Transcript

Dae's committee meeting of Development Control A, we'll just have, I'm not actually sure who I'm introducing or who we're introducing, maybe we'll just go around and everyone says their name on the committee. So my name's Councillor Rob Breyer, perhaps just go around here and everyone just say who you are. Councillor Britcher-Daddy, Councillor Serena Ralston, Councillor Ellie Freeman, Councillor Gopolemme, Councillor Sarah Classic, Councillor Donald Alexander, Avon Maflorn, Swestermord, Councillor Zoe Pete, also Avon Maflorn, Swestermord, Councillor Katyohanshian, Billington East, thanks so much, I'm not sure what the protocol is, do I need to ask any of the Councillor officers to introduce us, or should we get to that later? Okay, okay, let's just let's do that because we've got a few new members today, including myself I should say, so should we start from here and then go around this way? Hi there, I'm Alice and Taylor, I'm the Clerk to the Committee today. I'm Jonathan Diam. I'm Emily Holt-Emulsion, I'm the case officer. I'm Pip Pearson, I'm Transport Development Manager. Someone wilding Chief Planner. I'm James Coleman, I'm one of the Transport Project Managers. Okay, this is Luke, he's my new team member and giving him the experience. Okay, great, that's great, thanks for that, that's really helpful. It says safety information, actually I've got any, I assume that that means that if there is an instance of needing to leave the building, we will go out that door if we're down here and if you're in there, obviously you go back through the public gallery. Very welcome to everyone who's sitting in the public gallery as well, sorry I should have said that to start with, it's good to see you here. That's gender item one out of the way, gender item two is confirmation of chair. Hello, I am here, I am the chair. That was confirmed at the full council AGM in May. The confirmation of vice chair, vice chair, is Councillor Hornson here and the membership of the committee, we've been around all the members of the committee, we will get on to substitutions in a second, so we'll come to that in a second. A gender item five is the terms of reference, we're just requested to note this terms of reference as agreed by full council AGM on the 21st of May, so I'll take it as read that we have noted that committee members. A gender item six is proposed dates of future meetings, we are requested to consider the following dates for meetings that are listed in the agenda, has anyone got any comments on that or are we all happy with that? Great, OK, and then the agenda item seven is apologies for absence and substitutions. Yes, Chair, we've had apologies from Councillor CALDASIONE and with Councillor POELTNE substituting, and apologies from Councillor ALMAGRABY with Councillor ALEXANDER substituting. Thanks very much. I'm subbed for Bader. Sorry, sorry Chair, of course, and Councillor Eddie for Councillor Ooden. Thanks very much and thanks everyone for working on that kind of scenes to ensure we had a smooth understanding of who was on the committee. A gender item eight is declarations of interest, so this is to note any interest relevant to the consideration of items on the agenda. Yes, has anyone got anything that they want to raise? Yes, Councillor Austin. Just to say, I did work for JBP until October last year, I had no longer work there, obviously, and I've had their involvement in this current application. Thank you. Anyone else? Yep, Councillor Fumen. So I was Chair of Action Grade Abemancer and in that role, I created a community manifesto that fed into the framework for Bemancer Green. So I worked on that from 2018 to 2020, it was an unpaid role, and I haven't been involved in the planning application itself. Thank you, any more? Yes, Councillor POELTNE. Thanks, Councillor. It's just for the avoidance of appearance of any possibility of the appearance of bias rather than anything else. I would want people to know I still am for a little while longer a chair of the Bristol Community Student Partnership, which has discussed issues pertaining to this, but not the specific case, as well as I know. Okay, thank you, Councillor interjecting. Any other questions of interest or things to note? Thanks, everyone. That's great. So a gender item nine is minutes of the previous meeting. We're just, we just need to agree, the minutes of the last meeting as a correct record. Since I think I was a member who was present, the officers have checked and I agree there, a true accurate record, so can I formally move them, please? Absolutely, go for it, yep. Okay, thank you. Is everyone in favour? Do we do a full vote on this bit? Sorry, I'm a bit unclear. I don't need to formally vote on it. Okay, that's fine. Thanks very much, Councillor ADE for that. Moving on to a gender item 10, we have a action sheet. We're requested to note any outstanding actions listed on the rolling action sheet for the DCA Committee. I think we have one action on there that has been taken and happy to leave that as read, taken as read and noted. Does anyone have any comments on that? Because it has been action for this meeting. Great. A gender item 11 is appeals. This is just to note that