Agenda item

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 22 September 2016.

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 27 September 2016.

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 3176, Bristol, BS3 9FS or email - democratic.services@bristol.gov.uk

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. An additional statement in respect of item 7 (1) which had been mislaid, was also included (A copy of the public forum list and questions and statements are held on public record by Democratic Services).

Questions were also received in relation to Item 7 (1). The Committee noted the responses and the Chair stated that he would hear two supplementary questions per submission.

These were as follows:-

Bruce Yates.

He strongly disagreed with the response to Question 1.

Question 2 – a tier 4 engine could be purchased but it was four-times the price of the proposed engine and the applicants did not wish to spend the money.

Stuart Phelps.

Questions 1 and 2 – Not properly answered.

Question - A QC’s view was that the application had to be refused – will you refuse it?

Answer – The QC’s opinion had been circulated to officers and was in the public domain. Officers were attaching some weight to the recommendation. Officers have a view having assessed carefully the impacts but it was for the members to decide. The application had been assessed in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework and took account of economic, social and environmental benefits and impacts without hierarchy. The role of the Director of Public health was to provide a strategic enabling role with the NHS and was not to provide a source of medical expertise for planning applications.

Liz Beth.

Question 2 – To be clear, the higher limits above compliance were unacceptable but there were still health impacts below compliance. It could be refused on worsening health grounds and it did not need to exceed limits to be refused.

Answer – Officers worked to European and UK guidelines values and were tied by those values and assessed applications against them as standards.

Question 4 – The assessment was based on a short term exceedance whereas the annual average exceeded the Air Quality Management Area. This development would worsen air quality significantly. The Council had declared the area an AQMA to improve the air. How could it then justify an application which would worsen it ?

Answer – the air quality assessment looked at the annual impact along the Bath Road and the development site. The impacts on the annual objectives were classed as slight. This was a balanced recommendation between the need for the development and the air quality impacts.

Simon Holmes.

Question 3 – This balanced recommendation could cost mean a child’s life. There had been 350 objections. Could the officers respond to the serious consequence of approving this application ?

Answer - Children’s health was of course an emotive matter. The planning process was dispassionate and evidence based. Any decision needed to be defendable from legal challenge or at appeal. Officers had carefully assessed the evidence before them from both applicants and objectors using all the tools at their disposal. It was necessary to look at the potential benefits too and not air quality in isolation. Officers considered that the air quality impacts were not significant and also gave greater weight to the energy policy which was supportive of this type of development. The recommendation was a balanced one concluding that the overall impacts were not significant. Ultimately, the Committee must make their own balanced judgement in determining the application.

Celia Davis.

Question – Was concerned with the answer given to question 3 and in particular the response that 32% of the fuel would use “sustainable” crude Palm oil extract, but the applicant stated 100% sustainable fuel not almost 70%.

Answer –  The figure was given in error (given the volume or correspondence between the applicant and LPA) and referred to an older statement from the applicant.

John Ross

Question 1 – Why was it not possible to ask for medical opinion ?

Answer – This was not the function of Public Health. The Local Planning Authority assessed air quality impact. There was not an expert in the Council for health matters and it was not a specific issue for Planning Committees to consider.