Modern.gov Breadcrumb

Modern.gov Content

Agenda item

Application Number 16/00828/F - O + M Sheds, Welsh Back, Bristol BS1 4SL

Proposed retention and repair of the two historic buildings O & M sheds, including reconstruction of the northern gable wall of O Shed, provision of new roofs, and associated surrounding landscaping for the purpose of providing three restaurants (within A3 use class) and outdoor seating area to Welsh Back

Minutes:

Members were reminded that this application had been considered at the Development Control Committee A meeting on 19 October 2016. Arising from a number of concerns the Application had been deferred for the following reason:

 

‘A decision on the application be deferred for the proposals to be amended to accommodate the existing residential mooring, including removal of the proposed walkway and outdoor seating on the harbour side of the site, plus ensuring that the windows on this elevation are obscurely glazed.’

 

The Committee was advised that this application was not subject to an appeal and could be determined on its own merits emphasising that the houseboat issue was not a planning matter and for that  reason the officer recommendation was for approval.

 

Arising from the debate the following points were made/considered –

 

1.   Bristol City Council was the land owner of the development site and the harbour authority, the Committee had to act outside of these roles as the Local Planning Authority;

2.   In order to protect amenity the  houseboat would need to be relocated and, in its Local Planning Authority role, the Committee could secure this through  a ‘negative’ condition that would prevent the development from taking place whilst the houseboat remained;

3.   A point was raised about the Council having conflicting interest as landowner in relation to the removal of the houseboat. The Committee was advised that this  issue was not a material planning consideration;

4.   Bat activity on the site had not been confirmed but a condition to protect any bat conservation issues had been included as part of the permission;

5.   Question were raised about the difference between use classes A3 (café / restaurants) and A4 (drinking establishments) and the differing effects on local residents. The committee were informed that suitable controls were in place to prevent a change of use from A3 to A4 without planning permission, although sometimes the boundaries between the two uses could be blurred;

6.   If the Application was refused the Applicant would have the right to appeal;

7.   The site was not allocated for housing in the adopted Central Area Plan. Overall, the Bristol Local Plan already included sufficient allocated housing sites to meet the housing need identified in the Core Strategy, although this overall objective was being assessed through the emerging Joint Spatial Plan which in itself would trigger a review of the Bristol Local Plan. The Committee had to determine this application in accordance with the currently adopted development plan. In addition, the recently published Government white paper on housing acknowledged that future development was not all about housing, it was about creating places that included supporting uses such as the ones being proposed by this application;

 

After further consideration it was moved and seconded that the Application be refused on the following grounds –

 

1.     The development would have a significant impact on the historic use of the Quayside by large boats;

2.     The development would harm the amenity of local residents;

3.     The development would provide potential for anti-social behaviour;

 

On the motion being put to the vote there were in 5 favour, 3 against and 2 abstentions.

 

Resolved –

 

That permission be refused for the following reasons –

 

1.     The development, particularly the cantilevered decking, would compromise the historic setting of the Harbour;

2.     The development would impede the historic use of the quayside, which is the residential mooring of large boats;

3.     The development would result in harm to the amenity of local residents.

 

Supporting documents: