Agenda and minutes

Resolved – that Councillor Fodor be elected as Chair of Development Control Committee B for 2017/18.

Resolved – that Councillor Eddy be elected as Vice Chair of Development Control Committee B for 2017/18.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEES

Terms of Reference

Arrangements

There are 2 Development Control Committees:

§  Development Control  Committee “A”       

§  Development Control  Committee “B”

Each Development Control Committee shall have full authority to deal with all development control matters reserved to a Development Control Committee by virtue of this constitution.   

Functions

Full Council has delegated to the Development Control Committees all functions relating to town & country planning and development control as specified in Regulation 2 and Schedule 1 to the Local Authorities (Functions and Responsibilities) (England) Regulations 2000 (as amended) under the following provisions and any related secondary legislation:

1.         Power to determine application for planning permission (section 70(1)(a) and (b) and 72 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (c.8)).

2.          Power to determine applications to develop land without compliance with conditions previously attached (section 73 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990).

3.         Power to grant planning permission for development already carried out (section 73(A) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990).

4.        Power to decline to determine application for planning permission (section 70A of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990).

5.        Duties relating to the making of determinations of planning applications (Sections 69, 76 and 92) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and Articles 8, 10 to 13, 15 to 22 and 25, and 26 of the Town & Country Planning (General Development Procedure Order 1995) (S.I. 1995/419 and directions made thereunder).

6.        Power to determine application for planning permission made by a local authority, alone, or jointly with another person (section 316 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town & Country Planning General Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992/1492)).

7.        Power to make determinations, give approvals and agree certain other matters relating to the exercise of permitted development rights (Parts 6, 7, 11, 17, 19, 20, 21 to 24, 26, 30 and 31 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995).

8.        Power to enter into agreement regulating development or use of land (Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

9.        Power to issue a certificate of existing or proposed lawful use or development (Section 191(4) and 192(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

10.      Power to serve a completion notice (Section 94(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

11.      Power to grant consent for the display of advertisements (Section 220 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992).

12.      Power to authorise entry onto land (Section 196A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

13.      Power to require the discontinuance of a use of land (Section 102 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

14.      Power to serve a planning contravention notice, breach of condition notice or stop notice (Sections 171C, 187A and 183(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

15.      Power to issue a temporary stop notice (Section 171 of the Town and Country Planning  ...  view the full agenda text for item 12.

The Terms of reference as determined by Annual Council on 23 May 2017 were noted.

To note as follows:

30 August at 6pm;

27 September at 2pm;

8 November at 6pm;

20 December at 2pm;

31 January at 6pm;

14 March at 2pm;

25 April at 6pm.

Resolved – that the meetings for DC B Committee for 2017/18 were agreed as follows:-

6pm on 30 August 2017;

2pm on 27 September 2017;

6 pm on 8 November 2017;

2pm on 20 December 2017;

6pm on 31 January 2018;

2 pm on 14 March 2018;

6pm on 25 April 2018.

These were made.

Apologies were received from Councillor Alexander, with Councillor Mead as substitute and Councillors Clough and Hickman.

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.

None declared.

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

The Minutes of the Development Control Committee B meeting on the 26 April 2017 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. 

Resolved – that the Minutes of 26 April 2017 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

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

The Committee considered a report of the Service Director, Planning noting appeals lodged, imminent public inquiries and appeals awaiting decision. The following appeals were highlighted:-

1. Item 3 – Old BRI Building – A 12-day Public Inquiry would start on 21 November 2017;

2. Item 10 – IT Center Digital Display. This was refused under delegated powers. The Planning Inspector dismissed the appeal solely on visual amenity grounds;

3. Item 19 – Filton Road Digital Display – This was refused under delegated powers. The Planning Inspector dismissed the appeal solely on visual amenity grounds;

4. Item 33 – Mosque – Stapleton Road, Eastville – DC A Committee had refused this on highway safety and visual amenity grounds. The Planning Inspector had agreed with the Committee’s view and dismissed the appeal;

5. Item 29 – 541 – 551, Fishponds Road – DC A Committee refused this on highway safety grounds. The Planning Inspector took a different view and granted planning permission

6. Item 39 – Avonbank, Feeder Road. This application had been before the Committee twice. It was refused for air quality and noise pollution grounds. The Planning Inspector had dismissed the appeal for the reason of air quality;

7. Item 40 – Former Chocolate Factory, Greenbank Road – This application was deferred by DC A Committee and was appealed against due to non-determination. The Committee decided not to defend the appeal and the appeal was allowed despite no affordable housing being provided. More detailed feedback would be provided to DC A Committee who had considered this application.

