Annual, Development Control B Committee – Wednesday, 26th June, 2024 2.00 pm
Papers: https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=141&MId=11114
Agenda:
1. Welcome, Introduction and Safety Information 00:00
2. Confirmation of Chair 0:29
3. Confirmation of Vice-Chair
4. Membership of the Committee
5. Terms of Reference
6. Proposed Dates of Future Meetings 0:55
7. Apologies for Absence and Substitutions 1:19
8. Declarations of Interest 1:36
9. Minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 10th April
2024 1:45
10. Action Sheet 2:22
11. Appeals 4:08
12. Enforcement 5:00
13. Public Forum
14. Planning and Development
a) 23/04886/F – Premier Business Park, Sussex Street 6:53
15. Date of Next Meeting
16. Amendment Sheet – To Be Published as a Supplementary Dispatch
just for your information if you need toilets they are out here in the foyer accessible toilets down at the end of the corridor and in the unlikely event of a fire uh the master point is out through the doors through which you have come and outside the Cathedral on the uh paved area outside the cathedral thank you in our agenda we will note the confirmation of the chair confirmation of the vice chair membership of the committee and the terms of reference uh which we have from Full Council everyone okay with that yes thank you very much um proposed dates of future meetings are we all roughly okay with those I think we we’ve informally agreed those I haven’t just sprung them on for those who are on Lookers uh We’ve informally agreed those so Jeremy you will pass those out as soon as possible yes I’ll confirm those after the meeting chair EXC to to have them in the diary yeah uh any apologies for absence or substitutions I’ve not been advised of any chair for the meeting doesn’t look like it to me so that that’s great everyone’s here I expected to be here and no one different uh Declarations of interest do I have any Declarations of Interest please no we do not uh the minutes of the previous meeting I accept that um many of us or indeed all of us might not have been present at that meeting but I propose uh that we agree the minutes of the last meeting do I have a seconder okay uh could you register your agreement or otherwise with that please do you agree hands up if you’re happy with that just to make sure thank you very much um action sheet are there any outstanding actions Jonathan from that that you want to um sure I’d really just refer members to the amendment sheet um yeah which confirms that the actions that are listed have been uh undertaken uh yes so regarding the request uh for appeal decisions those were provided uh to the individual members who asked for those and also with regard to the enforcement report uh the report which um was published as a part of the agenda for the DCA committee on the 6th of March um has been included um as part of an update enforcement report under agendum item 12 for this meeting uh and this is also together with a list of the enforcement notices that have been served thanks and a very it’s a very helpful report if some of you I do suggest that you read that in depth because it gives you an idea of situation that enforcement function is in currently the challenges it faces and the measures being put in place to improve things so I recommend that to you Richard I apolog to be fair you largely said what I was going to say say chairman the chief planners is to be congratulated in my view members have been concerned about enforcement practices for some time but this gives not just the raw details but of enforcement notices but it gives context and I think that’s important we know we’ve had a problem but in my view we are moving in the right direction now thank you it’s excellent please pass on our thanks to officers for that report appeals uh can I hand over now to you Jonathan for the appeals there’s anything you’d like to highlight and then I’ll ask members if there were any questions on particular ones that they’d like to ask okay thank you chair um I mean in terms of the list of appeals under agendum item 11 I don’t believe there’s anything uh particularly of note just to highlight uh in in terms of decisions that have been received but I I will be happy to take any questions and also um yet again um if uh any members would like any copies of um any decisions we’ll be happy to provide those after thank you any questions on specific appeals from any members no thank you very much and we move on to enforcement uh yes so in terms of enforcement as I mentioned in terms of the report that’s been provided uh this afternoon um yeah it will be noted by the committee that there are uh two notices that have been served uh the details um of those are listed and as I said there is now an update report which is attached um uh to this which provides an update on the on the overall situation with regards to planning enforcement activity and um yeah it is Our intention to essentially provide this um on a regular basis to members and update it just yeah you know to provide that uh Insight thank you uh Fabian thank you chair um on the cases registered versus notices served table it seems to stress that you know um we’re now looking at 1% last last 2.77% having notices served is that because most of the um is that a resource issue or is that something else well there has been a resource issue kind of within yeah within that area um but I think that yes something will be noted um from the update as of uh the 13th of June is that there’s been a real effort by the team just to close down uh historic cases so there’s been a lot of work there that’s done on the enforcement backlog and particularly in terms of doing those initial assessments and kind of triaging and where harm isn’t identified or is an expedience take action uh closing those cases so that will obviously influence the overall uh kind of numbers that you’re seeing there thank you that’s it okay great uh we only have one item on the agenda today that is Premier business parks 6 Street Bristol bs2 r a0 r a and um I’ll move to the public forum and we should have a roving microphone up there there it is and the first person on uh my list for statements and I apologize in advance for mispronunciation of uh names please correct me uh Willie harbinson Old Market Community Association hello right um the Old Market Community Association strongly supports this application proposal Falls within the Old Market quarter neighborhood development plan area our community group spent several years comping compiling the plan Bristol’s first it was not written by Council officers but by members of the local community endorsed by planning policy officers and approved by counselors we cannot understand why the planning officers stating this proposal conflicts with our plan why they have not asked our group for a meeting about the application this proposal aligns with our plan which supports development that brings active Frontage to Kingson road to reflect its role as a primary pedestrian route it will transform a solar Street into an active place the developers community engagement has been excellent they’ve responded to our requests to provide valuable and sustainable Community assets including maker workshops at a pepper corn rent please support our community by approving this application thank you thank you uh Nola hery chair of dings Community Association uh hello hello you can hear me excellent um so she said my name is NOLA hery I represent the jings Community Association and we are also in support of this application as a small Vibrant Community on the edge of Temple quarter our residents have understandable concerns about the impact of significant change occurring in this area as part of this change Dominus is the only developer who has undertaken a proper uh what we would refer to as a model stakeholder consultation they actually worked with us to produce a design that will help Foster positive relationships and benefits for existing and new residents the proposed scheme incorporates a community space a community Lia on person a safer way to cross Kingsland Road and importantly for many of our residents access to an affordable Supermarket an industrial unit on this site will provide no obvious Community benefit but instead brings the risk of increased traffic pollution noise and congestion we support this properly consulted proposal and ask you to support the wishes of our community thank you thank you uh SAA young manager Bristol Hub good afternoon uh as you said I’m SAA young and I’m the manager of Bristol Hub a local branch at the national charity student hubs we fully support this application student hubs gets students at University to volunteer to do good things in their host communities including helping literacy numeracy and ITC uh ICT skills we have worked across Bristol for over 12 years and have worked with more than 100 Community Partners in a community like the dings where many residents first language is not English this can be really helpful to support adults seeking employment and children to do their homework it also helps break down barriers between students and their neighbors it is really valuable that Dominus has committed to building and managing a fully funded Community Center to be used precisely in this way having seen the benefits of helping students and local residents to get to know each other we are excited to see what they can take on in this collaborative approach to community social action thank you thank you uh Katherine Chiswell Jones good afternoon my name is Katherine Chiswell Jones and I’m representing artspace lipace the invisible circus is a key cultural institution in Bristol space is vital for support and performance opportunities locally and nationally and it is integral to Bristol’s cultural landscape unit 15 is a valuable resource recognized not just nationally but internationally and so it contributes significantly to our economy here in Bristol with numerous performances and jobs both on a Bristol and a national scale while we acknowledge the economic benefits to the dings including 77 full-time jobs affordable maker spaces we are concerned that more student accommodation at the expense of creative space risks eroding Bristol’s creative core losing unit 15 means losing the capacity to develop specialist aerial acts risking Bristol’s reputation as a circus City our members at the island have said that it will diminish Bristol’s variety of circus artists that there will be no space to rehearse speciality aerial actx and it is highlighted that it is one of the few spaces for large equipment training outside of London Bristol Prides itself on being a Circa City but with these facilities under threat so is our reputation we urge Dom menus to incorporate the training facilities that are currently provided by un 15 into their plans to preserve this essential cultural resource thank you thank you um public forum speakers have one minute I’ll be a little generous today because we haven’t got too many but uh by and large it’s it’s one minute thank you uh councelor Yassin Muhammad thank you chair uh I will Echo what they said our residents include all the mark Association and also dings residents and the local uh organizations what I’m saying is only is as elected uh member of Lawrence Hillwood and also as you are elected everyone committee sitting today you should have to reflect yourself so everyone who voted for us pleas respect so this residents leads respect and what they need is what they offering at the moment this developers