Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr K Quartley with Cllr S Jones as 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.

Cllr Mead advised the meeting that he would withdraw from the second agenda item (15 Small Street) as he could not approach the application with an open mind.

The Committee is requested to agree the last minutes of the meeting held on 8^th November 2017 as a correct record.

Resolved – that the minutes of the meeting held on the 8^th November 2017 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair subject to the following amendments:

       i.          That the minutes should read at Item 14 page 10; the current A-frame gates prevent moped and motorcycle use but also prevent access by users of mobility scooters, tricycles, etc.  In contrast the new adjustable K gates would allow mobility scooters etc to access but (at least in theory) not mopeds.

     ii.          Item 20 on page 12; the officer confirmed that the listed harbour wall would be re-pointed.

   iii.          To note that Cllr Eddy did leave the meeting and did not return.  The agenda items were taken out of sequence on the day therefore Cllr Eddy was not in attendance for the Victoria Park & Wedmore Vale items.

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 was highlighted:-

a.     9 Ebenezer Street Bristol BS5 8EF – variation of conditions; the applicants had triggered a deemed discharge which had been refused by officers under delegated powers and this appeal was against that decision.

To note enforcement notices.

In addition to the one notice listed a number of notices are with legal for processing.

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 14^th December 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 Tuesday 19^th December 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:

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

a)      The site was to be redeveloped for residential purposes creating 375 homes of which 20% would be affordable housing.  The development would include the tallest building within the City Centre area at 98.3 meteres.

b)      The development is highly sustainable; links to the District Heating Network; approximately 490 cycle spaces; car parking spaces limited to 36; close proximity to shopping area; proposed public improvements to include creating a gateway to the park; improvements to the public highway and pedestrian areas; additional 18 trees planted to replace the 4 to be removed.

c)      Committee viewed a presentation of photographs with the proposed tower superimposed to allow for the visual impact on Bristol skyline.  22 views shown.

d)      Consideration given to the impact of the development on heritage assets, including the Pip ‘n’ Jay Church and Old Market area.  The impact was offset against the public benefit of the scheme to the wider area.

e)      The degree of harm to the old market area and conservation areas had been considered and it was considered less than substantial. 

f)       The public realm improvement as an outcome from the development was significant.  It includes the improvement to the Tower Hill junction; realignment of the cycle route; resurfacing of the surrounding roads; improvements to the gateway to Castle Park; meets the requirement for regeneration of the area; job creation; positive impact on the shopping area with the introduction of new residents; CIL outcome of approximately £2.5 million.

g)      Committee were being recommended to approve the application in accordance with the S106 requirements and conditions as set out on the amendment sheet.

Councillor’s points of Clarification

h)      Members raised questions on the impact of the culvert that runs through the middle of the site and its impact on the development.  Officers outlined the conditions and designs that satisfied these concerns.

i)       In answer to the questions on the culvert, known as the Castle Ditch culvert that runs through the centre of the development Officers confirmed that the design incorporated this natural drainage system.  That ‘post constructions conditions’ are to be imposed on the developers to check for damage to the culvert.

j)        There would be no harm to archaeology; conditions have been included to secure the recording of the identified archaeological remains.

k)      Members sought reassurance about actions taken to prevent the scheme from being a two tier development in terms of occupancy.  The affordable housing residents would have access to the outside communal amenity space; all blocks have own entrance site; access to the gym and dining facilities were not planned for the affordable housing residents.  Giving access to all would impact the rate of the service charge for the affordable housing  residents.  Officers were able to confirm that a condition could be imposed requiring the applicants to submit information regarding access to membership of the gym facilities and access to the other communal facilities for all  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

Cllr Mead withdrew from the debate.

Officers outlined the key aspects of this planning application during the presentation as follows;

a)      That this application had drawn media attention because of the removal of the historical ceiling.  It was expressed that it was not against the law and did not require planning permission, and as such this action needs to be separated from the assessment of the application.  Details of the site plan were shown.

b)      The building was surrounded by listed buildings but was not itself listed.  The ground floor was currently a bar/night club with residential accommodation to upper floor.

c)      An application was approved in 2005 for a development of residential flats with a similar layout but that permission had lapsed.

d)      Those who had responded to the application raised concerned about the loss of the ceiling.  In addition the comments included concerns about anti-social behaviour in the area and the addition of student accommodation.

e)      The existing residential accommodation was not seen as family apartments.

f)       The proposed re-design had been modified to allow for the retention of the windows and the chimney stacks.

g)      There is no on street parking in the area but conditions have been imposed to consider the need for students on move in and move out days.

h)      Officers recommended approval subject to conditions.

Councillors raised the following:

i)       Cllr Eddy believed that there was a stronger argument for refusal than approval.  Should the application be approved the developer would be rewarded for his actions, the damage to the ceiling.  Believed the application failed to consider the historic interest of the area.

j)       Officers explained that the building in question was not listed although sitting in a conservation area.  That there was considered to be no grounds for Officers to refuse the application on the basis of heritage impact.  Officers had agreed modifications to retain windows and chimney stacks to limit the possible harm of the development to the heritage aspects of the area.  As a consequence of the incident of historic ceiling removal prior to inspection by Historic England, the team would now more proactively monitor applications such as these to Historic England to consider whether statutory listing was appropriate.  The intention is to improve the flagging system, on such applications, to enable contact with Historic England to press for an early decision on listing.  Officers also acknowledge the concern about the numbers of student accommodation in the area but local policy is supportive of the principle of student accommodation in the area.  Refusing on this basis would be contrary to policy.  Confirmed the floor areas accord with the licencing standards for  student accommodation. 

k)      Cllr Denyer sought clarity on the quality of the accommodation, as she was familiar with the building and was concerned that the bedroom windows did not access sufficient light to enable students to read/write/study.  Further explanation was provided by the Officers as to design with reference the appropriate plans.

l)       Cllr Breckels shared his concern that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

The next meeting is scheduled for 6pm on Wednesday 31^st January 2018.

31^st January 2018