The following points arose from discussion:-

1. The Chair referred to the Avonbank Appeal – and noted that Cllr Stevens, who had not been able to attend the meeting, had submitted a Public Forum Statement on this matter and in particular to the development of a new Local Plan. The Chair hoped that the issues raised in the statement would be taken into account in the new Local Plan;

2. Councillor Eddy referred to the Chocolate Factory Appeal and asked if there were any lessons learned and for an amount for costs and was informed that costs would be determined after the appellant had submitted a claim for them. The Inspector had found that the Council had acted unreasonably in delaying approval of the development. A lesson would be that if there was clear evidence that affordable housing was not possible a Committee should accept that evidence however unpalatable it was.

To note enforcement notices.

These were noted.

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 6 July 2017.

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 11 July 2017.

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

Statements

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. (A copy of the public forum statements are held on public record in the Minute Book).

To consider the following applications for Development Control Committee B -

The following items were considered :-

This item was removed from the agenda.

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

            The representative of the Service Director – Planning and Development made   the following points by way of introduction:-

            1. The Application had been referred to the Committee for determination by   the Ward Councillor, Mark Bradshaw;

            2. The application sought planning permission for the erection of a 3-storey     use class B8 self-storage unit on the site along with some office floor space to       support the function of the self-storage unit;

            3. The form of self-storage would be an ‘L shape’ that followed the western      and northern boundaries of the site with a central parking and circulation    space and vehicular access from two points on the southern boundary. This           reflected the extant planning permission on the site;

            4. There was a mixed use of development surrounding the site and Bower        Ashton Terrace, a traditional, Victorian terraced Road faced the building’s   North elevation;

            5. A contemporary tower was proposed on the North Western corner of the     building of the same height and massing of the former Art Deco tower on the site;

            6. The site was not allocated in the Development Plan for any particular use     however BCS1 of the Core Strategy was the relevant policy for this      application as it outlined the priority for South Bristol to deliver development and in particular industrial and warehousing and office floor space;

            7. A report demonstrated that Bristol was under supplied for storage in            comparison to other Core Cities;

            8. The widening of Marsh Road would provide additional capacity for    pedestrians on match days;

            9. This application had a much stronger landscape buffer than the previous      permission;

            10. Officers had negotiated a greater separation distance from Bower Ashton   Terrace than the previous permission. The closest building was now   20.38m away. A distance of 12m was the minimum separation distance and   therefore officers considered this acceptable;

            11. A daylight assessment had found that there was no detriment to daylight   and sunlight;

            12. The site would be supervised during all days of the week and there would be 24 hour access for customers.

            The following points arose from discussion:-

            1. Housing developers had shown no interest in the site. There was a clear       demand for storage sites;

            2. The windows in the elevation facing Bower Ashton Terrace served two          storage units;

            3. The permissive footpath was in the ownership of the applicant so a larger    pavement was proposed;

            4. The shading assessment had been taken from each individual front garden   of the Terrace             and had not been assessed on the basis of an average for the            whole terrace;

            5. Councillor Shah noted the stress for housing in the City and asked whether this could have been incorporated in to the scheme. The representative of       the Service Director – Planning and Development replied that the Bristol          Local Plan set out a requirement for a level of housing until 2026. There were   a number of sites allocated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22a

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

            The representative of the Service Director – Planning and Development made the following points by way of introduction:-

            1. There were two applications before members – one for planning permission for redevelopment of the hospital to provide predominantly residential development and for Listed Building Consent as a number of the buildings were Grade II listed;

            2. The key issue of affordable housing has been the subject of intense negotiations. The Council’s independent viability consultant has advised the site could deliver 37 units. After originally proposing zero affordable housing, the applicant maintained for some time they could only deliver 17, recently this has been increased to 20 units;

            3. Officers had liaised with Housing Delivery colleagues and the Homes and Communities             Agency (HCA) and have found that, with grant support, the development was likely to deliver 100 units. The Affordable Housing Development Manager was present to respond to questions;

            4. It was necessary to draw a distinction between the 20 guaranteed units which could be secured through the planning process and the 80 additional units which were outside the planning process and could not be secured by a s106 agreement:

            5. This scheme had been four years in development and officers now felt it was worthy of      support.

            The following points arose from discussion:-

            1. A Car Club Condition had been omitted from the report;

            2. Councillor Denyer understood that it was not possible to secure the 100 units through the planning process but asked whether the 41 units that could be secured through a Section 106 Agreement could be conditioned, thus leaving 59 to be secured outside of the planning process. She was informed that this was technically possible thus leaving the shortfall from             grant funded to a negotiated one. The key issue was whether agreement would ever be reached on that point as negotiations with the applicant had already been carried out over a long period. The Affordable Housing Development Manager added that grant funded affordable housing was a major step. The HCA and Council shared ownership but it was funded by the HCA;

            3. Some of the affordable units were flats but there was a mix of dwelling types and were spread throughout the development in order to ensure tenure blindness. Some of these would be first to be delivered on site too so affordable units were spread across the site and the build       programme;

            4. Councillor Breckels expressed concern that insisting on more units through S106 would jeopardise the current agreement and asked how secure the grant funding was. The Affordable Housing Development Manager replied that the HCA had already made available funding for Galliford Try to draw down. 12 units had been secured through the HCA as shared ownership for rental. Subject to planning permission today, Sovereign would apply to the Council for funding for a further 60 affordable units. The Strategic Director for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22b

This item was removed from the agenda.

The representative of the Service Director – Planning and Development made the following points by way of introduction:-

1. This was a retrospective application and was before the Committee as the applicant was an employee of the Council;

2. The applicant had believed the development in the roof was permitted development and did        not require planning permission. Following a planning enforcement investigation, the applicant was informed that planning permission was required. A retrospective application was subsequently submitted and this was refused under delegated authority and an appeal against refusal was dismissed;

3. A further application was submitted that modified the impact of the development with the introduction of false eaves and rendering of the dormer to match the host property. The false eaves gave the appearance that it fitted into the existing roof slope by introducing the appearance of the roof slope continuing below the dormer. Officers believed this balance was acceptable and mitigated the impact of the development.

The following points arose from discussion:-

1. Councillor Breckels asked whether there were other dormers in the area of a similar size. He questioned why a senior employee of the Council would not consult his colleagues before         proceeding. The proposed changes allowed the development to be as close to permitted development as possible. He was informed that the dormer was standard in design, size, scale and form and was now acceptable in planning terms;

2. Councillor Bradley asked if it was legal to rest a dormer on coping stones and was informed that this was a party wall and this was a civil matter and outside the jurisdiction of the Committee;

3. Councillor Mead stated that this proposal did not address the reasons the original proposal was rejected. It overlooked gardens and did not improve the appearance. He proposed that the retrospective application should be refused for the same grounds as the first application and the Planning Inspector’s reasons for dismissal. This would also send out a clear message regarding retrospective applications. In response, he was informed that the key point now was that the proposal more clearly resembled permitted development, which had not been the case previously. A refusal would be difficult to defend through the appeals process. Councillor Mead maintained his view on the matter;

4. This was seconded by Councillor Eddy;

5. Councillor Denyer shared Councillor Mead’s concerns regarding the false roof but did not agree that the application as a whole was unacceptable. It was acceptable as an extension but not as a dormer. It was slightly oversized but not so much to knock down. It was finely balanced but the changes went some way to remedying the situation.

6. The representative of the Service Director – Planning and Development advised the Committee that the reasons for refusal should focus on the previous reasons given for refusal and not privacy. If the applicant was successful at appeal, it was unlikely that costs would be awarded against the Council;

On being put to the vote it was:-

Resolved  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.