so what I’m asking you every single person of this committee to support this project and I will Echo again what they said our colleagues and residents and um ended my support of this project thank you thank you uh Nicola aort Stewart not present uh all all public forum statements have been circulated to all of the members on the committee by the way so someone’s not present there still uh the comment has been taken um into account by uh members on the committee uh Emma Harvey Melissa Blackburn hello um my name is Melissa Blackburn I am um a senior producer at the University of the west of England I’m co-chair of Art Space life space and I’m here to talk about the uh unit 15 in particular an invisible circus we’re very concerned that that removing invisible circus from the long-term tendency unit 15 in the Heart of the City will have a long-term detrimental effect on the creative cultural and economic growth of Bristol um in order for us to continue to attract new businesses across the city um and uh attract new creative Industries into the city um we need the city needs to actively maintain mixed use areas I understand this is a mixed use area but this has a very this building that we need to get rid of for this new uh encampment um is uh is specifically for the circus so the city needs to attractively maintain mixed use areas the city for the city that have real Heritage and cultural interest rather than homogenizing them into flats and offices as we sit at a transitional moment for the life of the country and the region we should do what brestol does best and recognize the worldclass award-winning creative Industries in Bristol thank you very much thank you uh Doug Francis creative director invisible circus cic hello what we were hoping for was a more pioneering and Progressive approach to this development that might change have these proposals are not only appraised in planning but designed and delivered in process one that would bring all parties to the table and build these developments more directly with and around the creative communities that sit at the heart of them it feels like this could and should be achievable especially especially in a city like Bristol Bristol city council cultural strategy states that the shortfall of art funding needs to be supported by private investment Dominos have a strong e off of social value they have been sympathetic and helpful to our cause in many ways and additionally they have now offered us a longer term position on the site within the maker spaces it is only unfortunate that this is not entirely suitable to Circus Bristol is a city with a long history of arts and culture whose current economic regeneration has been fueled by this making it one of the fastest growing Metro City centers in Europe these shared aspirations are written within policies and statements from both sides supporting culture and a more collaborative approach but no one seems able to build the bridge required to make these connections tangible we have maintained a neutral stance to reflect our position between these two currently opposing forces can I can I ask you to bring it to a close please in an attempt to remedy and Inspire change we hope this is not all too little too late as any offers of support are only useful if we are still in business and operating in this city which as yet is still uncertain thank you Steve Crompton changing social thank you afternoon counselors uh my name is Steve Compton managing director of a company called changing social 5 years ago I returned to Bristol uh which is my hometown um and I plan to start a business I move moved back from London I had no money I had to move back in with my parents to start the company and in order for to grow I had to find maker and Creator space um 5 years later um we’re still in Bristol we now employ 45 people and we’ve just secured private equity for over a million and a half in in funding backed by the British Business Bank we plan to grow the company by 200 people over the next 3 years and again this would not have been possible without the maker and Creator space that we first moved into when I moved back home um the planning application I understand proposes to add another 10,000 square ft of similar spaces that can be used by local entrepreneurs uh I’m passionate about supporting local business and entrepreneurs as well similar to myself and that’s why I passionately support this application Bristol really does have a creative Community including those starting up in all sorts of businesses and those non for-profits we don’t need large industrial warehouses but we do need spaces like this to support Bristol Enterprise thank you uh prit aaia principal director Dominus good afternoon councilors afternoon I’m preia a member of the owning family of Dominus my father arrived in the UK as a refugee and he always appreciated the sanctuary that the UK gave him so when we started our family business he always sought to give back that’s why we start our developments by asking the community what they need most and incorporating that into our business plan the amazing things Community asked for a funded community space Supermarket Road Safety improvements and maker spaces we included all of them we’re the first developer in Bristol as far as I know to offer 20% discount to our student rooms and the affordable workspace offered at peor rent we have recently received sorry we have received 27 planning applications positively throughout the UK and are currently on site on 10 different schemes across the UK including in Bristol if you approve our application you have my absolute commitment I will work with the officers to address anything you wish to condition thank you so much thank you uh corac fary director Al Alfred Hall Monahan Morris thank you good afternoon afternoon I’m a Bristol director of hm Architects we’re Urban Design Specialists working collaboratively with the community on this scheme has been truly rewarding it’s a great design made all better for their input we had glowing feedback from your advisory design panel Design West and the University’s own design Architects praise the scheme particularly for its pastoral care so it’s very frustrating to get a late objection from your design officers who wouldn’t meet us and got a lot of facts wrong and who clearly misinterpreted or haven’t fully read the document submitted this is one of our best schemes it will reinstate the historic Henry Street as a public space create a varied Street Scapes at well in its setting and en liven this fenced off industrial estate it was really pleasing to hear Bristol architect Willie hars and support the application I really hope you can too thank you uh Michael or planning partner rap please thank you chair I’m Michael raple good afternoon counselors as a former planning officer at Bristol city council and now Consultants have more than 30 years experience under my belt I’m frankly baffled as why officers are recommending you refuse this application You’ just heard from numerous Community groups strongly argue that they want it approved in my view members have been put in a avoidable and invidious position of having to choose between officers and the community from a planning policy perspective I think all nine reasons for refusal could be set aside or dealt with by condition you should in my opinion approve this application Bristol has got many great schemes that officers did not support and members did the Fabulous Serpentine Bridge Serpentine Castle bridge is now is one of them and it Now features in your Urban Design Urban living SPD I don’t want to here adversarial and have a great deal of respect for a case officer but in my professional opinion officers have simply got this case wrong thank you thank you and Jay alalia principal director Dominus is that you’re on yes it’s on now hopefully we can start the minute from now I’m Jia pri’s brother and part of the family that owns Dominus um it’s been a real pleasure uh collaborating with the dings Community Association and the Old Market Community Association to agree what community assets we’ll deliver and I really thank them for their time ideas and support through the process I also want to thank invisible circus for working with us in a constructive way it’s difficult to overstate the amazingly positive impact the temple quarter regeneration will have on Bristol but change also presents challenges including the potential displacement of existing occupiers and so to support invisible circus we’ve extended their lease we’ve stopped charging them rent since last September we’ve hired an agent to find them a new home and propos to lease the maker spaces rentree for 20 years so they can secure their future generally but also have that be one that’s in Bristol most objections to our application are from people um concerned about the invisible circus’s future and many of them are actually from overseas I hope you agree that we’re doing all that we can reasonably do to help secure that thank you thank you that brings us to the end of the public forum and so I’ll ask Ben to give the officer presentation please thank you chair um so this application uh is for the develop uh demolition of existing structures on an industrial site uh in the east of Kingsland Road principal warehousing and Industrial Area and the construction of a new mixed use development comprising 705 student beds in purpose built student accommodation with flexible retail or like industrial space referred to throughout the documentation as a supermarket or a food shop flexible light industrial uses which are referred to as maker spaces and a designated community space along with with some public realm works and the introduction of a new or reinstated pedestrian street now called New hemry Street so the application has been called in by the ward councelor Muhammad as you’ve heard um in the in the event that officers are minded to refuse the uh scheme and that is a recommendation in this instance there have been 584 public representations on this application of which eight are in support 10 are neutral and 565 are objecting the site is located in the pewa as I mentioned and is surrounded by lowrise industrial buildings to the north east and south to the West is the residential area known as the dings which is characterized by twostory terrorist housing and runs up to the opposite side of kingsam road um the pewa is retained in the local plan and the emerging local plant due to the D designation of the PE land in St Phillips and to allow the regener generation of Temple quarter the remaining PE land in and around the center of Bristol is considered to have increased importance for retaining employment in the city the site is currently in use by multiple operators including industrial spaces the Vibrant Community and cultural spaces um that are consistent with a pewa and include as you’ve heard um The Invisible circus and Training Center music studios the I think I’ve got my uh my slide slightly mixed up um the site here we go the site is um currently in this form you can see some of these existing site photos with relatively lowrise industrial um units here if my cursor is showing which it is um and then the Residential Properties opposite on Kingson Road um and then some more views from inside pewa um and again from the opposing corner so we have here some images um taken from some of the documentation supporting the application the top left shows the proposed development um sorry the top left shows the existing development