (Richard Eddy substiuting).

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 no Declarations of Interest.

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

RESOLVED – that the minutes of the meeitng be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair, with the addition of the following sentence to the comments made by Committee Members under the Minute relating to Agenda Item 8(c):

“A Committee member made the point that if Councillors had been advised before the last meeting of the additional information provided by officers concerning the potential flooding implications of the proposed development, it would have been possible to support this application without the need for a deferral”.

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

The Committee noted that the hearing date for the appeal in respect of Item 9 (1 Milsom Street, Bristol BS5 0SS) had now been fixed for 18^th January 2022.

To note enforcement notices.

The Committee noted that, while no enforcement notices had been issued recently, there continued to be activity in this area and it was likely that some would be served shortly.

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 7^th October 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 12 Noon on Tuesday 12^th October 021.

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 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 Monday 11^th October 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.

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:

Officers introduced this report and made the following presentation to Committee:

·       This item had been brought back to committee following a deferral at the last meeting

·       Since the last meeting, the applicant had produced an access statement confirming access to the site and was shown in green on the site. This had confirmed that a supplementary agreement had ben signed in August 2019 between the applicant and Pegasus Life confirming the right of access

·       Details of the site were shown to the Committee

·       Planning Officers were satisfied that a Construction Management Plan would be sufficient to address concerns about construction at the site

·       An analysis of the parking at the site had indicated that the development was acceptable. There was also an excellent bus route and nearby shops

·       Officers had undertaken a further round of consultation from ehich they had obtained a further 14  objections. Officers were satisfied that all required arrangements had been fully met

·       No objections had been received from Transport Development Management

·       The access route would be via the existing arrangements via the car park

·       Since the application was for 60 new units with 20% affordable housing and on a brownfield site, officers believed it was acceptable on amenity, access and heritage grounds. They did not believe that they would be able to defend the existing application on appeal  if it were refused by the Committee

The Chair requested that Councillor Hathway’s objection to the application as indicated by his Public Forum Statement be recorded in the minutes.

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

·       There was no technical reason to oppose the application on the grounds of existing access to the highway. It had also been confirmed that there were established access rights on the land. Any appeal would have a slim chance of being defended

·       Officers had provided the information required demonstrating the application boundary and the other land that Harper House had control over

·       Officers’ general assessment was that the application was an appropriate scale and that the distance between the properties and the development was sufficient. Whilst a distance of 18.5 metres was not ideal, there were quite frequently distances close to this (14/15 metres)

·       The area of car park to the rear of the development was all flat and existing garages run closer than the proposed development. There were existing property boundaries on the site and the development would not impact on these

·       Since this was an outline application, the landscaping was not fixed and might be altered at a future date

·       The affordable practice note linked to any approved development would require that the site is developed quickly

·       An assessment of the site had indicated that waste would be transferred through the rear entrance of the site via the car park. This type of arrangement was typical of what you would expect for this type of development

·       Whilst the issue of amenity on the site was an issue that the Committee could take into consideration, there had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

Officers presented this report and made the following presentation to the Committee:

·       Details of the application were outlined. Including the adjoining social club. An aerial view of the site and a cross section of the site was also provided

·       There had been 96 objections referring to the loss of the green space playing field and the ecological impact

·       The units reflected the height of the Police Station and were not deemed unacceptable

·       Whilst the vacant community building had been demolished, there was no provision for the retention of this

·       Whilst there was an overall biodiversity net loss for the site, this was deemed acceptable on balance. The Biodiversity Net Gain Strategy would not be legally enforceable until it had been approved by Parliament and would not apply until 2023

·       If the development was approved, it would require completion of a Planning Agreement, 30% affordable housing and a Traffic Regulation Order

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

·       There had been a statement of community involvement and pre-application consultation similar to other sites across the city

·       Parking is central to proposed access. The site is constrained due to vehicular access

·       Whilst the developer had indicated that there would be 100% affordable housing, the policy indicated a 30% ceiling that could be enforced which would allow the developer to apply for grant funding through a separate process

·       Most developments included 75% private housing and 25% affordable housing. If there was a high degree of renting, the provider would look for different forms of owner occupation

·       Until 2023, the biodiversity legislation did not come into force. All developments would need to be assessed according to the Local Plan until then

·       Since any applications related to the flood plain were linked to ecological mitigation and flood defences, these could be assessed on that basis whereas, until 2023, the Committee would need to rely on the local plan in forming a judgement about this application which carried less weight than a plan enforced by legislation

·       A drainage plan would be required prior to signing off but there was no significant detail on this yet as it was not required

·       The nearest alternative green space was at Leinster Road and was approximately 5 minutes walk away

·       There was an allocated development plan which was part of a wider strategy for the area. There were also similar facilities nearby and within walking distance

·       The development had an OCIL rating and it was likely the developer could claim CIL relief

Councillors made the following comments:

·       The loss of facilities on site was a cause for concern, as  well as drainage and ecology even if the application was policy compliant. There seemed to have been a failure of the developer to engage

·       The inclusion of private gardens as opposed to a communal area was a concern as it did not guarantee that these could be paved over in the future and green space would be lost

·       Whilst the objections and concerns were appreciated, this development should  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

Officers introduced this report and made the following presentation to the Committee:

·       One additional objection had been received after the dispatch of papers concerning the impact of the competition on existing takeaways

·       The William Hill Book makers does not benefit from community use regulations

·       The development would include a takeaway and small customer area to the front

·       There was no specific policy requiring a specific number of takeaways in a particular area. However, the Lawrence Weston Plan indicated that there should be a maximum of five and there were currently three. The definition of a takeaway was set out in the relevant policy and required takeaway as a main use. Therefore, it did not include necessarily include any café or a shop

·       Officers did not believe that the application should be refused on the grounds of an overabundance of takeaways

·       Youth facilities were marked on a plan for the area, including two schools and a playground

·       There were no objections from the Police. Although pollution control had some concerns about noise pollution, a condition was agreed to overcome these

·       There were 10 retail units in the local centre, three of whom had hot food takeaways and all of which were currently occupied and operating

·       Greggs did not fall into the specific use class of a takeaway and in accordance with previous case law was listed as for general retail use. It was closer to the class of outlet listed for sandwich provision

·       Details of the two cafes were provided – one called Smilers Café and the other was a community café

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

·       Public Health concerns were a material planning issue, particularly in relation to youth facilities.

·       The odour impact for nearbv residents had been deemed acceptable. There were similar extractor fans at the rear of other units on the site. Whilst the units were limited in the way that the extractor units could be installed, pollution control had confirmed that they were acceptable

·       A similar takeaway close to the application site had now changed to a different retail use and had not been a takeaway since 2000. Under existing planning rules, this unit would not be able to re-apply for takeaway use

·       Since there was only one vacant property, if the application was refused, there could potentially be another application in future and there was no guarantee that it would remain in commercial use

·       CCTV was in use for this property and had been deemed acceptable by the Police. It was acknowledged that there was no requirement for CCTV to be provided elsewhere in the area.

Councillors made the following comments:

·       Unless CCTV was provided for the entire area, any issues related to litter might simply move nearby

·       There were a lot of concerns about this application related to litter, odour and the impact on obesity

·       Whilst the committee could not fix opening hours directly as required under Licensing Regulations, it could impose conditions on the development

·       There was a problem  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58a

The next meeting is scheduled to be held at 2pm on Wednesday 24^th November 2021.

It was noted that the next meeting was scheduled to be held at 2pm on Wednesday 24^th November 2021 in the Council Chamber, City Hall, College Green, Bristol.