Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and issued the safety information.

Apologies received from Councillors Dyer and Poultney.

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.

There were none.

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

RESOLVED – that the minutes of 24 November 2021 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Head of Development Management reported that the appeal for Home Gardens was with the Planning Inspectorate but had not yet been validated and as a result there was no current dialogue with the applicant.

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

The Head of Development Management reported in respect of Item 10 – 1, Milsom Street. The enforcement notice was still in place and an appeal hearing was scheduled for 18 January.

To note enforcement notices.

The Head of Development Management reported that there had been a light touch approach to food store breaches since the pandemic but the two food stores listed continued to receive complaints regarding breaches of delivery hours.

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 January 2022.

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 January 2022.

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 3399, Bristol, BS1 9NE or email - democratic.services@bristol.gov.uk

Members of the public who wish to present their public forum statement, question or petition at the meeting must register their interest by giving at least two clear working days’ notice prior to the meeting by 2pm on Friday 7 January 2022

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.

In accordance with previous practice adopted for people wishing to speak at Development Control Committees, please note that you may only be allowed 1 minute subject to the number of requests received for the meeting.

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 applications.

The case officer highlighted the following points by way of introduction:-

1. The application was for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of 40 C3 dwelling houses (33 flats and 7 townhouses) and commercial floor space with associated car parking, cycle parking, refuse, storage and landscaping;
2. There would be a new public route through the site;
3. Noting the concerns expressed in a Public Forum Statement about overlooking it was noted that the flatted block had been designed so that its views were down Ashfield Road;
4. There was a financial contribution of £20,000 towards local cycle infrastructure improvements which would be secured via section 106 legal agreement, along with TRO fees in relation to street lining;
5. He recommended the application for approval subject to conditions and a S106 agreement.

The Head of Development Management commented on the application as follows:-

1. The  8 units in a cluster was standard practice and compliant with the Council’s affordable housing policy;
2. The key principles were that service charges were kept down to a minimum including separate entrances and that the clusters helped the management of the units;
3. In addressing the Public Sector Equalities duties referenced in a Public Forum Statement it was confirmed that the duty had been carried out twice – whilst assessing the application and by the Affordable Housing Practice Note considered at Cabinet in 2018.

The following points arose from questions:-

1. A condition required public art to be incorporated along the public through route though no artist had yet been chosen;
2. It was not clear where the businesses would go in the unit at the rear but the economic development team had not objected;
3. Only one of the affordable housing units did not have a balcony;
4. Concern was expressed as to why there was no lift in the affordable housing unit which could be redesigned next to the stairwell. It was noted that this was feasible but would involve the loss of a parking space. It was important to resist the temptation to redesign the proposal. It had been designed for a particular reason and it was rare to have a lift for three storeys and a lift had been provided for the five storey unit;
5. Including a lift would increase costs and could make the units unaffordable due to increased service charges;
6. There was an inconsistency with the hours for the single yellow lines waiting restrictions and the delivery hours. Officers agreed that one could be amended to match the other;
7. It was noted that the proposal would allow two additional car parking spaces overnight compared to the existing situation;
8. It was noted that the garden at the end of block A was proposed for those residents only but could be conditioned for access for all residents;
9. It was confirmed that the height of properties on Ashville Road is 2  storeys and not 2.5 storeys as set out in the report;
10. None of the 16 car parking spaces had been allocated to the affordable housing units. There was 45% provision of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

The case officer highlighted the following points by way of introduction:-

1. The application was for a single storey side and rear extension and change of use from dwelling house to large HMO;
2. The application had previously been submitted and had been refused. Amendments were secured during the current application process . On reconsulting the application received 21 objections;
3. The application had been referred to Committee by Councillor Hulme regarding concerns for design and visual impact, impact on neighbours’ privacy and over-bearing;
4. The proposal retains an open character and building line at the corner location and meets the design requirements of the SPD on Household Extensions;
5. Noise insulation was proposed for all party walls and meets all other HMO SPD requirements;
6. There was not a harmful concentration of HMO’s in the area with approximately 85% houses, 6% multiple occupation and 14% flats;
7. All rooms met HMO licensing standards;
8. There were no policy reasons to refuse the application so it was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

The following points arose from questions:-

1. The application was compliant on SPD HMO’s and there was therefore little chance of defending at appeal;
2. The demographic of prospective residents was not within the planning remit;
3. There would be 1 person per bedroom as marked on the submitted plans and HMO Licensing would specify this on the licence;
4. The bedroom sizes had been reduced from the previous application but still met HMO licensing space standards;
5. The identity of the applicant was not a planning consideration;
6. National planning guidance had recently been amended to include ‘beautiful buildings’ and officers observed that whilst this was in the eye of the beholder. This application met the design requirements of the Household Extension SPD and was an acceptable design;
7. It was possible to condition that the parking space be retained in perpetuity.

8.   There was a condition requiring a fence to be erected between the adjoining property prior to occupation  and that wording would be added to retain it in perpetuity

The following points arose from debate:-

1. Councillor Breckels understood the concerns about the application but as it was policy compliant there was little chance of success at appeal. He asked that second parking space be negotiated and was informed that there was no room for a second space and that Transport Development Management had not believed that the impact on parking was severe enough to refuse it;
2.  It was confirmed that a standard  parking condition could be modified and added to ensure that the existing space was available for use prior to occupation and retained permanently.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation and it was seconded and on being put to the vote it was -

RESOLVED – (6 for, 2 abstentions) That the application be granted subject to conditions as set out in the report and an additional condition as set out below:-

Completion and Maintenance of Car/Vehicle Parking - Shown on Approved Plans

No building or use hereby permitted shall be occupied or use commenced until the car/vehicle  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

2pm 23 February 2022.

The next meeting of Development Control B Committee was on 23 February 2022 in City Hall.

The meeting ended at 8.10pm.

CHAIR  __________________