and the bottom right shows the proposed development um so you can see development of four to six stories along kingsam Road and then rising up to eight stories uh further into the development and by Alfred Street so the key issues on the application were land use uh the site is within the pewa and it is intended to be safeguarded for industrial or distribution use in the existing and local plan the proposed ground floor uses compete with old markets town center and the development would harm the future viability of the rest of the pewa which is seeing increasing demand as mentioned due to the rede Redevelopment in Temple quarter um it is acknowledged that the site is IM marked in the Old Market neighborhood plan as a potential long-term development site subject to it um meeting three criteria um that being that it’s on the periphery of the P which it is that it’s predominantly commercial when it’s 93.5% residential and that it would offer a suitable standard of immunity for future occupants and in this instance we don’t believe it would uh in terms of design and Heritage The Proposal is um simply considered too L and the scheme is is considered an overdevelopment of the site um and the design could be improved and in terms of imunity uh the proposal would harm the immunity of the existing residents on the opposite side of Kingsland Road and offer poor immunity immunity for the future occupants of the student accommodation and then in for terms of Transport the scheme is considered unsafe with regard to highway safety impacts on parking and insufficient evidence that the issues raised can be resolved um at a site that’s not considered to be a sustainable location for development such as this or on this scale um of the key consules on this application strong objections have been raised by Urban Design officers with regard to the scale and massing of development arrangement of the immunity spaces flexible commun uh commercial and Industrial spaces livability and Immunity for future occupants transport officers have raised concerns regarding highway safety particularly with regard to access onto and across the highway for vehicles pedestrian and cyclists they’ve also objected with regard to the impact on excessive parking in the area and the safety of the proposed loading base the suggestion to double yellow lines in the roads around the development would harm the viability of neighboring businesses and organizations the application also fails to demonstrate safe alternative provision for sustainable transport such as sufficient cycle storage in accordance with the council’s guidelines since submitting the office’s report the applicant has submitted additional information regarding sustainab ability specifically regarding overheating and the site’s ability to achieve briam excellent stat uh status sustainability officers have provided an initial view uh but the information was submitted too late for full comments to to be presented to us concerns do remain regarding overheating cooling mechanisms and contradictions within with regard to mechanical ventilation requirements between the energy reports and noise impact mitigation reports but this is something that we have had some positive movement on in terms of the ground floor layout or the street layout um the proposed flexible retail commercial unit is located to the southwest corner again opposite the Residential Properties on Kingsland Road on this corner um the community space is located on the northwest corner um but it will provide little active Frontage Behind the rubblestone Walls of the bridge which comes in along here uh the remainder of Kings Ro vage would be a mix of two small commercial spaces and three bin stores shown here and here a proposed new pedestrian Crossing originally proposed to be here has been removed that would have linked the site to the the the alleyway to the dengs that was removed due to safety concerns the remaining Crossing uh would be located on a false race table directly opposite existing residential units at the junction with Suk Street given the direction of travel and the number of people using this Crossing frequently the transport team are not satisfied that this is safe also I’ve noticed the location of the bike store which is located at the back of development uh next door to the community space to access this cyclist driving by Road would have to come around the site through the entirety of the proposed new de development and then turn left to access the cycle store this is considered poorly located um further the link to the cycle path to the north is a stepped access this means that cyclist would need to Dismount and carry their bikes up and down um the the stairs to access the cycle route or to use a runnner this is also Obed to and given the size and location of development uh a level access um to the cycle path was advised but we was not brought forward the remaining frontages along Suk Street uh and Alfred Street are proposed as flexible uses as light industrial or maker spaces concern has been raised by Design officers uh with regard to these units um providing active Frontage um and whether or not the businesses that operate it would want it and also from transport regarding the issues around parking for visitors or potential customers and servicing with a lack of sufficient parking and loading areas a particular note is the maker space located in the middle of the development here which is quite a distance from any of the vehicular accesses so there’d be concerns as to how that unit would be able to operate if it was in light industrial year uh access to the development for students would be through New hemry Street and then there will be a singular entrance under a bridge that hosts the first floor immunity space um this is 2third of the way up new hemry Street and uh concern is raised with regards to how far this is from the existing streets and vehicles and uh whether or not this presents issues for people that are Mobility impaired um access to the cluster flat Studios and Tow houses is via the main entrance under here and then up to the first floor uh which is shown here access to the rooms fronting Alfred Street here um is through the all of the amenity space proposed for the students access to rooms on Kingsland Road Block and the tow houses require people to come up new Henry Street up these flights of stairs and then back out of the building into the courtyard to access the um the rooms here um as such it’s considered that the layout is poor and requires students to walk in many cases excessive amounts of distance uh to reach their rooms particularly on the extremities of the site just some quick drawings of the elevation so this is the elevation fronting Kingsland Road which uh is between four and six stories this is the elevation for sus Street as you turn into the the PW that will be the view on your left hand side and again it goes from the four up to eight stories um the block on the right goes higher further into the site but at that particular point it is six stories the East Elevation is fronting Alfred Street so this is looking out from inside the pewa um at between six and eight stories again and then that’s the view from the dings Railway path which will be less impactful because it’s lower down um and then we have some tvia imagery so this is on the approach down from Old Market as you approach kingsam uh the bridge onto Kingsland Road this is the view from inside the dings um at the other end of the alley to the site and this is the view coming up from Temple quarter approaching the site on the right hand side so the scheme does offer some benefits and we acknowledge that um the benefits include the use of the maker spaces at pepper corn rent the 20% um of student accommodation being offered at uh reduced rent although it wouldn’t be considered affordable in in policy terms and further 75 student rooms equates to 282 new dwellings which we have to consider in terms of the Tilted balance requirement within the city as we currently don’t meet our fouryear housing land Supply the applicants also set out benefits um that include the introduction of a supermarket community space and maker spaces um and as set out in the report given the issues with regards to competition with Old Market Town Center the recently opened uh Supermarket on the other side of the dings um and the loss of the existing community and cultural spaces and employment land which equate to more than is being offered with this scheme these are not considered by offices to be benefits so when weighing up the benefits against all of the concerns and issues raised the conclusion is that the scheme should be refused and that is our recommendation to committee then the refusal reasons are set out in full in our report thank you thank you Ben uh it’s time now for members questions and so what I will do is I will note your names down in order I hands going up I may make an occasional mistake but we’ll start with Richard councelor Eddie I mean thank you chairman I’ve got three questions to the case officer and one to be h on um on the TR transport issues Ben um we’ve heard from Willie hardingham in public for one of the original instigators of the neighborhood plan that he and his organization had no contact from yourselves so is it the case that you’re asserting that this application Falls against the neighor the plan on your interpretation or why have we not communicated with them um I I think in essence we have we have you know given kind of full regard to the status of the Old Market neighborhood plan uh in the assessment um it is addressed um in the report we appreciate uh the difference of view that’s been uh expressed and have also noted the comments that we’ve received in that regard um but I think yeah a particular area of focus is uh policy B B5 within that plan which deals um with the uh the principal industrial and uh warehousing areas uh sorry that’s the pewa acronym that everyone would would have just been hearing um and really yeah in the report we have uh considered that policy and assess the proposal against it and we do find that there is conflict so you’re effectively saying it’s your interpretation you’re ignoring the views of the local community my second question to B on climate change energy and sustainability you mentioned the latx uh supply of the information is this not a conditionable thing we can uh Grant consent if members are minded for this subject to satisfactory information um okay so if I can just answer add something to your previous um question um the policy itself states that within p uh principal industrial and warehousing areas defined on on the map that that is shown proposals for developments involving the provision of residential or other non non-industrial uses will only be permitted where the site is located on the perimeter of the area so designated which in this case it is uh where the use remains predominantly commercial in this case it’s 93.5% residential and where it can be shown that a satisfactory standard of immunity would be provided for any residential occupiers which It Isn’t So it it’s not that we’re not listening to um the objectives the policy is is there and we have to interpret that policy as such which is what we’ve done in this instance with with regards to the second question uh we have had some some movement as I said we’ve had some late submissions of revised energy statements um we had on Monday morning um overheating assessment that came in um and further revision