Agenda and minutes

The Chair, Cllr Martin Fodor, welcomed those present and outlined how the committee would proceed for the benefit of the public.

Apologies were received from Cllr K Quarterly and Cllr A Shah.

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

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

Resolved – that the minutes of the meeting held on the 20^th December 2017 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair subject to the following amendments:

       i.          Members reviewed the notes in respect of the Former Central Ambulance Station Marybush Lane, Bristol 17/04267/F at section 9 as to whether they were a correct reflection of the discussion and the resolution.  It was agreed after a comprehensive discussion to insert ‘access to some of’ in paragraph (k), last line of the last sentence, after the word and, so that it read;

a.     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 some of the other communal facilities for all residents.

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 waiting decision.

The Following was highlighted:-

a.     Old Bristol Royal Infirmary Building Marlborough Street – Officers were pleased to report that a request had been made for an award of cost against the developers for their unreasonable behaviour in the way they had handled the appeal.  The developer withdrew their original appeal after lodging a revised second appeal.  This had put the council to considerable expense and this view was supported by the Inspectorate with an award of cost, this directs them to pay the council’s cost from the 25^th March 2017.  The sum to be paid is to cover all legal fees including those relating to the use of consultants and Barristers.  

To note enforcement notices.

An update was provided on the notice issued against 3 Haverstock Road.

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 25^th January 2018.

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 30^th January 2018.

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

a.     There was an incorrect reference to refusing the application in the Equalities section of the report. This was an error as the application was being recommended for approval.

b.     The application is for the construction of a 3 tier (four storey) decked car parking in place of existing open air surface car park, with associated landscaping works within The Glen Hospital Complex.  To provide; 263 car parking spaces; 14 disabled parking spaces; 4 electric car spaces; 68 cycle parking spaces.

c.      The construction would not be visible from street level because it will take place in the Quarry. The roof would be level with the street level, and over looked by Victoria Court.

d.     Committee were provided with a CGI imagine showing the street view, looking into the Quarry following construction, together with location & design plans.

e.     Noise Disturbance: this was considered as the application came supplied with an acoustic report.  All authorities were satisfied that with the majority of parking on the lower level; parking spaces on the top level limited to 36 spaces; the possible limited use at night; that the change in noise levels will be insignificant.

f.       Air Quality: There would be an increase to cars coming on site because they will no longer be parking in the surrounding areas.  An Air Quality assessment concluded that the air quality impact of the development will be negligible.

g.     The trees being removed will be replaced by 27 new ones.

h.     Committee were requested to approve the application with agreed conditions.

Councillor’s points of clarification

i.       Explanation was sought on the term ‘Brown Roof’; this represents a living roof; using locally sourced material to support wild life; extends to the use of other materials such as sand and rubble being used in establishing the roof area.

j.       Clarification on the Travel Plan was given.  This had been conditioned.  The applicants are unable to use the building until the travel plan is approved. The plan was centred on staff travel arrangements and not on service users, hospital patients travel arrangements.

k.      The CIL calculation of nil was queried.  The committee members were informed that the levels of CIL applicable to all developments were set out in policy with a car park development given a nil rating. 

l.       The developers had reduced the number of parking spaces from that proposed but were not given any direction as to how to redesign the spaces.  This has resulted in larger parking bays. Members commented that larger bays would facilitate patients with disabling conditions get into and out of their cars.

Councillor’s comments and observations

m.     Cllr Mead was in favour of the application.  The applicant, the hospital, provided services to many who were driven to the hospital by a relative and taken home again following treatment therefore the application for parking should be viewed in favourable terms.  The additional parking would reduce the numbers of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

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

a.     The application relates to a three-storey, Grade II* Listed Building known as Mortimer House, in Clifton.  The applicant seeks to reinstate the curtilage to the front of Mortimer House to the original eighteenth century landscape layout and provide 10 car parking spaces to the rear of the listed building with associated landscaping.

b.     Committee were shown the plans for the 2016 scheme that was approved.  The plan detailed the parking in the front.  The application approved 6 parking spaces.  An image of the property from 1828 was shown together with the wall to Mortimer Road.

