Agenda and minutes

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

There were none.

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 12 January 2022 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee is requested to note any outstanding actions listed on the rolling Action Sheet for DCB Committee.

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

These were noted without discussion.

To note enforcement notices.

These were noted without discussion.

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 17 February.

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 22 February.

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 working days’ notice prior to the meeting. For this meeting this will be 2pm on Monday 21 February.

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 presented the report and highlighted the following:-

1. This was an application which sought to amend a previous planning permission for the demolition of garages and the construction of a two story dwelling with parking, bike spaces and refuse storage;
2. It requested the variation of Condition 14, namely, to substitute approved plans with as built plans and to delete Conditions 2 and 3 which dealt with visibility and boundary wall respectively;
3. The grant of planning permission will regularise the breach of planning control and was a process advocated by the government in its guidance on discretionary process of taking action following

planning enforcement investigation;

4. As a result of consultation 8 separate addresses had made comments, 3 were in support of the application and 4 objected to it;
5. It was noted that there was a drafting error between the recommendation made to highways and what was shown on the Notice of Decision in the original consent;
6. For private accesses guidance on visibility splays was less clear than for new junctions. However, Transport Development Management’s view was that they did not think the proposal caused undue risk and that it should be accepted;
7. The issue of encroachment on to land as referenced in a Public Forum Statement was not a matter for the Planning Authority and was a civil matter;
8. In summary, the planning application was valid, had been properly submitted, subjected to planning regulations and consulted upon and was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

The following points arose from questions:-

1. There was no difference in the height of the wall next to the pavement but there was an increase in the height of the wall as it abounds the forecourt;
2. It was confirmed that Conditions 2 & 3 of the original permission were incompatible and this application regularised the situation;
3. The current application provided no detriment or betterment in terms of visibility;
4. This breach of planning was assessed and it was concluded that it did not warrant enforcement action but instead regularisation;
5. If the previous proposal had not been policy compliant it would not be possible to recommend this application for approval;
6. If the Committee refused the application officers would have to test the reasons for refusal and assess harm. A refusal did not dictate enforcement action;
7. The wall was 2.4m high and would have to be 0.6m in places to meet the standard condition on visibility.
8. Transport Development Management would recommend a 0.6m height for a new build as it allowed the driver to see above a wall. For this application there was a neutral affect as there had been no objections;
9. It was possible to attach an advice note to the permission recommending not reversing out onto the road but not to attach a planning condition.

The following points arose from debate:-

1. The white-washed wall, although not material, was a visual distraction;
2. It was unusual to receive a Public Forum Statement from a Police Inspector stating that the arrangement was not safe;
3. There were no grounds to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

The Case Officer presented the report and highlighted the following:-

1. The application was before the Committee as the applicant was a Councillor of Bristol City Council;
2. The application was for a single story full width rear extension;
3. There were no responses to consultation;
4. The proposed development was of an appropriate design which officers consider would not cause harm to the character or appearance of the dwelling, street scene or wider area. Furthermore, the proposed development would not cause harm to the amenity of current of future neighbours.

There were no questions or discussion and the officer recommendation was moved and seconded and on being put to the vote it was:-

Resolved (Unanimously) – that the application be granted subject to conditions.

6pm on 6 April 2022

The next meeting of Development Control B Committee is on 6 April 2022 at 6pm in City Hall.

The meeting ended at 3.05pm.

CHAIR  __________________