of the energy statement which we haven’t been able to assess in full um in advance of committee but as a result oh under a briam pre preassessment report which did satisfy one of our concerns so we in the amendment sheet report that I did we amended that refusal reason to take out um concern with policy BCS 15 because that now can be dealt with by Condition it’s possible that the sustainability issue could be resolved by condition um but given the other issues that we have um our recommendation would still be a refusal because of the design transport um and and um land use issues and my third issue Ben is um I’m complexed by the decoty between urban designs criticisms and the fact that Design West which is quite creatively on board regarding this proposal so how can you explain that difference that vast difference than their approach so my understanding is that the most recent Design West review related to to an earlier iteration of this scheme um that was due to come to committee and then withdrawn the new application is slightly revised with the southwest corner being reduced by one story to slightly reduce the impact on the properties on Kingsland Road but is now taller um along either side of New hemry Street and concern had been raised previously about the height and scale of the development um and it is now taller than at the last review stage by those panels so with every application our design officers will provide comment and review these were reported back through the application agent we set out our concerns and we were advised that they wanted this to go to Committee in its current form and didn’t want to negotiate in terms of the height and scale my f final question is to pip uh pip um highways have significant criticisms of this scheme of course um though I understand the applicant commissioned an independent Road Safety uh panel and audit and the response was quite positive this is a carfree scheme uh traffic Haring is proposed and a pedestrian Crossing so I’m I intrig that highways is quite so scaving in its judgment I’ve bought Jane with me today because she has been with this scheme all along and I think she’s best place to respond to you in terms of the value of that safety audit and actually what I can generally talk about what our overall concerns are but she’s more of on the details so if you’d like that now um I’m going to hand over to Jane thank you um the road savy audit actually did identify a number of issues um one of them was the crossing the proposed Crossing that has been mentioned um and it they it proposed that the crossing should be taken out sorry I’m I don’t know what’s going on with the mic so the crossing has now been removed because of safety concerns to do with that so what we have now is essentially the traffic cing on new Kingsley on Kingsley Road the Kingsland Road sorry will essentially be a dropped curb with a buildout between some Park cars as a crossing point away from the desire line and some different colored surfacing at the junction there were other concerns from the road safety audit which haven’t quite been addressed yet um some of them could be left till detailed design but there are a couple of elements that weren’t and also the road safety audit didn’t consider the change of use of the area so it considered the scheme itself as a standalone um but yes there were even though it was Carree the trip generation still showed 4 43 trips in a day so it doesn’t remove car use and there’s a lot of pedestrian and cycling use that needs to be considered okay thank you um guy next thank you chair um begging your Indulgence I do have some questions I would just like to make a very short statement before I do is that okay apologies I missed the very start of the meeting depends how how very short it is very short CH I promise I will read it rather than go off on one um is it your statement your personal statement it doesn’t Express a personal view if that’s what you’re asking it’s a statement from me yes rather than a question so it is your personal view it might be easier if I just make it chair I think this conversation’s gone on longer I would certainly stop you if you’re reading someone else’s statement in the middle of the counselor question but if it’s your personal view you may continue thank you uh chair um just in the interest of transparency and everything else I I would like it just to make clear to the committee I as I think all of us have been contacted by the developer in this case I was asked as someone who attends the agenda conference to raise the possibility of the members of this committee having a private briefing from the developer on this as it happened when we went to the agenda conference the issue was raised anyway as a as a matter of course however in correspondence that from the developer the developer mentioned that other members of the committee had already received a briefing um and at that meeting a decision was made not to have a briefing for all members despite my view that we should and that’s normal that happens um because of that I raised a concern with the head of planning members of the committee have now subsequently provided clarifications a document has been circulated and I believe published that encompasses any information that has been provided to members in private briefings prior to this and as I say I do not feel I have any sort of prejudicial Interest my mind is open to be honest I’m more worried that my mind won’t be closed by the end of this meeting um than it is that it’s not espicially open at this start however I did think it was important in the interest of transparency in the interest of being open and honest with members of the public to to make that statement apologies I would have done it at the start of the meeting but I was getting advice from the head of planning at the time I hope that’s okay um if you want to go to other members for questions and come back to me that would be fine or I can continue that’s that’s fine please continue or questions first question chair I’m afraid it’s for for yourself um in terms of the process that will follow to make a decision on this specific case there is a protocol at the start of all papers to license uh to planning committees now that lays out the process for decision making that is to say that the chair will make a will move a motion in line with the officer’s recommendation and then if it falls um then the chair will move a motion to defer this is laid out in the papers yes it is laid out in the papers however there is a slight ambiguity stemming from the training that all members were given just a few weeks ago as to whether that second motion to defer if the first recommendation Falls applies when the officer’s recommendation is to refuse as well as to Grant I was hoping to get clarification from yourself in this case if the officer’s recommendation were to Fall Would you automatically move a motion to defer or would the protocol continue as written in the papers that it then is an it’s open to members Contin Jeremy will clarify but um I think it’s clear from as laid out in the actually in the papers and public papers as well yes the um there is a flow chart at the back of the agenda sheet which actually explains how the uh procedures work in this instance uh and where you have an instance where there is a recommendation for approval and the committee wishes to go uh to refuse that then the uh protocol that you talk about would apply and that is that would be a request for a deferral by the chair uh and that would be tested the committee that doesn’t apply in Reverse so if uh if the committee uh doesn’t wish to um uh go ahead with the um officer’s recommendation to refuse then there’s no requirement under the convention for the chair to move uh deferral and test it with the committee doesn’t mean to say that couldn’t happen it doesn’t mean to say that somebody may wish to defer it or make any decision but the convention doesn’t doesn’t expect it to happen hope hopefully that clarifies the situation with your permission chairman could I confirm the veracity of what Mr livit is saying when I as I chair DCA committee for three years until this may um I believe over the three years we there were almost most nine or 10 cases where the officers recommended refusal but we actually didn’t support that and we approved those often obviously subject to conditions to be drawn up of course but there isn’t a requirement in response to cancer py to defer yes I was explaining that there’s no there’s no expectation for the chair to do it that’s the point I was making he doesn’t mean to say that the chair may choose to do so or the committee may choose to do so but there’s no expectation that there is under the convention that’s set out in the papers that if it was the other way around the chair would call for a deferral that’s great thank you very much for the clarification chair and final question for me for the time being would just be in terms of the test that the officer outlined for um the three criteria that need to be overcome in order for the local plan to take precedence over the other elements of the current local plan um as you said make sure you’re referring the the local plan as opposed to the neighborhood development plan yes exactly oh sorry I said the wrong yes that’s what I meant um it was in relation to the test for substantially commercial as the officer said that the test that it’s on the periphery is met are we are we questioning the amenity as well is that subject challenge in other words is the objection is the test that’s not met from the officer point of view solely that one of predominantly commercial uh no the the test it’s in three parts said yes it is on the periphery of the uh principal industrial warehousing area it is not predominantly commercial it’s 93% residential um and it doesn’t offer satisfactory immunity for future occupants now that’s for a variety of reasons one of which is the fact that the immunity space is unlikely to get any or the ground floor immunity space is unlikely to get sufficient daylight and sunlight for the vast majority of the time students are in Residence okay thank you just in terms of that second test then could I check the comparison that’s been done by by yourself the comparison of square footage of what’s currently there to the proposed scheme is that test outlined in law is it precedent in other words is there an alternative test that could be for example if if in in a similar situation if a single Warehouse one unit were demolished to make way for say 12 maker units one could claim that that’s 1200% increase equally you could talk about bed spaces related to you know jobs created is that test concrete and required or is there flexibility in making that determination uh well in this instance there would be an overall loss of employment space as well as the additional student accommodation above so there whichever way we look at it there is a reduction in the amount of employment space and the uses or the the uses of the spaces that are being offered uh will be severely limited by the size compared to the existing development so but just just for confirmation then looking at the statistics as outlined in the report a comparison of how much employment space there is currently relative to how much employment space there will be if this were granted you end up with a net loss of 20 something percent in other words one if one were so minded could make the case that the new development involves a relatively minor loss of employment space and that as a result the current the development as proposed is substantially commercial do you see what I mean um I’m not entirely clear um so I’m going to try and and rephrase what I said the the space at the moment is in use um for a variety of businesses the development as proposed would see the existing site demolished and some industrial uses or light industrial uses on the ground floor that would be a significant reduction in the amount of employment space that we have at the present the other thing to factor in is that the addition of this much residential and the taller elements within the pewa are also likely to Prejudice the future development of the PE the future Vitality uh and functionality of the pewa because you would have a large student development on the corner going into the site you would then if the buildings on the other side were to come forward for industrial use or development have additional concerns with regards to uh noise air pollution odor um so again this development would actually harm the future viability and vitality of the pewa so we have to consider that as well thank you Paula did you have your hand up um I’ve got loads of questions and I I’m just trying to streamline them so I know you’ll get crossed with me if I ask too many um the first one I’d like to ask is could you please go back and reiterate what you said about the Tilted balance um I didn’t quite pick it up and I’m not sure I fully understood it about the 705 student accomodations and how that reacts to what you you mentioned another number and then you mentioned the Tilted balance so yeah essentially the background to that is because the city council is not able to demonstrate a 5-year housing land Supply against its current targets uh the Tilted balance is engaged um and therefore there is a presumption in favor of sustainable development um student accommodation is relevant to the Tilted balance um because it can equate to essentially an equivalent provision um of dwelling houses for uh housing completion purposes uh I think it was 282 it’s 2.5 dwell uh 2.5 student places equals one dwelling point now thank you um I supposed to sort of summarize um a lot of I’m trying I’m trying to synthesize some of the questions I’ve got it I’ve got issues with you know if you read the crime report the transport report the point about the section 106 um a lot of these things do seem to be issues that could be seen in a in a in a more positive light so for example the crime report it it it’s it’s acting as if there’s never going to be any development there and that students are going to be walking around in the dark and like some Victorian Street and they’re going to be you know they’re going to have their purses stolen um but but surely when the development is there there will be a very different atmosphere and and therefore so that so the so the I just sort of doubted the the um authorial intent in a way of that and and that goes with the section 106 too I mean I’ve just been we’re still chasing up the SE section 106 for the zoo which was given planning approval nearly a year ago so I know that these things can be sorted out afterwards so so a lot of these things do seem to be quite negative and this the whole thing about the lengths of walks for students um I just I’m just I’ve just got a lot of questions about that and I don’t really know that they’re going to be answered today I know that um I’m sure that you’ve got questions I’m not going to ask the questions that I think you’re going to ask so um I’ll leave it for that for the moment and if I I might come back and see what other people have asked you’re welcome thank you Fabian thank you chair uh um I did have a question about invisible circuit but I think the public fors answered that one a few questions I did have is there if there’s only one entrance to the student accommodation what about fire risk because it was basically so that one entrance on the ground floor that’s it to every all 705 rooms is that correct uh that is correct there is only one entrance but there are fire escapes around the development so in the event of an emergency evacuation there are additional fire escapes the fire uh the health and safety executive fire safety team have reviewed the application and confirmed that they believe in planning terms they don’t object although there may be issues to be resolved under building regulations but in planning terms they do not object to this application okay um the other thing that did trouble me in the report was saying that some woms would be permanently too cold or they’d be permanently too hot or some of the o space would be permanently in the shape could you please show me and show us on the plans which which rooms or which parts of the open space affected um yeah so I’m I don’t remember in all honesty those exact words um that right so the concern came from sustainability that rooms that are on the higher floors um and south facing so if I try I’m definitely having some issues with the second screen today I apolog izee so for example the south facing rims um particularly the higher floors they’re going to get a lot of sunlight and at the same time their windows are going to have to be closed during the weekends and at night due to the noise from the de to nightclub which is next door so in order to protect that existing venue with Agent of Change principles we have to ensure that residents of this scheme will need to be informed prior to um taking out a room that they will have noise is issues and they will not be able to open their Windows um and if they do they are not able to complain about that business so that was again one of our concerns with regards to the immunity impact because people have to choose between having an open window or being kept awake at night um and that is that that was one of the issues in terms of too cold if you go to the north side for example um and the rooms on the inside of the um the courtyard so um just trying to work out how this moves there we go so for example rooms that are North facing inside the courtyard or don’t get any natural sunlight there were concerns about the heating there um we did get an overheating report in um on Monday morning which hasn’t had the chance to be fully assessed I am aware from an initial review that they did make um a conclusion that it would be acceptable but only one floor was modeled and we don’t know which floor that was so if it was a lower floor it’s likely that the overheating will have been understated um and the cooling requirement will be overstated and vice versa for the Upper Floor so um that’s something that has yet to be fully clarified but again given the the other issues that we have with the scheme um we don’t think that’s a reason to to hold up committee and back to the issue of which areas would not get sunlight so the one open courtyard is basically on the first floor and then there’s two bits under the bridge a ground floor so what happens about natural liting those so um the daylight sunlight analysis and drawings are all on the file so they they are accessible for everyone to look at the main concerns are that because of the orientation of the site and particularly for this bridge the courtyard up here will get almost no sunlight during the winter this one will have restricted light and the courtyard here which is at 2 levels the lower level will get almost no light at any time and the Courtyard at the top I think from memory the daylight sunlight analysis said it wouldn’t hit the BR um minimum requirement at the 21st of March it would do so a couple of weeks later and be acceptable during the summer um but then we also have the noise impact assessment saying that the impact of the nightclub isn’t a problem because the students won’t be there in the summer so effectively um having to look at all of this information which is why I said that there are some inconsistencies that we would need to iron out in order to get a full Level Playing Field is that the immunity space here it it doesn’t get enough natural light it will be quite cold and miserable for much of the year and just to be clear the bit time when it would be actually quite Pleasant would be when there were students at home anyway during the summer break okay thanks thank you uh further questions Lisa hello thanks very much uh counselor um just a quick couple of questions I was just more interested in the um space of the accommodation the unit spacing so first of all uh can you just clarify or just tell me because I couldn’t find it in the documents I must have missed it um what are the what are the unit spaces in terms of the density no not not in terms of density actually in terms of the unit space so for example are they basically we’re looking at um the um minimum space dens the um National I better if I just read it from here instead of trying to remember National Space standards the National Space standards per unit for one person one one one person one bed um so the national described space standards apply to dwellings not to student accommodation so in in that respect the minimum we 37 Square met which is for a single person one-bedroom apartment that doesn’t apply to student accommodation so um we don’t assess it on that basis we have to make sure that the rooms are livable um but it is of a a scale that would be considered acceptable in terms of a private room for a student accommodation um most of the rooms provide on Suite bathrooms they’ve got a desk bedroom um communal space for the cluster Flats so in that respect um if if I think uh the question if you if you want to know about the densities it’s calculated at 800 149 beds per hectare 849 yeah I thought that as well that that was my second question that’s great thank you very much and the other question was what is the percentage of um accessible actual dwellings so M I think it’s uh m43 so just on the hectare um Point yeah 849 he beds per hectare which is slightly just to give you a comparison of the area as well um some of the developments in Temple quarter have exceeded that um but again that’s in Temple quarter where higher densities are expected um not in Old Market which isn’t part of the Regeneration area um so to give you a comparable number um the recent development at Unity street is at 647 beds per hectare and that’s a combined co-living student development so this is significantly higher in terms of the accessibility um I believe there are four wheelchair accessible rooms which is 0.6% um there are seven adaptable rooms and three rooms adapted uh adaptable for assisted use so yeah 1% of rooms are adaptable and 6% of wheelchair accessible okay all right um that’s it thanks thank you further questions okay thank you oh Paula um yeah it’s another question I not sure if you’re going to be able to answer but it’s I’m I’m concerned about the the future use of these space making spaces with residential so in my mind I’m imagining somebody coming along and deciding that they’re going to set up as a um I don’t know as a blacksmith or something or and so noxious fumes all of these sort of things and it’s underneath student bedrooms is there legislation about that or is there any you know I mean in the end is it going to is it going to not be viable because some somebody wants to do something that’s not just you know something very artisan and lovely but actually might be dirty um so I did speak to our air quality um consultant or air quality officer and raised this particular concern not just about the potential