Agenda and minutes

Councillors will be appointed to the Planning Committee at the Annual Meeting of Council which will be held on Monday, 23 May 2016.

The names of those Councillors appointed to the Committee and the Planning Policy Sub-Committee will be published on the Council’s website as a supplement to this agenda on Tuesday 24 May 2016.

RESOLVED that the following appointments made at the Annual Meeting of Council be noted:-

Planning Committee

Councillors Taylor (Chair), Lewis (Vice Chair), Lugg, Hanman, Morgan, D.Brown, Dee, Hansdot, Toleman, J. Brown, Cook, Fearn, Finnegan.

Planning Policy Sub Committee

Councillors Taylor (Chair), Lewis (Vice Chair), Lugg, D. Brown, Dee

Councillor Taylor declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest in agenda item 19, Lidl Supermarket, Eastern Avenue as he lived near the application site.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 12 April 2016.

The Chair deferred consideration of the minutes of the meeting held on 12 April 2016 until after the other business on the agenda had been completed.

Please note that any late material relating to the applications detailed below will be published on the Council’s website as a supplement in the late afternoon of the day of the meeting.

Members’ attention was drawn to the late material in respect of agenda item 10 which had been published on the internet as a supplement to the agenda.

Application for determination:-

Demolition of existing discount food store and construction of replacement discount food store with associated car parking, servicing and landscaping at Lidl Supermarket, Eastern Avenue.

Councillor Taylor had declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest in this application.

The Development Control Manager presented the report which detailed an application for the demolition of the existing discount food store and construction of a replacement discount food store with associated car parking, servicing and landscaping.

He advised that nine letters of representation had been received and were detailed in section 5.0 of the report.

He noted that the proposal was for a replacement for the existing Lidl store and he referred Members to paragraphs 6.6 and 6.7 which explained that Officers were satisfied with the issues regarding the sequential test.

He reported that the Highways Authority were satisfied with application and the Environmental Health Officer was satisfied that subject to appropriate conditions, there would be no demonstrable harm to the amenities currently enjoyed by the occupiers of neighbouring houses or the funeral business.

He referred Members to the late material which contained an amended recommendation to address errors in the original conditions.

Margaret Jones, a local resident, addressed the Committee to express some concerns over the application.

Ms Jones was speaking on behalf of the residents of 8, 9, 10 and 11 Highfield Place. She expressed concerns relating to security particularly at the back of the proposed store as acoustic fencing could be easily climbed. She called for a fence to secure the entire perimeter and asked that the Committee require such a fence.

She believed that the proposal would result in increased noise in particular from refrigerated vehicles and cages rumbling inside vehicles.

She noted that the car park was used for gatherings after the store had closed and asked if there would be a CCTV installation.

She stated that there would be no objection if the above issues were addressed.

Miles Drew representing Lidl UK addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Mr Drew stated that Lidl UK welcomed the Officer’s recommendation and explained that the existing store no longer met the current business model which was designed to deliver a better shopping experience.

He stated that Lidl UK recognised the amenity and security issues and should the Committee grant the application they would ensure boundary treatments addressed those matters. He added that measures would be taken to address issues with seagulls and all waste would be stored internally until collected.

He advised that Lidl UK had consulted the local community including 4,000 leaflets and a website. They had received 380 responses of which 98 per cent were in support of the application.

The Chair questioned the boundary treatments and was advised that condition 8 would address the issue. There was a balance between achieving security and visual acceptability together with acoustic issues and there was an expectation that serious thought would be given by the developer to achieve a satisfactory solution.

A Member asked if CCTV would be required and was advised it was not known. It would be necessary to demonstrate a real risk if the Council were to insist on it.

Another  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Application for determination:-

Conversion of existing building into eight single bedroomed flats, demolition of the existing storage shed to the rear and erection of a replacement building to provide an additional five flats (three of one bedroom and two of two bedrooms) at 18, Brunswick Square.

The Development Control Manager presented the report which detailed an application for the conversion of an existing building into eight single bedroomed flats, demolition of the existing storage shed to the rear and the erection of a replacement building to provide an additional five flats (three one bedroomed and two of two bedrooms) together with the associated Listed Building Consent at 18, Brunswick Square.

He advised that the building was currently identified as ‘vulnerable’ on the City Council’s Buildings at Risk Register.

He advised that no objections had been received from statutory consultees and he drew Members’ attention to the representations detailed in Section 5 of the report and he reported that a further representation had been received by e-mail from a neighbour which noted that the development would prevent the conversion of the adjoining building currently used as offices into residential use and also requested that Committee Members walk the area.

He advised that the principle of development was acceptable and the loss of the Old Tram Shed was not considered to be significant and he considered that the development would enhance the Conservation Area.

He considered that the proposal was sustainable and close to public transport. The Highways Authority had raised no objection and noted that the parking demand would be lower than office use which would be the fall back position should this application not be approved.

He drew Members’ attention to paragraphs 6.25 to 6.29 which detailed the impacts on residential amenity. He illustrated the sunlight analysis and concluded that the proposal would not result in any demonstrable harm to the amenities of occupiers of the neighbouring properties by way of any significant overshadowing, overbearing or overlooking.

Sheila Clarke addressed the committee in opposition to the application.

Ms Clarke stated that she was representing local residents. She referred to the comments of Historic England and the Council’s Conservation Officer and believed that the amended plans had not achieved a reduction in scale to two storeys.

She stated that the owner of No. 17 wanted a residential property with garden, and this application would set a precedent for two and three storey extensions. She asked why object to windows when the whole application would despoil the Conservation Area.

She believed that the parking survey was flawed and there was no parking available in either Brunswick Square or Road after 6.00 pm.

She stated that the proposal would cause significant overshadowing and noted that No 9 Albion Street was 6.25 m from the site. She believed that the proposed condition 7 (requirement for a Construction Method Statement) was totally unworkable and that Officers had taken more care on internal detail rather than the external elements of the application.

Nick Carroll, architect, addressed the committee in support of the application.

Mr Carroll stated that significant harm would be caused by leaving the building in its present state. He noted that it had been empty for eight years and this application presented the only opportunity to restore the building.

He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Application for determination:-

Change of use from four apartments to a house in multiple occupation (12 bedrooms) at 31, London Road.

The Principal Planning Officer presented his report which detailed an application for the change of use from four apartments to a house in multiple occupation (twelve bedrooms) at 31, London Road.

He advised that the change of use rather than the internal layout was the issue before the Committee for consideration.

Councillor Hilton as Ward Member was invited to address the Committee.

Councillor Hilton stated that the property was within a Conservation Area and was currently split into four apartments which he believed was more sustainable than the proposed twelve bedrooms. He noted that the building was in need of refurbishment but the proposal represented overdevelopment in an area where parking was already congested.

He noted that the only communal space was within the annexe next to a bedroom and the bathroom was accessed through the communal lounge.

He expressed concerns regarding the collection of refuse and noted that the recycling system was breaking down in the City centre. He believed that it would be difficult to park two cars at the rear of the property and questioned whether the cycle and bin store would be adequate for twelve individuals.

He noted that there was no indication of future management arrangements and he called upon the Committee to reject the application as over-intensification.

The Vice Chair noted that the size of the proposed rooms was similar to the existing arrangements.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the communal area indicated in the annexe was for the use of the bedroom in the annexe and not intended as a communal space to be shared with the other flats.

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions in the report.

Application for determination:-

Construction of two apartment blocks containing 14 apartments on land adjacent to 126, Barnwood Road.

The Principal Planning Officer presented his report which detailed an application for the construction of two apartment blocks containing fourteen apartments on land adjacent to 126, Barnwood Road.

Andy Trower, resident of 126 Barnwood Road and an architectural consultant himself, addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.

Mr Trower stated that he had no objection to the principle of development of the site his objection was based on over-development and highways issues.

He believed that refuse collection vehicles would not enter the site and he had concerns regarding the intensification of traffic.

He stated that density of the development was equivalent to 93 dwellings per hectare or 38 per acre excluding parking and would represent reduced residential amenity.

He noted that there had been little response to the public consultation and advised that the other immediate neighbour had sold the land for the development.

In conclusion, he stated that the development was overpowering, would cause a loss of light and create a parking nightmare.

Aled Roberts addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Mr Roberts stated that the proposal was an effective use of a brownfield site, was sustainable and had been carefully developed.

He advised that the plans were based on an accurate survey and would provide sufficient parking. There was space for a refuse collection vehicle to turn safely and overlooking had been minimised to the satisfaction of the local planning authority.

The mews element had been set back to exceed minimum requirements and he believed that the developer had responded to all the issues.

A Member reported the concerns of residents of Fairwater Park regarding parking. Sixteen spaces were proposed for fourteen flats but there was nowhere other than Fairwater Park for any overflow parking.

He noted there were generally spaces in Colin Road and Grove Crescent but these were a fair distance from the development. He asked if the spaces would be allocated and he was advised by the Principal Planning Officer that this would be a matter for the developer but it was likely that one space would be allocated to each unit.

The Vice-Chair noted that the Highways Authority was satisfied and the refuse collection vehicles would enter the site. He noted that the plan had evolved after a lot of consultation and although the development was dense he believed that it was acceptable.

Another Member was advised that the City Archaeologist’s concerns had been addressed and that he would be sent a copy of the drainage scheme for comment be4fore it was agreed.

