Agenda item

Councillor Guy Poultney arrived after the start of this item. Therefore, in accordance with the Code of Conduct for Councillors on Planning Matters, he was unable to participate in the debate or vote on this item.

The Chair reminded the Committee that approval for demolition of the cinema had already been made in 2019 and so members were unable to consider the demolition itself but purely the method of demolition. It was noted that this was extremely unfortunate and that the Committee had a great deal of sympathy for members of the public in this situation.

The case officer for this Planning Application introduced this report and made the following comments during their presentation:

·       Details of the site were shown as well as of the proposed development

·       The current building was a 1930’s style building which had used as a Bingo Hall in the 1930’s. It had been empty since 1994 and has been classed as permitted development

·       The building was suitable for modern commercial retail use

·       The proposed development was for 30 residential dwellings with commercial floor space on the ground floor

·       There had been 8 objections relating to the new access road and concerns relating to increased traffic

·       The development was within the Knowle West Regeneration Framework

·       The scale of the building was deemed acceptable

·       Some initial highway concerns had been addressed and were now considered suitable

·       Officers recommended approval of the application subject to conditions and a Memorandum of Understanding

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

·       F1 and F2 Classes would allow community use

·       There was the potential to use the ground floor for community use

·       There was a mix of retail development on the site ie a betting shop, charity shops etc

·       Officers did not believe it would be appropriate to limit the development by condition to one particular ward since work was taking place across boundaries with a 10% requirement across the city by the end of 2023

·       The proposal was policy compliant

·       Once a site was allocated in the Development Plan, it was important to remain within what was required.

·       A number of units were being retained and there were good pedestrian links

·       There was a minor concern about the impact of loss of parking from residents’ parking but it was noted that retail development could still be serviced form the main road

·       Existing units would be lower to take into account the loss of parking. There would also be commercial and residential waste storage units

·       There had been no objections received from Bristol Waste

·       The number of dwellings was currently 20 but under the local land allocation would be uplifted to 30. There would be 62 dwellings per hectare on the site which was an increase from the minimum requirement of 50

·       The reduction in parking space could be used for extra cycle space if requested by the residents but the criteria for cycling had already been met

·       There was a net gain of six concerning trees – 8 trees would be removed, 14 new trees landscaped

·       Whilst there would be some shadowing of gardens, this would be as a result of natural sun movement and would not be significant. No shadowing survey had been carried out

During discussion, Councillors made the following comments:

·       There was a net uplift of 89 bed spaces, the scheme was policy compliant, servicing arrangements could be conditioned, there would be continued provision of services subject to the number who needed them and this would improve access for existing and future residents.

·       There was a lot to recommend the scheme. Although there were reservations concerning the issues raised by Re-work in their Public Forum Statement relating to the loss of vehicular access for retail outlets, the scheme should be supported

·       This was a good scheme with an impressive elevation. Whilst it was regrettable that a cinema building would be lost, it had been closed for 30 years. If an attempt had been made to save it some time ago, it might have been possible to find a solution. The style and mix of buildings was good and should be supported

·       The lack of a shadowing survey was a concern. There was also a need for further information about the type of trees being removed. It would be good to retain part of the old cinema building in the new development as a memorial

·       It was very unfortunate that the Committee was not able to consider the issue of demolition of the building since it was not given community asset status

·       This scheme was a good one. Whilst the residents’ anger was understandable, it was hoped that a similar situation could be avoided in future

Councillor Steve Pearce moved, seconded by Councillor Lesley Alexander and upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED (6 for, 0 against, 1 abstention, Councillor Guy Poultney unable to vote due to arriving after commencement of the item ) – that the application is granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.