of the maker spaces but the other uses in the PE and uses that might come forward um their view is that it’s something that could be conditioned and managed already because of the noise issues the windows have to be shut at night and through the weekend because the neighboring site has outdoor music events that run to 7:00 a.m. and then through the day in the weekend so the the we have to assess it on the current situation um and that is that at present um no further mitigation is required for air quality purposes um given that there is mechanical ventilation which is required if that mechanical ventilation was to to need to be increased and that would obviously have effects on the sustainability calculations as well one more question and this is again it’s it’s a sort of subjective thing but I can see that we do not want this development to to you know um handcuff or limit the progress of other industrial developments in that area which is very important as an industrial part of Bristol where you know that’s where we need to give people jobs are you able to put a sort of you know like a percentage damage consequ quence to if this went ahead how how limiting would it be to the further development of the rest of the area um in terms of the maker spaces um that are proposed we could limit by condition the specific uses of the maker spaces so we may be able to condition certain things such as output emissions that kind of thing or the specific uses in terms of the neighboring sites um if this is approved um then there is nothing we can do in terms of the impact on the neighboring sites in the future so if someone wants an industrial site but can’t operate next to a large amount of of residential units then effectively they’re not going to um take out that space it might be worth is it worth me passing this one over to to you jack who’s our Economic Development officer thank you Ben it’s I mean I would agree with what Ben has said it’s very very difficult to give a percentage sense of of impact I think it’s fair to say that there could be an impact on the appotite of of potential occupiers to take up space in that area going forward depending on the type of operation that they would undertake um so I think really in short the the answer is yes there could be an impact but just can’t Define it so future applications could be coming back to us and we we we might be saying well we’d have to refuse it because of protecting the immunity of the students that we’ve just given permission for today can I hand that one back to B sorry back to me um so let me knowing the site and this is again hypothetical let’s say the site next door within the PE came forward also for residential um we would because of the distances on either side of the street it’s unlikely we’d be able to accept any additional residential there because of the overlooking impact between the bedrooms whether or not a site comes forward looking to turn that site into or for industrial use or or enhanced employment land um again this if this development was there that may have an impact on the desirability um and attractiveness of those sites and I mean within the P within the immediate area I think there there’s a Coach Station a bus station garage so there are things like that where there’s going to be impacts as well uh councelor G um yeah so I’m trying to make sense of the loading Bays so basically the obviously there’s loading both for students um for when they arrive when they leave and also you know any deliveries that they have um and then also the loading for the uh maker units um which sound like they don’t have vehicle access so how would the makers get the Machinery in and service their um the units um because that doesn’t seem they’d have to be making something that they could literally carry out in a willb um that’s exactly my assessment that I set out in the report but with regards to the transport maybe I could hand that one over to to Jane um I’ll start then Jan so basically if you utilize any of the public Highway you have no guarantee that’s for you that’s for the public full stop but in this instance so you you could ask for um onso provision for their deliveries but um they chose to be carfree there which for students is normally them but it’s mixed use it’s quite complicated but in this particular instance um we it’s part of our road safety concern is um where those presumptions have been made about the curbside use um there’s too much happening around in that area for us to be confident that’s really the essence of what we’re saying of that’s why we’ve continued it as an issue because it does lead to road safety concerns and um another thing that I noted is that obviously um there is a presumption that the students will use bicycles because it’s a long way to walk to a bus stop um so they would need to use bicycles but it sounds like the uh actual nearest bicycle rout is not very user friendly um and there isn’t anything they can do about that um is there any other Arrangement that could be made to improve um I mean they don’t have control over other sites so um it’s just really concerning for me that you it’s talking about students having to lift their bicycles up and negotiate quite complicated turns in dark conditions um to actually uh be able to to travel by bike and that is pretty much the only um travel option available to them you’re moving into the discussion I think okay Caroline if that’s all right all right enough I agree with your points but you are moving into the discussion do you have any further actual questions to officers you’re okay uh guy thank thank you just in relation to some of the other questions I suppose but just looking at the map that we’ve got how how far is this actual unit itself from the main shopping district in Old Market approximately 600 meters from the nearest bus stop 600 meters and from hanmore primary school I don’t know because I wouldn’t I I haven’t measured from a student development to the primary school I’m afraid looks like it’s about 300 Metter based on your previous answer is there any industrial unit that could go on that site that would propose a risk to the students living in this development that wouldn’t propose a risk to the peoples at the school I’m not sure I understand that question so if we’re worried that we’re prejudicing the use of the P piwa because residents in this new development would be at risk from the noise and from the pollution I suppose what I’m asking is given its proximity to both a school and a main shopping district and a huge amount of other residen accommodation simply by Dent of where it is surely those uses would have been to an extent prejudiced out anyway I think the point is it is already a designated pwa yes so apologies I sorry not made myself clear we seem to be saying that we cannot put residential accommodation on this site because it would prejudice this future industrial uses that might be polluting what I’m saying is given its proximity to a school and a shopping district wouldn’t those issues already be of concern yeah um so we’re not saying that this site can’t accommodate residential use we’re saying that this scheme in its current form is not acceptable for the reasons that we’ve outlined um now we there are various things that could be done by redesigning the scheme um or a new design that would move the residential development further away from the boundaries of the PE reducing the heighten scale to reduce the impact on neighboring properties given the size of the of the scheme coming back to the point that was made earlier we could have found a way of getting a level access down the cycle path so that the bikes could have come in we’re not saying this scheme can’t handle residential use we’re just saying that this scheme in its current form is not something that we would recommend for planning permission any further questions no great we move on to discussion and I will take hands as they are raised Richard Fabian try not write my pen okay Richard first chairman it’s been my privilege to actually serve on planning committes for but two or years of my Council service generally I found it richly eff and I’ve certainly been indebted to the expertise and the information of officers but on occasion I do feel as of I’m living in a parallel universe and one such occasion is this afternoon I’m sure I don’t need to remind members that may we had local elections next week we have a general I’m sure Caroline G in particular is very aware of that um C can I have your ing just for a second Church famously said democracy has its flaws but it’s best of the systems we have and in my book it’s for local communities to help shape their communities not for developing or planners and i r rate local neighborhood plans as the top of the tree I certainly wouldn’t want to be in for example my neighbors c neighbor and cap tip K’s situation if suddenly officers sought to actually override his constituent neighborhood plan objectives um I don’t think Tim or his colleagues would take that line down and I’m very sympathetic to what we’ve heard today from the Old Market Community Association and also the diggings Community Association it’s very rare to have two residence groups actually saying this applicant consulted us it was a model of consultation we’ve also got the War counselor Yassin saying actually this is the scheme which he thinks his constituents need it’s been tailored to suit them it provides much needed student accommodation within a very short distance of the new University campus at affordable housing rents that’s got to be a first for the city and the applicant is also supplying some much needed Community facilities and actually some employment space a peror rents for local Industries so what is there not to like frankly I believe all the GRS the officers seem to afraid for some bizarre reason the kitchen s over that this I believe I will not be supporting the offic of recom recomendation to refuse I’ll be voting in favor of the scheme I urge members to do likewise although I acknowledge there have been occasions where we overed officers refusals and granted subject to conditions there are some strong areas where I think conditions need to be approved here so I think I would be mind minded subject to what colleagues say to agree that we are minded to approve subject to actually differ and agreeing conditions thank you Richard I think and officers don’t get a right of reply but I don’t think they were overriding the neighborhood development plan I think they were claiming this wasn’t consistent with the neighborhood development plan so uh next person is Fabian yeah um like um like Richard I’ve been on planning committees for a long time and I’ve also been you know in a situation where I’ve called in an application that officers wanted to refuse um because I’d work with the residents and they wanted it to go ahead so I called it in and it went and we got it approved and that led to other positive developments I have to admit looking at this I do agree with a lot of the officer recommendations I I am concerned about the lack of natural light um the issue with rooms being too hot or too cold um you know if you got to have windows closed at night I I mean I’m assuming the place isn’t air conditioned you got to have rooms open close at night because of the noise outside so it’s cook or don’t you know don’t sleep because you’re too hot or don’t sleep because there’s too much noise going on outside cu the Agent of Change point which I do support then you know there’s the impact on the um cultural side of the city um I well you know it’s quite clear from the public statements and the public forum that the offered accommodation isn’t appropriate looking at this there’s no there are no loading Bays there’s you know so that questions the viability of the industrial space or the you know startup space on the ground floor um I I think it is overdevelopment it’s interesting that you know the officer said we’re not rolling out any residential development on this area or part of this site at all it’s just that this is too big and I you know and I think you know I think it’s it’s too big there’s problems with natural light there’s problems with quality of accommodation I don’t know I mean on a on a well-being front what’s it going to be like waking up just you know know during a dull winter and all you’ve got is the back you know is the industrial sites around you it’s your accommodation I mean um you know I I think there’s you know I don’t think we can approve this I don’t think we should approve this in its current form um and also you know obviously given the lots of other industrial land around the city it makes this PE land far more precious and far more important because if we displace we could if we sort of displace uh industries that have no else to go where do they go so you know student accommodation can go there’s plenty of sites that student accommodation could be considered um there’s also concerns it didn’t come up in the discussion that you know the access to the University campus there’s questions about how safe that would be whether you’re walking or cycling and you know you know the impracticality of you know having to Lug us bike over your over up and down steps to get to the cycle path to get from the cycle shed to the cycle path or if you’re cycling on the main roads you then have to sort of go all the way through to the back of the compound to get to that I think you know I I think there’s so much wrong with this design um that I’m going to have to vote I will have to vote against it um obviously ly if a new design comes in I’ll consider it with an open mind um but I think this design as it stands is one I cannot support thank you and I’ll support the officer recommendation thank you councilor PNE thank you chair um I really have been from Pillar To Post on this one looking at what’s in front of us one of the pieces of advice that we always used to get from the former chair of planning was that the one of the most important comparisons to make between the scheme in front of you and what’s currently there does it improve on the objectives made when you compare the one to the other now it’s it’s true as it says in the officer’s report that the the quantum if you like of commercial to residential is obviously dramatically different in the scheme proposes to what’s there currently but if One Compares the commercial availability on the site at the moment to what’s proposed you find a relatively small I would say drop off in the amount of commercial space the differen is of the residential is substantially bigger um but what we’d be talking about is a net loss of commercial space of either 828 or 714 square feet which isn’t that much um it strikes me the grand scheme of things and it’s not hard to see why the community is so supportive of this scheme adding that number of what used to be called chimney pots in the old planning jargon we do a huge amount to make the businesses an Old Market already more viable the scheme provides something arguably more suited to the employment needs of the local community it certainly provides more and different and more flexible opportunities for the employment land that remains however do have concerns about the residential immunity for occupiers have significant concerns about the issues that the transport officer has raised and there seems to be an awful lot that normally would have just been sort of tweaked out and adapted to during the planning process that hasn’t happened in this case and I have to admit I I’m not quite sure from The Exchange that I’ve just heard whether the situation would be that because of the Agent of Change principle students would be unable to open their windows at night because of the risk of noise or whatever or whether it would simply be undesirable for them to but that strikes me as something that really needs clearing up I’m not sure which of those situations is the case I’m also not entirely sure and I would say this as a huge fan of invisible circus um I’m assuming invisible circuses use of that space does meet the criteria for employment land industrial land I’m I’m not sure uh possibly I’m thinking of a somewhat out moded view of what constitutes employment land but there we go um so I find myself in a not dissimilar position preparing myself for the recoil um in a not dissimilar position to councelor Eddie I think where my mind is at is is not to go with the officer’s recommendation but to suggest to the committee that we accept the development in principle but that we actually might defer the decision in order to allow officers to work with the developers to deal with those specific concerns around the amany of the occupiers the transport concerns and whether there is any possibility of ensuring that there is no net loss of employment land that might be possible it might be possible as as has been said to um bring the cycle storage to ground level or to avoid that issue but I think given the circumstances and given the strength of feeling that they clearly is in the local community and how finely balanced I think we would all agree this application is to give it the absolute best chance of success um so that’s currently where I’m at thanks thank you if I could do a Richard and uh um make my comments now although Richard in fact normally begins as chair with his own comments I do notice but so I’ve left mine to the middle I have a problem a big problem with the um principle of development and this being fundamentally this compromising Industrial designated industrial land uh that’s that’s a designation that’s in our planning documents we’re not here uh to look for something that’s better than what was there before we’re here to look at something compar application against our own planning documents that we have voted in democratically maybe not us but this Council has democratically approved in the past until we bring in new policies and a new local plan those are the ones we live with that would be my first point my second point would be um in terms of longterm in terms of our transition to sustainable transport modes particularly active travel if you look at student accommodation in Bedminster green uh those that accommodation is designed with cycle paths to the to the campus walking infrastructure to the campus and a station next to it bus lanes etc etc it is designed from the beginning so that those students will have no need for a car now if you do not design that in from the beginning or you allow applications whose design and positioning does not encourage the transition to sustainable modes of Transport then you will not be able to retrofit them later on that bridge with the with network rail uh going over it uh Network rail ownership you’re not going to change that and you’re not going to widen those Pavements they are what they are and people are likely to use cars and they’re likely to use uh they’re likely to use TR taxes because it will be quite unsafe to walk under there so I think this doesn’t contribute to the our transition to more sustainable modes of Transport as it stands and I should be voting against it and next person on my list is councelor Stone yeah hello U this is my first time on the planning committee so uh thank you very much for welcoming me um I find it honestly I’m usually on the other side where I’m usually with like yassen here um sort like you know putting forward objections against uh something that’s been approved by Council officers to be honest with you um uh so I’m finding really diff I’m finding this one quite difficult I’m kind of on the edge because on one side I do want to support loal residents the community at large who have obviously you know worked with Dominus to actually you know try and create something kind of like the structured and organized but on the other side I can quite clearly see and I’ve listed quite a few how this uh how this proposal does actually really undermine some of the actual principles of building and and the regulations to make it to make sure that we actually really do put the people the residents living in there at the Forefront of the of of of the of the of of the development I mean when we’re looking at 37% of students that will not get sunlight I mean you know you have to really think about the over overall design when you’re looking at only one like a poor a p door where only one person where there’s only one door into the whole occupant over the whole development which used to be known as a poal um and and the density densification of it all and even when we’re you know H having these conversations about light industrial units maker spaces what type of as councilor has has explained what type of maker spaces will they be is it just going to be card or is it going to be really industrial it’s going to be really a difficult thing to do then we have active travel England that want to not approve this because of the walk-in and cycle infrastructure that’s around it that hasn’t been properly developed all the way through this uh we have ream standards that there’s no actual I want to see okay report actually tells me they are going to reach EX exence in the brim standards and I can’t see that in the report um you know obviously we do need uh student accommodation I think there’s 2.78 students to every one bed but it’s not for us the city to provide that to be honest with you you know or if we are going to provide it we’ve got to make sure sorry we’ve got to make sure that we provide it so that students can actually live there and it’s not just putting up for putting It Up’s sake I mean this is this is something I’m finding really um you know really difficult because on one end one hand I’m hearing what the community is saying and I want to support them but on the other hand I have to go by my morals my principles thank you councelor rock is next on my list thank you um I’ve not been on this committee all that long um but I’m I’m sort of going to a bit more use to it in this this case I’m I’m much more um conflicted between my head and my heart than I normally am I think there’s an awful lot to really like about this um I like I mean I don’t think that the massing is huge I I like this I I can really buy into the imaginative mixture of residential and the makes the the the the place making the maker spaces um and you know we’re not even talking about the lovely scentered Gardens and all those things that are in the in the in the planning applications however and I mean I am coming to however um I always consider livability and and livability on this really you you have to question it because of the density and and and what everybody said about sustainability and light and all of those things and you know from my understanding of it we have this hierarchy which I think is NZ C2 which is says that for for the hierarchy on cooling and heating it starts with the orientation of the building and it seems that the orientation of the building is just wrong these two fingers you know are always going to have this