c.      No objections to the application were received from Historic England or the Conservation Officer. The public benefit of returning the curtilage to the front of Mortimer House was viewed favourable.

d.     Transport Development Management had no objection to the scheme as there would be no significant increase in traffic resulting from the proposals.

e.     The applications for planning permission and listed building consent are both recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Councillor’s point of clarification

f.       Clarity was provided on the current layout of the site.  Renovations are underway with contractors parking on site to the front of the building.  The permissions granted in the 2016 application allows for parking in the front and that application had not yet expired. 

g.     Public forum submission alleged that assurances were given that the rear garden would remain intact but this was not conditioned in the 2016 application.

h.     The restoration of the front garden would have a beneficial visual impact but the design appeared to allow for vehicles to enter the site and this was queried.  To prevent this, condition 7 had been included to provide for ‘protection of parking and servicing provision’.

i.       Concerns had been raised in respect of the residents access to the pump on site and the issues surrounding the wicker fence boundary.

·        The application provides for improved access to the pump, committee were referred to the plans.

·        The boundary to the properties at the rear, would be screened off by a low level wooden fence and addition planting to provide screening for residents.

j.       The applicants intend to use the renovated building as office space and as a training centre.   Planning policy commonly allowed for similar developments to be permitted 18 car parking spaces.

Councillor’s comment

k.      Cllr Davies, was minded to approve as he viewed the return of the building to the historical setting would be beneficial and this would require parking to be moved to the rear of the building so cars would not spoil the view.

l.       Cllr Mead, was unable to support this view.  The building was historic in nature whether it was viewed from the front and/or rear; considered that it was situated in an area well served by public transport; the loss of a mature garden would also be a loss of amenity; minded to vote against approval.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

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

a.     The application was for the conversion of the ground floor office space at 171-178 Coronation Road from B1 office use to A1 retail.  The applicant advised that the Co-op had expressed interest in occupying the unit.

b.     The proposal had generated a number of objections from local residents and those living in the upper floors of the building based on the possibility of noise and disturbance from the operation of a retail outlet and those relating to traffic on the highway.

c.      The applicant had explored the possibility of occupation of the unit by a B1 office occupier  but the lack of parking had resulted in little interest. 

d.     Negotiations had taken place and conditions proposed to accommodate the change of use and concerns arising from the use of the unit for retail.  Conditions included a Delivery Management Plan to cover delivery and loading time.  Adjustments to the highway was also included to accommodate delivery vehicles.

e.     Approval is recommended subject to conditions and the completion of a legal agreement for the Traffic Regulation Order.

Councillor’s points of clarification

f.       Cllr Eddy requested and was advised that the application was within marketing guidelines permitting an application for change of use after 6 months,

g.     Cllr Davies sought clarity on the loading times amendment.  The proposal was for 2 x 3hr slots for loading between 7am and 8pm.  The loading bay would be kept clear for this purpose during that time period.

h.     Chair enquired about use of loading trolleys and clarification on conditions.  Condition 14 had  a number of modifications detailed on the amendment sheet including limited use of trolleys Monday to Saturday not between 7-8am and on a Sunday not between 7-10am.

i.       The loading bay outside the unit would be available for parking from 8pm.

j.       Cllr Mead  asked what mitigation would be employed to manage cars being parked irresponsibly impacting this main artery road into and out of Bristol.  Officers confirmed that there were pre-existing parking controls in place to manage the highway which were enforceable.

k.      Cllr Denyer explained her concerns with the actions of the developer and sought clarity on the impact of the loading bay on both the residents and an already congested highway. 

·        The application was concerned with a floor space that was below the threshold that would push it to major development requiring specific actions.

·        The loading bay outside the loading time(as above) is accessible for parking therefore would keep cars off the highway.  The existing traffic regulation orders that manage Coronation Road remain in force.

·        Any complaints about a breach of the Delivery Management Plan conditions would result in an investigation and situation could be monitored through the issuing of a planning contravention notice.  The notice is a request for information; would give rise to monitoring of the situation; with the possibility of prosecution on failure to provide accurate information.

Councillor’s comments

l.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.