Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed all parties to the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Richard Eddy and (post-meeting) from Councillor Fi Hance.

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 Clive Stevens declared a pecuniary interest as a result of being an author to a book concerning Local Democracy. He also declared an interest as a member since 2017 of the HMO SPD Working Group . However, neither of these interests precluded him from participating in and voting at the meeting since he was not predetermined on any issues.

Councillor Olly Mead stated that he had an interest in Planning Application Number 20/01595/F6 Filton Avenue & 2A Filton Grove as a Ward Councillor for Horfield in which the site was located. However, he was not predetermined on this matter.

Councillor Tom Brook stated that he had an interest in Planning Application Number 20/01595/F6 Filton Avenue & 2A Filton Grove as a Ward Councillor for the neighbouring Ward of Bishopston which was located very near the site. However, he was not predetermined on this matter.

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

The minutes were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

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

Officers made the following comments concerning this report:

·         There had been some backlogs in Planning Inspectorate decisions with some decisions having come through in the last few days

·         Items 13 and 14 – Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent – Clifton, 26 to 28 The Mall: Proposal to Create a Man Sized Roof for a Single Bedroom Flat – This had been refused due to its impact on its status as a listed building. However, the Inspector felt that the impact on the Listed Bulding Consent was acceptable and allowed the appeal. Listed Building consent was granted for that proposal

·         Items 16 and 17 – General Hospital Site – Permission was granted for the development and conversion of the site – Proposal to add in 2 further residential properties. BCC refused this application under delegated powers. The Inspector agreed and felt that the decision should be refused on the grounds out forward concerning harm to heritage assets and the resulting poor living conditions for existing residents and for the proposed occupiers of the units

·         Items 38 and 39 – Application to Replace Existing Telecommunications Equipment on Knowle Water Tower on Talbot Road – Request for Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent – This was refused by the officer under delegated powers. The Inspector had to weigh up the public benefits of the telecommunications with the harm to heritage assets. The Inspector felt that the harm was not outweighed by the proposal and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, listed building consent was refused. Full details of this decision would be reported in the report for the next Development Control B Committee meeting

·         Various appeal decisions were listed from Item 58 onwards

In response to questions from Councillors, officers made the following comments:

·         If costs were applied for by the appellant, officers would always report the outcome – whether costs were awarded or not awarded

·         There is a fast track householder appeal process. These applications were always listed at the beginning of the report. A Public Inquiry was held first, then informal hearings including a Site Visit

·         The vast majority of appeals were dealt with through written representations with a tight timescale. The appellants were required to submit evidence under strict absolute deadlines

·         The Planning Inspectorate programmed in this work. Whilst sometimes this was turned around quickly, on other occasions it was not

·         Regular updates were provided on decisions. However, some were several months old.

·         In the case of written representations, the Inspectors always visited the site. They were often from another part of the country so that they can be perceived as neutral. They were usually only accompanied to the site to provide access to it and to take photos prior to making their decision

·         Appellants often suggested which route they wished to take – either a public Inquiry with a hearing or written representations

Officers stated that they would investigate the reason for the dismissal of Item Number 66 and e-mail Councillor Clive Stevens to advise him accordingly. Action: Gary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To note enforcement notices.

There were no enforcement items reported to this meeting.

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

Anyone 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. Public

Forum items should be emailed to democratic.services@bristol.gov.uk and

please note that the following deadlines will apply in relation to this meeting:-

Questions - Written questions must be received 3 clear working days prior to the

meeting. For this meeting, this means that your question(s) must be received in

this office at the latest by 5pm on Thursday 10th September 2020.

Petitions and Statements - Petitions and statements must be received on the

working day prior to the meeting. For this meeting this means that your

submission must be received in this office at the latest by Tuesday 15^th September 2020.

Anyone who wishes to present their public forum statement, question or petition

at the zoom meeting must register their interest by giving at least two clear

working days’ notice prior to the meeting by 2pm on Monday 14^th September 2020.