there have been appeals lodged, imminent public inquiries and appeals awaiting decision. So there is a series of those. Yes, Councillor ADE. Could I just actually ask Jonathan, number 73 on page 31, 33 Epley Lane? The appeal was successful, but could he possibly arrange to send me the reasons for that? Oh yes, I'll be happy to do that, fine. Great, thank you. Any other comments or questions about the appeals document? Okay. Great. Let's move on to a gender item 12, which is enforcement and this is to note recent enforcement notices. Anything that anyone wants to ask or question about that item? No. Okay. We'll move on to a gender item 13. This is public forum and it will be for – to start with, we will take the questions and to be clear. We have two applications, of course, that are quite close to gather in terms of geography. We just did to be clear that those are two separate planning applications, of course. For the purposes of the questions, we will take all of the questions at the same time, so we won't wait for the second agenda item, but we will be taking statements ahead of each planning application if you see what I mean. So we'll have the statements for the first one and then the statements for the second one ahead of that item. So the first thing is going to be questions on all matters. So you will have – all of your questions have been circulated to committee members. They have read the questions and obviously there have been responses in writing given from council officers. What we would expect from this is for you to just ask your supplementary questions and to be clear, if you have one question in, you have one supplementary question. If you have two questions in, you have two supplementary questions and if you have three questions in, you have two supplementary questions. So I will start with the first person on the list, under 22/06/085/F. That's the former Pring and St Hill plot one, Manago Rhodes. And we will go firstly for question one, which is Andrew Kemp and if you put your hand up, yes. So if you could ask any supplementary questions, you wish to ask at this time. Thanks. Yes, I asked questions obviously about the overheating issues that were present in the building and we are now told that the latest version of that overheating report will incorporate – has allowed the incorporation of internal blinds to mitigate the heating, which is the fairly unusual step to allow a building to actually allow manually operated individual blinds. From my understanding, the individual occupant of the room would then have to lower the blind at the beginning of the day when their apartment or student room might overheat before leaving the building during the day and going out in order to achieve an unacceptable environment for when they return in the evening and sleep. The response to the question that I have said says that overheating has been – so dishading has been incorporated throughout the design period over a number of years. But this later edition that requires manual operation that has been added in very recently into this application sort of belies that and rather implies – Okay, we are looking for a question then. So why is manual operation of something that somebody may not be there to use now necessary and why is it permissible in this instance? Okay, who is best placed to answer this one? Thank you for your question. So to clarify firstly, there is a difference between the behavior of block A and blocks B and C. So for block A, in the 2050 overheating scenario, that includes the use of internal blinds and glass with a lower G value. For 2080 in block A only, there will be a need for active cooling from 2080 onwards. For blocks B and C, from the 2050 overheating scenario, there will be a need for the blinds that you mentioned to reduce solar gain, but not the active cooling. In terms of your question as to why the blinds are appropriate, officers believe that given the tenure of the building as student accommodation with a high level of management, that the scenario is different to a usual residential dwelling in that the blinds will not be removed by occupants and they will be kept there. So just wanted to flag that the windows can be opened for purge ventilation should an occupant come back to the room and have not put the blinds down, for instance, or feel the need to get some sort of fresh air in through the window. That's also an option. Hopefully that answers your question. Thank you. The next question is question two. Mr N Townsend, you've got a minute to ask your supplementary question if you're here. Oh, great. Okay. No supplementary questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, moving on to 23/00611/FB, land across and adjacent to plots 1, 3 and 5, benefits to green development. Question one for this is from Elaine Griffin. Is Elaine Griffin here to ask any supplementary questions? Thank you. You know I wanted to ask any questions. Thank you. Thank you very much and Mr N Townsend again for question two. You wanted to ask any supplementary questions. Thank you and question three is Robert Griffin. You hear to ask any sort of elementary questions? No. And Andrew Kemp, are you here to ask a supplementary