Breadcrumb Content

Agenda item

Public Forum

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:



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 31st August 2023.


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 Noon on Tuesday 5th September 2023.


The statement should be addressed to the Service Director, Legal Services, c/o The Democratic Services Team, City Hall, 3rd Floor Deanery Wing, College Green,

P O Box 3176, Bristol, BS3 9FS or email -




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 published online prior to the meeting. Each statement was heard before the application it related to and taken fully into consideration by the Committee prior to reaching a decision.


The Chair advised the Committee that due to administrative reasons some statements had not been included which had previously been submitted to Development Control A Committee on 9th August 2023.


Responses Supplementary questions were asked as follows:


QA1 – Mark Ashdown - I don’t believe that my question has been answered. Please can you explain why the passage I quoted from DM19 has been omitted.


A: It has answered it since evidence is required and it is relevant in planning terms. The mitigation would enable a small positive uplift.


QA2 – Danica Priest – 1st Question: Why have additional sites not been explored and why has the reference to other sites not being considered not been mentioned in the report?


A: The applicant explored additional sites to the extent that it was necessary. The report needs to address all the key issues for consideration by the Committee.


QA2 – Danica Priest – 2nd Question: Why is the commitment to honour nature as required in the green motion, which specifically referenced Yew Tree Farm, not being honoured?


A: This commitment is not mutually exclusive with the approval of this development. The report cannot mention every detail but the omission of this specific point does not make a material difference in this instance.


QA3 – Amanda Barrett – 1st Question: Since the search for sites for crematoria started in the 1960s, is planning being undertaken for future sites?


A: A plan is being developed for the future which would consider the requirements for the next 15 years.


QA3 – Amanda Barrett – 2nd Question: Since so much has changed over the last 20 years in terms of biodiversity and climate change, what actions are being taken to avoid repeating the same problems.


A: Since the city was running out of burial space, a plan for the next 15 years would help address the key issues, including the need for an uplift in biodiversity.


It was also noted that many of the issues in this question were strategic planning issues which were more suited to the Cabinet and the Mayor.

QA4 – Maddy Longhurst – 1st Question: Should some of the issues connected to planning be considered as planning issues due to the duty to co-operate on them and be taken into consideration with the combined authority, such as urban growth , and the food system along with space for burials


A: There was a duty to co-operate at a strategic level which we are working with the neighbouring authority to address. There was a requirement to provide burial space as close to where people lived as possible so that others could visit and avoid using other Local Authorities


QA4 – Maddy Longhurst – 2nd Question: Since people in Bristol look to Bristol City Council as a Gold Ward Food Centre, it is now classified as a regenerative Gold City. Are the reputational dimensions of the impact of this decision being fully considered or accounted for?


A: It is considered as part of Bristol City Council’s planning process. Evidence is considered as part of an assessment of whether or not the claimed impact will materialise. Since the amount of area affected is very small and the land was not formerly leased to Yew Tree Farm, it had not been demonstrated that this was a planning matter


QA4 – Maddy Longhurst – 3rd Question: In view of the need to protect food production in the city and since both food strategy and crematoria strategy are being considered at next week’s Communities Scrutiny Commission, why not wait until discussions take place there prior to making a decision?


A: City strategies were constantly evolving and if decisions were deferred pending discussion of them, there would be a risk of no decisions being made


QA5 - Steph Wetherell – Not Present


QA6 - Catherine Withers - 1st Question: Despite paying rent for 56 years on site and being advised that this was SNCI land that would be protected, I wasn’t included in the consultation or as a stakeholder but Mark Ashdown was. Why is this?


A: We don’t recognise this interpretation of events and believe you were consulted.


The Committee received each of the Public Forum Statements published as a supplementary dispatch on the Bristol City Council website.











Supporting documents: