Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed all parties to the meeting and explained arrangements for emergency access in the event of a fire.

These were received from Councillors Bowden-Jones, Eddy, Khan, Mead and Windows (who was to substitute for Cllr Eddy). Councillor Donald Alexander substituting for Councillor Bowden-Jones.

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 Brook stated that as a Non-Executive Director of Bristol Waste he would not be participating in Agenda Item No. 8d 19/05204/F - 83 Hartcliffe Way. He proposed that Councillor Davies take the Chair for this item and this was agreed.

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

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

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

The Head of Development Management highlighted Appeal No.40 – Trust Headquarters, Marlborough Street. This Appeal had been dismissed and most of the reasons for refusal were upheld.

To note enforcement notices.

The Head of Development Management highlighted 191 Wick Road and assured the Members that although they want the situation regularised they will “tread lightly” with the Enforcement.

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 ******

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 ******

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 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:

It was noted that in order to minimise the number of members of the public present at the Meeting this item was deferred until a future Meeting of the Committee.

It was noted that in order to minimise the number of members of the public present at the Meeting this item was deferred until a future Meeting of the Committee.

The Head of Development Management and his representative gave a presentation and summarised the report for this item highlighting the following:

Application for approval of Reserved Matters following grant of outline planning permission App. No.(17/06459/P) - Outline application for a new mixed use University Campus (Use Classes A1,A2,A3,A4,A5,B1(a),D1,D2) to comprise of up to 82,395sq m (GIA) of floor space including up to 1,500 students beds with all matters reserved except access. Alterations to Cattle Market Road & provision of an Energy Centre - Reserved Matters for 47,823 sqm GIA of offices / academic (Use Classes B1(a), B1(b), D1) and 584 sqm GIA of ground floor active uses (Use Classes A1, A3, A4, A5 uses) with associated car parking, hard and soft landscaping and associated works pursuant conditions 1 and 2 of outline permission 17/06459/P, being details of layout, scale, appearance and landscape. The reasons for the Officer recommendation were summarised.

Answers to questions:

·           The objection that the Environment Agency originally made has been virtually resolved and is expected to settled shortly; the Environment Agency has agreed to the principle of building on the site

·           There has been no objection to the number of disabled parking spaces to be provided

·           The outline permission included an agreement on the improvements to the bus access and final details of bus provision will be resolved shortly

·           The report includes a request for delegated powers once the Environment Agency has withdrawn their objection. In the event that the EA don’t withdraw their objection, the application would have to be referred to a National Casework Unit (Secretary of State) before the decision could be issued.

·           The cholera pit is to be conditioned so as to avoid disturbance; the applicants have agreed to this

·           The University gives high priority to the health and wellbeing of its staff and students

Debate:

·           The scheme was well liked

·           There were some concerns about health support services and transport issues

Councillor Bradley moved that the Officer recommendations be agreed.

Councillor Davies seconded this Motion and on being put to the Vote it was

Resolved – (Voting 8 for, 0 against) that the details of the Reserved Matters be approved.

Councillor Brook did not participate in this item.

Councillor Davies took the Chair for this item.

The Head of Development Management and his representative gave a presentation and summarised the report for this item highlighting the following:

Construction and operation of a split level Household Recycling (with Canopy) and Re-Use Centre, with demolition of some existing structures and retention of existing office and welfare facilities; vehicle parking and manoeuvring area; drainage and water management system, perimeter fencing, lighting, retaining walls, tree planting, 2no new vehicle bridges, separate pedestrian access, temporary construction haul road with ancillary off-site highway improvement works to facilitate new access and egress points at 83 Hartcliffe Way. The reasons for the Officer recommendation were summarised.

Answers to questions:

·                     It was confirmed that the facility would require an environmental permit from the Environment Agency

·                     It was noted that a lot of the problems relating to  Avonmouth  are specific to that area

·                     It was accepted that the facility could initially cause a deterioration in air quality but over time things would improve as residents would make fewer journeys to other sites

·                     There was an explanation of pedestrian and cycle access facilities to be provided and an assurance from the applicants that these facilities will be adequate

Debate:

·         The facility is to be welcomed but there are concerns about air quality

·           Councillor Denyer requested that a condition relating to a specially marked cycle route be included in any permission granted; it was noted that this would have be negotiated with the applicants

Councillor Bradley moved that the Officer recommendation be agreed subject to the inclusion of a condition concerning a specifically marked cycle route.

Councillor Denyer seconded this Motion and on being put to the Vote it was

Resolved – (Voting 7 for, 0 against) that the application be granted subject to the inclusion of a condition concerning a specifically marked cycle route.

Councillor Brook re-took the Chair for the remainder of the Meeting.

The Head of Development Management and his representative gave a presentation and summarised the report for this item highlighting the following:

Removal of the 3no.existing hoarding advertisement signs, and installation of 2no. illuminated digital advertisements on support legs.

It was noted that on the 12^th February 2020 officers had recommended a split decision on this application: refusal of the west facing digital advertisement on public safety grounds and approval of the east facing digital advertisement. Committee resolved to defer the application, requesting an update report from officers on grounds that could be legitimately used to refuse both displays. Prior to making this resolution, Committee Members raised concerns with both of the proposed digital displays on the grounds of both amenity and public safety. Members also requested whether the proposed digital displays could be illuminated at a lower level at night time.

Answers to questions:

·                     The condition concerning the switching off time is enforceable

·                     The  housing development for the opposite site has been approved and now has to be taken into account

Debate:

·                     Concerns about safety and amenity

·                     No perceived benefit for anyone in Bristol

·                     The signs are distracting and irritating

·           It was noted that should permission be refused and the decision is appealed, the Council would need to show that the signs were distracting and in an area of highway conflict to defend  the Council’s case at appeal

·           If permission is granted the screens should be turned off between 23.00 and 07.00 (rather than 06.00)

Councillor Donald Alexander moved the Officer recommendation that the east facing sign be approved and the west facing sign be refused with the proviso that the (east facing)screen be turned off between 23.00 and 07.00 (rather than 06.00).

Councillor Davies seconded this Motion and on being put to the Vote it was

Resolved - (Voting 4 for, 3 against, 1 abstention) that the east facing sign be granted permission with the proviso that the screen be turned off between 23.00 and 07.00 (rather than 06.00) and that the west facing sign be refused permission.

The Head of Development Management and his representative gave a presentation and summarised the report for this item highlighting the following:

Reinstatement of historic landing stage for use associated with Marchioness site (revision to 17/03268/F).The reasons for the Officer recommendation were summarised.

Answers to questions:

·           The application is being recommended for refusal for reasons including harm to heritage assets and no public benefit

·           Soft landscaping is a heritage asset

·           There would be harm to existing vegetation by introducing  the proposed landing stage

Debate:

·           It is not clear what the purpose of the structure is to be; there are concerns that it will be used as a car park or for vehicular access

·           It was noted that the heritage asset was built by Bristol City Council but had fallen into disrepair

·           It was noted that large vessels cannot get out into the Avon Gorge from the  location of the proposed structure

Councillor Davies moved the Officer recommendation that the application be refused.

Councillor Donald Alexander seconded this Motion and on being put to the Vote it was

Resolved – (Voting 6 for, 1 against, 1 abstention) that the application be refused for the reasons provided in the report.

29^th April 2020 at 6.00 pm.

29^th April 2020 at 2.00 pm.