question? Yeah, go for it. The question on how it actually does relate to another document within a different application where we are now told that, oh, sorry. Questioning relates to another application where we are told that the green may well be transferred to Dandara, a definite developer in the event of permission being granted but not fine. We are not certain how much of the green is transferred but we are now being told that in one of the documents that Dandara on the site, this is subject to this particular application, just for security, is that the case now? Is it any part of the open space that is bedlands degree that affected by this particular application for the opening up the moment ago going to be subject to transfer ownership? So firstly, just to clarify that matters of land ownership aren't a material plan in consideration so don't have any weight in the decision making on this application but in answer to your question, not that I personally am aware of. Thank you. Have you got a second question? Would that not be the case in the case of a 30 year follow up? So if your question is in regards to the BNG management plan, that's something that would be dealt with by condition but again, current land ownership isn't of relevance to making the decision. Thank you. The next question is question five from Angela Truall. You've got a supplementary that you'd like to ask? I've only just seen the answers properly. What I would ask is why you're saying each application must be assessed on its own merits in response to my question about how three planning applications which have overlap of red line should be seen separately. It's not really a matter of planning at all but it's the fact that you can't actually work out what's happening without seeing all three planning applications. You've got a pipeline going either over or under the Malago. You've got a development which requires flood risks to be dealt with which isn't before a snare and then also you have the Malago flood defence being built on public land and that's the one that we're looking at today. It's very difficult to see how they all connect and what the full impact is. Is there a question? That's what I'm saying. I'm saying it isn't it necessary to have all three applications in order for the committee to properly assess the impact on the green. Thank you. Thank you for your question. In terms of the flood risk, the strategic flood risk assessment for the Bedminster area does consider the development as a whole and the river restoration scheme has been designed to take into account those future developments and future growth in the area. As you rightly pointed out, we cannot in planning law consider the applications jointly and each application must be considered on its own merits but it's not unacceptable for applications to come forward with overlapping red line boundaries. Okay. Sorry, just check. Have you got another supplementary? Yeah, you're welcome to ask another supplementary, sorry, yes. My other question was about the fact that the environment agency raised quite a few concerns about the development including protecting the Malago water from contamination by chemicals from the industrial past of the site. What I was concerned about and I don't think you really answered that question, is why the committee is not apprised in the officer's report of their concerns in a bit more detail because they are quite significant. So, officers are recommending conditions which are recommended by the environment agency and that includes a remediation strategy and other relevant conditions. So, those matters raised by the environment agency are adequately addressed by the recommended conditions. Okay, thank you. Question six is from Bristol Tea Tree Forum. Is there someone who's able to ask a supplementary question from that? Thank you, Chair. My question Chair of Bristol Tea Forum. I'm very pleased that the Council has finally conceded the correct calculation for the number of trees required to mitigate the loss of habitat, tree habitat on this side of the result of this development. But what we're useful to understand is whether or not the Council, the applicant, also intends to comply with all of the obligations now required under the Armed Act, now the Town and Country Planning Act, under the statutory metric obligations, not just these calculations. In other planning applications, it has declined to do so. So, it would be nice to know whether they actually intend to comply with all the obligations. It became a force only 12th of February this year. Okay. So, just to clarify that the application was submitted before the biodiversity net gain regulations became a statutory requirement. Nonetheless, BCC is committed to providing in excess of 10% BNG as part of these proposals. I'm not sure exactly what other application you're referring to, but BCC are committed to achieving the net gain on site. Okay. It's not a discussion, so that's that. Okay. So, your second supplementary question if you want to ask one. Is how will the tree mitigation of 116 trees be costed? Will you use the BTRS formula for doing that? And will you produce a list of the locations where these 116 trees will be planted? So, 31 trees, the location, yes, if you let me finish, thank you. 31 trees, the location has been agreed with the trees team, and a list will be provided in the presentation following these questions. The additional 86 trees will be provided within the Bristol City region. Discussions have started with the trees team to ascertain appropriate locations, but the final locations have not yet been decided. Thank you. That concludes the questions for this. Yeah. And the answer has been given. I just need to be clear that if we have this back and forth, that isn't the purpose. The purpose is for you to ask a question and the officers to respond. So, we can't get into that long discussion that happens. Okay. So, the next thing to look at is the questions. Sorry, the statements for 22/0608F/F, former Pringan Street Hill, plot 1, Malaga Road. I have a number of statements here. I'm going to rattle through them. So, if you are on the statements list, please be ready to speak and you'll have one minute to present your statement. Just as a reminder, all of the committee members have received the statements and have read through them and had access to them. So, if you could summarise as much as possible, a good rule of thumb is, if you've got about 100 words to speak, in about a minute, that's probably a good rule of thumb. So, don't go over that because I'll just cut you off and I don't want to do that. So, just be aware of that. I'm going to be quite strict about that. So, statement number one is from Janet Mills. Is Janet here? Nope. Statement number two is Stephen Wickham. Yep. Stephen. Critically, I consider your officers are tearing up the Bedminster Green framework and asking you to grant under untested emergent policy. This plot was a bustling industrial site with skilled local jobs. It was allowed by former councillors to go the way of residential and folk hope to see buildings their children could buy. It has been invaded by the PBSA lobby, one of the student residences. The city has inserted the Bedminster Green framework. This applicant has consulted the public low and then inflated the height of their proposal. The resultant height issue is as bad as the defeated A2 Dominion and your officers inexplicably recommend approval. The visual misrepresentation issue is as bad as roller in that the heritage views from the adjacent conservation area or open spaces are hidden behind deciduous trees in leaf, not the winter. The overshadowing issues for the Marigos sheltered homes are as bullying as previously and your officers inexplicably recommend approval. The architecture is out of character. The buildings are full of sustainability issues for services. Please can you draw your comments? And sustainably, sustainably transport will be over. Thank you. Please refuse. Thank you. And thanks very much. We'll be moving on to statement number four, Kay Oliver. Is Kay Oliver here to speak for one minute? Oh. Sorry, I've missed one out, but we'll go to Kay Oliver first and then we'll come back to number three, sorry. I didn't ask to speak, but thank you very much. So what I would like to say is we've got people living in a van, not too far from us, and there's a lot of people who are homeless and they need homes. And I think this spot would be far more suitable for them, opposite the already housing, and rather than have these masses of high-rise students who already have got a lot of housing going for them, and it's quite clear that some of the students may not even need them in the future since COVID we've discovered. Thank you. Thank you. To go back to statement number three, Kieran Dempsey. Is Kieran Dempsey here? No. Okay. Statement number five, Angela Truell. Sorry, I've got that wrong. The height of the buildings, combined with density and level of lighter missions, particularly the outdoor roof space gardens, will threaten local wildlife corridors. The railway embankment together with the Maligo, the Cotswold Road Open Space, Embedance Degree are all important services. They currently provide safe corridors for bats to travel. The impact of this development will be to deter foraging bats as the applicant's own ecological survey acknowledges, and lighting which causes disturbance and potential abandonment of the roost can constitute an offence. It's currently illegal to cause disturbance that affects population of bats under the wildlife and countryside act 1981. Thank you for that statement. Statement number six is Roland Oliver. Is Roland here? Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon. The officer's report states that the height of this development is in keeping with the existing and emerging context. Well, we could debate the emerging context, but it is unalterable that the existing context of this site is in the words of the planning is better, low rise domestic. The houses opposite this site are two and three storeys, homes opposite two and three storeys. This site is ten storeys, three times a height, 42 metres, 138 feet in old money. How can that be deemed appropriate? Secondly, the existing local plan talks about up to 100 student-made spaces. This development will bring it up to 133, but the officer says that's all right because it's now 160 is the upper limit. Where did that figure come from? Not only is it inappropriate to judge the present game by future rules, but it reads exactly as if you've read the application and adjusted the plan accordingly. How can that be right? Thank you. Thank you for that. Statement seven, H. Collier. Is H. Collier here? Nope. Statement eight, Andrew Kemp. One minute. Thank you. The scheme seems to have ignored key aspects of planning policy. It's ignoring guidance in the urban living SPD on how tall buildings should not conceal topography, masking windmill hill from the rest of the city to the north. But on the drawings it appears to show the hill behind it taller than it actually is when compared to the buildings in front. It ignores principles in the framework of Westminster Green regarding height and the idea that this site should be a transitional between neighbourhoods. It's vastly different to everything surrounding it that exists at the moment. It's severing that connection effectively with all the development. It's ignored the reasons for previous applications because of height and overbearing nature instead increasing the height of each of the blocks. It's ignored the climate crisis, line of gas and biomass rather than focusing on reducing energy demand for the scheme in line with core policy. And I'm not sure that the overheating question has been satisfactory answered really because I don't think you can rely on people lowering or going to lower lines in the morning. Thank you. Thanks very much. The next statement is statement 9 is Scott and Linda Duncan. No. Statement 10 BS3 planning group. No. Eleven is C Brockman. Twelve is Councillor Ploughton. No. Thirteen is Tessa. Just Tessa. No. Four 14 is V Cole. Fifteen James Mores. Sixteen Callum Yo. Seventeen H ads head. And I've got Andrew Kemp to speak. It says it. Thank you. Yeah. Sorry. On behalf of Helen. This planning application should be refused for the same reason that the earlier planning applications for the site were refused. The height, scale and massing would harm the character and appearance of the area. The last application was refused for these very reasons. The office was saying it would create an impressive wall of development. This application is higher. The refusal was given so that a better, more appropriate design could come forward. What will the development offer to the local community? Are doctors surgeries in this part of Southwest Law already overstretched? The local integrated care board has said they're exploring whether they're suitable capacity but no plan is in place yet. And there is no mention of this developer contributing to local health services. This proposal will obliterate these to and from Wimble Hill that lots will cast shade over houses and flat opposite on Malago Road and restrict light into existing residents homes. Overlooking or create privacy issues into and out of the student units, the light and noise created after dark will affect the protected bat species that use the railway line as an important corridor from roost to feeding grounds. Bristol should be increasing and protecting its biodiversity, not allowing new bills that they directly aren't protected species. When a learning proposal was refused, I hope for something different and much better this time. Thank you very much. The next one is Statement 18, James Anderson. Nope. Statement 19, Liz Anderson. Statement 20, Edward Crowley. Statement 21, Patrick Elliott. Statement 22, Lee Archer. Statement 23, Marta Sifwentes. Statement 24, Dr Charlotte Cameron Beaumont. The visual representations provided by the developer are incorrect and give a bias impression of the height of the tower blocks. In fact, the wall these blocks create will be higher than Wimble Hill, half as long as the hill busily obliterating most of it despite visual impressions of the country being uploaded by the developer to the portal. The height of Wimble Hill behind Pringsite according to Ordnance Survey Map is 35 metres above sea level. The Prings buildings block B and C are both 42 metres above sea level so in fact 7 metres higher than the hill itself. Taking this into account, some of the proposed visual innovations provided by the developer are completely incorrect. These show the top of Wimble Hill being seen behind all the tower blocks but the reality is that Bedminster Southville and the city centre, most of Wimble Hill will be visually obliterated while the neighbourhood of Wimble Hill itself will directly face a wall higher than the height of the hill itself, a wall which will stand just metres from the bottom of the hill. Thank you. Thanks very much. Statement 25 is Tessa Fitzgerald. Statement 26 is Katie Crookshank. Statement 27 is Christine Higgett. Thank you. Statement 28, Marcus Wilcox. 29, Laurie Davidson. 30, Sophie Mayr. 31, Dan Gitzham. 32, James Young. 33, Rouge King. 34, Councillor Lisa Stone. Okay, thanks very much. Let's just be clear about what's going on here. This application was rejected some time ago and from what I can gather from reading the design and access statement, there's not a lot that's been changed. If you are going planning to approve the application, can you really figure out the reasons why? If you're going to reject something, I do wish that people could bring something back to the committee that has some form of changes. There has been a few changes. There's been a stairwell put in but actually the mass intensity is almost worse than what it was before. The biodiversity gain is okay but the actual committee to the climate and emergency is not still using gas boilers and not air source heat pumps etc. etc. which is a ridiculous thing to happen. And also another thing is, which came up here, we've got literally 27,000 people now waiting this and yet we're still building huge amounts of student accommodation across our city. This only actually really embellishes one thing only in that university is providing them with more profits by bringing in more students into this city. Thanks very much. Thank you. Statement 35, Will Summers. Statement 36, Lou Gilbert Scott. Statement 87, Gordon Will Helmey. Statement 38, Diane Bello, Bellot. Statement 39, Clair Barnard. Statement 40, Liz Lewington. Statement 41, Sally Cavanagh. Statement 42, Dorothy Withery. Statement 43, Fran Chadney. Statement 44, Ben Wrightson, Head of Planning at Watkins Jones. Yep, just over there. Good afternoon. Watkins Jones has significant investments in the city like Pop 3 in Breadminster, showcasing our commitment to high quality development. I'd like to highlight the issue shaping the proposal on height. First, we ensure that the tourist building is lower than all previous schemes debated by planning committees of this council. We've reduced the number of buildings from 4 to 3, increased recreational spacing and varied the building heights across the three buildings. Second, we've achieved this despite reducing the developable area by a quarter, by transferring land to the Council's Margot Road Highways Works and the River Restoration Works. We've done all of this voluntarily as part of the commitment to bedmills as regeneration. Third, we must comply with government requirements for larger cause and second staircases and all blocks to enhance fire safety. Our extensive technical assessments of the effects of the proposal has confirmed the design is acceptable. As your office reports states, the scheme balance is height, safety and the Council's vision for bedmills to green, we look forward to get going to this application. Thank you. Thank you. Statement 45, Sally Davis, Director Avison Young. Good afternoon. The Watkins Jones proposal for Malago Road exemplifies sustainable development while previously developed land. The site aligns with the bedmills to green frameworks supporting mixed-use high-density development. We've engaged extensively with community and offices to address design concerns, ensuring our plans reflect the regeneration aspirations for bedmills to green. A public benefit of the proposals includes the transfer of land to BCC to facilitate the re-naturalisation of the river Malago, enhancing flood resilience, managing drainage and increasing biodiversity. We will plant 35 additional trees, enhancing green space and delivering over 200% biodiversity net gain. We will contribute over 2 million pounds to the city and local infrastructure, public streets and natural environments. This includes electric car club facilities, cycle aid improvements and 100,000 pounds towards a residence parking zone to help control the streets near the development and benefit the existing residents. This development eases pressure on family housing and contributes to the residents housing supply. Thank you very much. Thanks a lot. Statement 46 is David Pickford. Statement 47 is Nick Townsend. I think Nick's just there. A previous application went on just his inspector and was refused. So the question is, is this one sufficiently different or better in any way than before so that the inspector passed it? If not, surely it shouldn't be passed. Well, the answer is clearly no. So let them appeal again if they think it is and get refused again. The application was drawn in April because of half the rooms were light which overheating. The developer's solution is to put them in, put in blinds so the students will be studying during the day with the blinds down at times. Just find these students will be living in small sink of aspen rooms with windows that don't open. 15% of these students will be neurodiverist. No provisions are made for them. I have been supporting students with neurodiversity at Bristol University and other institutions for 30 years. I would be very concerned about them living in this environment and would not advise them to do so. Bristol University already has a poor record for mental health. I think this will make it worse. Thank you. That does conclude Public Forum for this planning application. So it's over to the officers to bring their report and recommendation if that's okay. Thank you Chair. So as we're all aware this application concerns plot one in Bedminster and the proposal is for the construction of three buildings to provide purpose-built student accommodation with new vehicular access, disabled parking and servicing arrangements, public round works and associated landscaping. The reason for referral to committee today