situation when you know and you’ve got to change that I think or that’s that’s that’s the starting point um and I I think um another concern I have is for future use so I can see that you know they could be adapted if the student Market dies down for homes and where I could be persuaded that transient students who are not there over the summer and all of those sort of things that the the imunity standards for them I might think are more variable but for future use if you going to put families in there it may be in one or two or 10 decades time or I don’t know whatever maybe 10 decades is too far but you know what I mean um then then the the loss of light and the dampness and all of those sort of things I think you have to give even more weight to that then um and and ultimately you know it’s not a commercial development and it’s it’s a pea and I can I think I see where guy is coming from where he correct me if I’m wrong but I think what guy wants us to do is to go okay there’s you know x, spaces of of industrial there at the moment if we can keep that more or less and then put all the residential on top of it can we not Factor it in and apply the policy that way I’m presuming you can’t but you know that’s still a question I think that’s I think that is ultimately the question that guy was trying to ask you know can we can we not just bend the policy by saying you’ve nearly got the same amount of commercial and now we’ve got all this residential on top can I just finish one other thing and then you can go back and answer that um so it’s not a commercial and the other thing as well is that you know ultimately at the end of all of this what we will get will be 282 units which come off our housing list and if we’re doing that then on the other hand we are jeopardizing our local plan decision to keep that as a Light Industry commercial area so when I when I add it all up I’m I would either have to reject it today or I would support guy’s idea of deferring it and coming back with more details and some of these more concerns being able to be answered thank you are there any other further comments before I go to a vote councelor G uh yeah so I’m really um on a knife edge about this um I think I’d really like to be able to see the invisible circus be able to stay there um and obviously um the space that they’re going to be offered is not going to allow them to do the trape work that they want and uh I understand they’re being offered alternative sites but we you know they haven’t got one at the moment um and there’s obviously awful lot of people want to keep that I wondered whether or not really the uh the North West so the no hang on the most um northeasterly block could actually have been retained as um um invisible circus below and then with the accommodation above um that would obviously take out some of the maker spaces um so I think it’s a shame that that can’t it hasn’t been um been followed through there’s there’s things like uh access for the um the tow houses uh could have access to the street as well as access at the back into the rest of the students accommodation the the transport thing yes does worry me I just noted though it would take an 11 minute walk um to walk from this site to the um Dental hospital um so this could be a good site for accommodation of dental students and we need more of those um so yeah I’m very much in two minds I’d like to see some changes would definitely like to see some changes to it um I note that some of the bedrooms don’t meet the university minimum design requirements and it says that the generosity of on Suite rooms mitigates that but I don’t see that it mitigates that for the students who will actually be in those smaller rooms um so uh yeah and and the the things about the not being able to have your windows open um don’t know um I’m not worried about long corridors my own student accommodation had those I think that’s that’s okay as long as you’ve got areas where people the students with uh reduced abilities have shorter walks um but it yeah it’s the I’d like to see more um information about the overheating um and and and the light and maybe it could you know be six stories instead of eight um to to get some more more light in there I don’t know um I’m very on the fence about it thank you um Council MAA thank you chair yeah it’s my first time sitting in bling I’m not as experienced as as other colleagues here uh and coming to uh this case which is really very difficult to to take side because uh the community supporting the BL uh the project and uh the recommendation from the officers rejecting um in the middle of uh I want to support it because we want uh to build houses in in in our city we need uh more houses but we need it uh in the right place and uh uh uh with the right uh uh design and all of it you know uh so I think is I mean my colleagu they said uh what is we are not happy with and we are happy with building more houses in the city but we want it uh to be built right and built in in in in in the right recommendation uh because when it’s built it’s built you know so we can change it so we can agree with something in with uh uh it’s it’s not uh with the recommendation of the officers which they know better than us but we came uh uh uh uh and we need more of of of these houses uh to to uh to to be built and ease the crisis of uh the housing in in in in our city so we needed to recall again with a uh with with a a new design as a recommendation of the officers and I will I will be happy to support it if it’s come back and we visited the the the the site and we see I mean because it’s it’s in a industrial uh uh areas and but as well if the community want it and because that will benefit them so I will be happy to support that uh fan just very quick there’s there’s I think you know it’s it’s interesting listen to the rest of the committee um I think the only logical thing we can do with this is is refuse it as it is because there’s going to be so much need that’ll need to be changed for it to be acceptable and take all the boxes and deal with all the concerns that we have that they’ll have to go back to the drawing board and come up with something else obviously if they do then we can consider that with an open mind on its own merits bearing in mind the fact that it’s still a p site um but obviously if they do that um then we’ll do with that if it comes back to this committee as you know as it stands just think there’s too much so much wrong with it and so much that isn’t going to work that I don’t see how we could condition it to fix it so I think we’re going to have to reject it thank you councelor [Music] Duron thanks um this is also my first planning committee um so I’ve just been trying to soak it all in um based on the amount of um objections from Council officers I really feel like there’s there’s so much that would need to be changed on this application and the question that I’m asking myself is is it okay to expect young people who are coming to our city to go to university to accept a lesser quality of life and amenity and access to sustainable transport than we would expect for other residents of this city and my answer to that question is no so I would also be liable to refuse um this application thank you um councelor Stone yeah I think um I’m going to continue from where cancor Dustin left off cuz I was going to actually kind of also want to just say and it although I do support where Community communities are we also have to ask the question the community don’t have to live there at the end of the day students are living there not the community so whatever the community benefits are great and there are some as we’ve heard uh what we have to really consider is the welfare of the people living in this accommodation it’s something I’ve been really really supportive of all the way through my three years as a counselor is making sure that we build properties and developments in our cities that are the put the welfare of the people living in those uh developments so when we look at where it is the isolation where it is it’s a student accommodation is highly dense it is just not conducive for allowing uh young people to live uh in the in in that particular uh accommodation thanks councelor plyy did you have your hand up again I’m I’m inclined to bring this to a close CL thanks chair um just for clarity I do think it’s important to State i’ as all of you know I think I represent the world of cotton there’s a huge number of um students living in it at the moment and I come back quite strongly um against the notion that there’s a difference between the community and the students students are part of the community community accepts and lives amongst the students the two things are largely one the same I think it’s really important to state that equally uh wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment that students shouldn’t be exploited um the idea that I’ve always been uncomfortable with the idea that student accommodation is subject to lower standards of of things than accommodation is more generally and I do feel the need to also mention the standard of some of the student accommodations accommodation in the city already following from the University’s expansion as such as it has been the number of rapidly poorly converted hmos that students are currently living in the abysmal quality of some of the student accommodation that we see around the city already and the effect that that’s had on the private rental market and the fact that it is entirely overcooked rents in the city because that expansion has has grown to an extent out of control now in this case we do have a significant number of bed spaces to add very very close to a um I think they called it Urban centers now but what I used to call a High Street um it’s very very close to principal shopping district of the city as a whole it’s Stones Throw from Temple me station it strikes me as being in some ways aside from its current sort of zoning actually in some respects an ideal place to put accommodation of of this sort and as I said earlier I will very happily once should the chairs moving of the offic recommendation for will happily um put forward an alternative proposal and if that falls then we can always go back to the drawing board ourselves but for now I think this is a scheme that deserves at least the opportunity to do a little bit more work with officers a little bit more work with the developers just to see if we can come to something that assuages if not the the concerns of all members of this committee enough members of this committee so I’ll I’ll leave it there uh no because I’m going to U I move the office’s recommendation to refuse the application Fabian would you like to Second it great thank you very much so I shall now ask I shall now go around each of you one by one and ask Will you uh support the motion to refuse uh this application in line with officer’s recommendation councelor Eddie against councelor portney against the officer recommendation the clarity you’re against the officer recommendation okay councilor orok for for councelor mawi for councilor Stone four uh councilor gu reluctantly uh four councelor durston four councelor breckles four and myself for that’s yeah have you got have you got all that you yes okay s 74 okay thank you so uh the officer recommendation stands and the application is refused I want to say thank you to all the officers who’ve given time today uh to support this meeting and I look forward to seeing everyone at the next DCB thank you