PLEASE NOTE THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW STANDING ORDERS

AGREED BY BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL, YOU MUST SUBMIT EITHER A STATEMENT,

PETITION OR QUESTION TO ACCOMPANY YOUR REGISTER TO SPEAK.

Please note, your time allocated to speak may have to be strictly limited if

there are a lot of submissions. This may be as short as one minute.

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 set out below:

Officers confirmed that this report had been withdrawn from the agenda by the Planning Officer Group at short notice and apologised that this had been necessary.

The Committee were advised that:

·         Since the Committee report has been published, there had been further representations from stakeholders questioning whether the proposed transport mitigation was adequate to deal with the impacts of the development

·         Following this, there had been some internal discussions and it was felt that the proposed mitigation package should be re-examined and should provide the Committee and interested parties as to how the works would integrate with the emergency active travel fund and plans for the clean air zone

·         Therefore, the report would now be considered at the next meeting on Wednesday 14^th October 2020

Some Committee Members expressed concern at the very late withdrawal of this item and made the following comments:

·         It could be perceived as giving the impression that the planning process had been interfered with

·         This gave a bad impression to members of the public some of whom may have taken time off work to attend in order to speak to the Committee for this item

·         It was important that this should be avoided for future applications

Officers agreed with the sentiment of Committee members and confirmed that this had been a very difficult decision in this instance. He apologised to Councillors and Stakeholders for this decision.

Officers introduced this report and made the following comments:

·         This site was currently occupied by two buildings

·         The application was for two applications to construct 3 storey buildings with dual frontage on both

·         Existing approval existed for 6 HMO’s on the site and was for 3 storeys as per the current application

·         The application was for a more modern approach and materials. It was noted that each floor would feature 2 HMO’s

·         There had been 30 comments received across 2 consultations

·         The application had been referred to committee by Councillor Clair Hiscott

·         There was only 5% of housing stock currently registered for HMO’s in the area. If this application was approved, it would increase to 9.63%

·         Information on selective licensing would be required which can capture dwellings subdivided into flats to analyse exactly how many HMOs existed in a particular area. At the moment, officers were heavily reliant on the data in making their recommendation

·         The proposed height of 3 storeys was acceptable from the junction. The impact from over shadowing was similar to the existing site

·         This proposed development would be purpose built and separate from adjoining properties

·         There was unlikely to be a negative impact in terms of possible sandwiching of properties. There would be a separate ground floor and first floor flat

·         There were sufficient parking spaces to meet demand

·         Cycle and refuse arrangements would meet the required standards

In response to members’ questions, officers made the following comments:

·         The survey of HMOs had used methodology from February 2019 and took place between 10pm and 11pm

·         Complaints had to be persistent to be formally categorised in the assessment of this development. Individual complaints would not be assessed

·         Whilst under the previous regimes, HMO licences would not need to be registered. However, following the extension of Article 4, they would need to be registered

·         The number of HMOs was checked against the Bristol City Council register which included Bishopston but not Horfield

·         The data was taken from 27^th July 2020 and so did not account for changes from August. It was acknowledged that Development Control A Committee had noted that there had been a 5% increase in HMO’s in August 2020 for Bishopston

·         Officers could build a condition into planning approval requiring that the telephone number of the landlord or his agent is provided for the refuse and recycling store

·         The bedroom was a single space unit

·         Whilst it was acknowledged that all houses in this area were not particularly large and identification of HMO’s was therefore harder, further HMO’s for future applications would be assessed as to whether or not they provided a tipping point

·         Article 4 removed development rights and therefore all future development would require planning permission. A change of use from a dwelling house to a small HMO would normally be a permitted development. However, this had now been removed. Therefore, In Horfield or elsewhere Planning Permission will be required for small or large HMO’s.

·         Whilst there may be a Planning Permission  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The next meeting is scheduled for 6pm on Wednesday 14^th October 2020.

It was noted that the next meeting was scheduled to be held at 6pm on Wednesday 14^th October 2020 as a remote zoom meeting.