Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed attendees to the meeting and issued the safety information.

Apologies were received from Councillors Classick and Windows. Councillors Brown and Eddy attended in substitute.

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 Breckels declared that he was a trustee of We the Curious. He had not pre-determined the application and he had no pecuniary interest in planning application 22/00933/F- U Shed.

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

Resolved – that the Minutes were agreed as a correct record of the meeting.

The Committee is requested to note any outstanding actions listed on the rolling Action Sheet for DCB Committee.

The Development Management, Team Manager referred to the action to clarify the position regarding covenant payments in respect of 149 Marksbury Road, whilst this was not a planning matter, a written response would be sought and provided to Members.

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

Members requested an update on Wyevale Gardens. The Development Management, Team Manager advised that an update had been received by the Planning Inspectorate and a briefing note would be circulated to Councillors.

To note enforcement notices.

The Chair raised a concern regarding the dimensions of a billboard located on the outskirts of Cabot Circus.  The Development Management, Team Manager advised that the enquiry would be referred to Planning Enforcement for a response.

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 Wednesday 7^th June 2023.

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 Monday 12^th June 2023.

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

PLEASE NOTE THAT IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK AT THE COMMITTEE, YOU ARE REQUESTED TO INDICATE THIS WHEN SUBMITING YOUR STATEMENT OR PETITION. ALL REQUESTS TO SPEAK MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A WRITTEN STATEMENT.

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 published online prior to the meeting.  Each statement was heard before the application it related to and taken fully into consideration by the Committee prior to reaching a decision.

To consider the following applications for Development Control Committee B -

To consider the following Planning Applications:

The Development Management, Team Manager introduced the application which had been returned to Committee for further consideration after a cooling off period. The Officer presented a summary of the Committee’s grounds for refusal, as set out in the report. 

Officers had concluded that the reasons for refusal would be difficult to defend on appeal, particularly as a similar scheme had previously been approved.

In response to Members questions the following points and clarifications were made:

1. There was a risk of the Council incurring costs, should the Committee refuse the application, with the likelihood of the scheme going ahead on appeal.
2. In comparing this application with a similar application that had been approved, it was noted that the key difference in the current scheme was that the retail proposition of the ground floor of the scheme had been significantly reduced in line with the increased residential use.
3. The location at Gloucester Road was a busy, well used junction and arterial route as well as being a pedestrian crossing. It was important to understand the impact of the proposed changes to current parking arrangements.
4. In transport terms, removal of the off-street parking improved the safety of the footway. Weekly access to the entrance to the petrol station had been found to be minimal.  It was also noted that the junction was one of the widest in the city and the s278 would deal with that.
5. Locations marked on plan were not the ones that officers had advised which had led to some confusion however, there was nothing on the highway that would not meet a road safety audit and there were no grounds for a road safety objection as everything proposed was manageable within the highway policy agreement.
6. Section 278 is an agreement prior to commencement of works, a contract between the Council Highway Authority and the development.  Parties agreed the extent of work and estimated costs and a bond was put in place.  The scheme would then be delivered with a series of technical approvals at every stage to ensure the works met the adopted road safety standard.  Officers were confident that the right road safety work covered the entrance to the petrol station.

There were no further comments and Councillor Stafford-Townsend moved the reasons for refusal in relation to PA No. 21/0376/F  and this was seconded by Councillor Eddy. On being put to the vote it was:- RESOLVED (1 for, 8 against) that the reasons for refusal be rejected.

Councillor Stafford-Townsend then moved the original officer recommendation in relation to PA No. 21/0376/F  and this was seconded by Councillor Breckels. On being put to the vote it was:- RESOLVED (7 for, 2 against) that the application be granted

The Development Management, Team Officer presented the application, summarising the key issues, and confirmed the Officer’s recommendation for refusal as set out in the report. 

In response to Members questions, the following points and clarifications were made:

1. With respect to the public consultation, a common feature of the objections received  were with regard to constraints of trade or contractual issues in respect of ZaZa Bazaar, which were material planning considerations reflected by officers comments in the report.
2. Neither the number of objections received nor the time the objections had been received during the public consultation should determine the weight the Committee gave to them.  Members should be cognizant of the quality of the reasons rather than the quantity received.
3. With respect to the objections that related to the impact of the height of the proposed development on neighbouring views it was noted that the aquarium was significantly higher than the proposed development. However, the aquarium was shielded from view by U shed and V shed.  The key matter was that the proposed development interrupted the consistent 2 storey maritime shed view on the waterfront and would be significantly taller.
4. The conservation character appraisal considered that the view of the Grade 1 listed cathedral was important and that the harm that should be attributed to the development was great.
5. Historic England considered that some of the issues could have been addressed by a smaller scale development and deferred to the conservation officer to determine the harms and impacts on the conservation area.  The conservation and planning officers were clear that the development would harm the conservation area and in this instance there were insufficient public benefits not to recommend refusal.
6. Referencing relevant policies in the report pack, it was noted that the submission from the council’s economic development team considered that the proposal would create new jobs.  Economic Development Officers were not in attendance and Planning officers were not in a position to provide further information on the research or assumptions that supported the submission.
7. The economic development team had commented that the development would contribute towards addressing the lack of grade A office supply in the city centre market. Heritage and Planning Officers were required to consider the development’s impact within the conservation area, on several listed buildings and the setting of 2 other conservation areas.  Officers weighed the public benefit of increased office space against the impact, noting that whilst there may be a need for office space there may be more suitable locations in the city centre which had less of an impact on the heritage assets. Overall in this instance there was not enough public benefit to outweigh the harms identified.
8. An equalities assessment had been carried out to ensure level access was available to the new units and offices.  The representations received in relation to Za Za Bazaar had outlined that a diverse range of groups were using the building, however officers had no further information regarding this.
9. There was no data available at the meeting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

The Development Management, Team Officer presented the application and summarised the key issues of the report. 

In debate, the following points were made:

1. This was a great scheme and it was positive to see youth provision in this area of the city
2. This would be of significant benefit to south Bristol where there are particular challenges and would benefit the young people who use it
3. The location of the scheme would service 4 wards immediately adjacent to it and which contain some of the most deprived neighbourhoods in the city.  There should be similar provision of sites across the city
4. It would have been useful for the equalities impact assessment to explain the equalities benefits to this underrepresented group. The consideration which had been given to  enabling disabled young people to use the site was welcomed
5. Maintenance of the current tree cover was welcomed

Councillor Stafford-Townsend then moved the officer recommendation in relation to PA No. 22/03645/F  and this was seconded by Councillor Poultney. On being put to the vote it was:- RESOLVED unanimously that the application be granted with delegated policy decisions to officers.

The next meeting is scheduled for 2pm on Wednesday 19^th July 2023 in the Council Chamber, City Hall, College Green, Bristol

The next meeting is scheduled to be held at 2pm on Wednesday 19^th July 2023 in the Council Chamber, College Green, Bristol.