The Chair had some concerns over highways issued but acknowledged that the Highway Authority was satisfied. He liked the design and noted that the development would help meet a housing need.

In answer to a question the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the side windows would have obscure glazing.

RESOLVED that the Development Control Manager be authorised to grant consent subject to the conditions in the report, satisfactory resolution of drainage and archaeological issues and any necessary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Application for determination:-

Demolition of existing structures. Erection of 95 residential units (with associated communal areas, storage and plant) and Use Class A1 unit with associated landscaping, (amended description) at the former Kwiksave,103, Northgate Street.

The Principal Planning Officer presented his report which detailed an application for the demolition of existing structures, erection of ninety-five residential units (with associated communal areas, storage and plant) and Use Class A1 unit, with associated landscaping (amended description) at the former Kwiksave site, 103, Northgate Street. A physical model of the proposal was circulated to Members.

Craig MacDonald of Rooftop Housing Association addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Mr MacDonald advised that the project team had worked hard to bring forward the scheme which he believed represented a significant betterment on the site and he thanked Council officers for their assistance.

He advised that, subject to conditions including completion by March 2018, the project had received funding of £2,500,000 from the Homes and Communities Agency.

He noted that a few matters were still outstanding but he hoped that the Committee would be able to support the scheme.

The Chair believed that the scheme represented a great improvement of the site and noted that it would provide one hundred per cent affordable housing. He was confident that it would be delivered and noted that Council Officers had worked hard on the scheme and that the outstanding issues would be satisfactorily addressed.

A Member believed that the proposal was an exciting design for a key entry point to the City. He believed it to be a sympathetic way of addressing a series of gaps in the streetscape and would provide the area with a unique solution.

Another Member questioned the open space requirements for the development and the Principal Planning Officer advised that the overall scheme was marginal and there was no money available for contributions.

A Member echoed the praise for the scheme and was assured that the Council’s Tree Officer would be consulted on the tree planting to ensure species suitable for planting in proximity to the culver.

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that measures to address seagull issues would be included.

RESOLVED that the Development Control Manager be authorised to grant consent subject to the necessary conditions, satisfactory resolution of the outstanding matters detailed in the report and the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 legal agreement.

Application for determination:-

Proposed change of use from florist to takeaway and construction  of extract flue at 126, Tredworth Road.

The Development Control Manager presented the report which detailed an application for the proposed change of use from florist to takeaway and extract flue at 126,Tredworth Road.

He advised Members that the application had been deferred at the meetings held on 1 March and 12 April 2016. The Committee had requested an independent assessment of highway safety which was appended to the report.

He referred Members to section 1 of the report which contained details of the accident referred to by the public speaker at the April meeting. The Highway Authority had concluded that it had been caused by driver error. It was also stated that the Highway Authority’s comments on the site remained unaltered as the incident was not attributable to the site.

He reminded Members that the key issue was that the site enjoyed open Class A1 use which could include use as a 24 hour convenience store and this had to be regarded as a fall back position.

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions in the report.

To receive the report of the Senior Planning Compliance Officer identifying new Section 106 Agreements entered into, contributions received and any other benefits realised as a result of Section 106 Agreements in the 2015/16 financial year.

The Planning Compliance Officer presented the report which detailed new Section 106 Agreements entered into, contributions received and any other benefits realised as a result of section 106 Agreements during the 2015/6 financial year.

He advised the Committee that he would be leaving the Council’s employment on 17 June and the team would be reduced to the Senior Planning Compliance Officer. As a result enforcement activities would have to be prioritised to deal with the more serious or urgent breaches of planning control.

The Vice Chair thanked Officers for the report and noted that he had experienced problems with the formatting of the report on his i-pad.

The Planning Compliance Officer undertook to provide a Member with further details of the works at Clock Tower Park. He advised that Hucclecote library was a County Council matter.

The Chair thanked the Officer for his services to the Council and wished him well for the future.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

To consider a schedule of applications determined under delegated powers during the month of March 2016.

Consideration was given to a schedule of applications which had been determined under delegated powers during the month of March 2016.

RESOLVED that the schedule be noted.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 12 April 2016.

All the Committee Members who had present at that meeting agreed that minutes were a correct record of the proceedings with the exception of Minute 96, Land at Winnycroft Lane, Matson.

The Vice Chair suggested that approval of this minute be deferred to the next meeting as the proposed amendment would require minor redrafting.

The Development Control Manager invited the Chair and Vice Chair to an informal discussion of the matter.

RESOLVED that confirmation of Minute 96 of the meeting held on 12 April 2016 be deferred until the next meeting.

Tuesday, 14 June 2016 at 6.00 pm.

Tuesday, 14 June at 6.00 pm