is the number of consultation responses that were received which totals 142. Two rounds of public consultation, formal consultation on the application have taken place. So the application proposes a total of 484 student bedspaces across three buildings, block A, B and C. Block A lies to the south of the site and is lowest in scale at 5 to 8 stories. Block B sits in the centre and ranges in height from 7 to 9 stories and Block C is the northern most block ranging in height from 7 to 10 stories where Malago Road meets Heriford Street. This gives an aerial view of the existing site. This is the site shown in context with the surrounding Bedminster Green plots and this is the proposed site layout showing the location of blocks A, B and C within the site to note the landscaping and the improvement works adjacent to the road. So looking at each block in turn again Block A is 5 to 8 stories and contains student flat-style student accommodation, studio flat-style student accommodation and a communal roof terrace is provided at 6th floor level. Block B is 7 to 9 stories and contains flat-style accommodation with ensuite cluster corridors and some shared bathrooms and again a communal roof terrace is provided at 7th floor in the centre of the building. Block C is the highest building, 7 to 10 stories and contains flat-style student accommodation with both ensuite rooms and some shared bathrooms. This block does not contain a roof terrace as mentioned there are two previously refused appeals on the site. This shows a comparison between the previous appeals shown in green and pink and the current proposals shown in the grey. So to note as has been highlighted the number of buildings has reduced from 4 to 3 which increases the massing between the buildings. The overall height of the buildings has reduced and the buildings now incorporate a stepped form. This shows the landscape proposals so three parking bays are proposed in the corner of the site but other than that this is a car-free development. There's a servicing bay along Malago Road as well. At the bottom of the site is the adjacent river restoration proposals and this is where land would be transferred to Bristol City Council to facilitate those works. Land along the Malago Road has already been transferred to facilitate the highways improvement works along Malago Road. Again this shows the parking so the parking three accessible parking bays are shown in the pink. The refuse collection points are shown in the dotted purple and laybys on Malago and Herrford Street in orange. In terms of the determination of the application this must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Members are reminded that despite a substantial stock of planning permissions and a positive approach Bristol is currently unable to demonstrate a four-year supply of housing land and the tilted balance therefore applies. For Bristol only a four-year housing supply must be demonstrated as the emerging local plan has reached publication stage. In undertaking the planning balance exercise weighing in favour of the proposal is that the provision of student housing in Bedminster is supported in the Bedminster Green framework. Draft local plan policy sets up that a maximum of 1,600 bed spaces may be provided in Bedminster and this proposal would not result in this figure being exceeded. National planning policy guidance is clear that student accommodation can count towards an authority's five-year housing land supply. The proposal would provide additional housing which is a benefit afforded significant weight in the planning balance. The student accommodation would benefit from sufficient daylight and outlook, high quality communal and public open space and with the recommended conditions residents would not be exposed to unacceptable noise, air quality or environmental risks. With regard to overheating following comments by the Sustainable Cities team the application has undertaken further testing to consider additional mitigation. In addition to complying with the present day weather files, buildings B and C would comply with 2050 weather files, however for the 2080 weather files, blinds would be needed. For building A to comply with 2050, blinds would be needed and lower G value glass. In 2080 building A only would require active cooling. This is due to usability issues associated with the noise levels surrounding the building. Its officers view that the applicant has demonstrated adequate consideration of the risk of overheating given the constraints and the standards required for single aspect student accommodation. The quality of accommodation is therefore afforded significant weight in the planning balance. As outlined in the officer's report, there are some exceedances of the indicative high parameters in the Bedminster Green framework. However, overall a design lead approach has been followed which results in an acceptable massing scale and layout. The detailed design and architecture of the buildings is of a high quality. The design quality is afforded significant weight in the planning balance, tempered to moderate due to the modest exceedance of the high parameters. With regard to the impact of the setting on the nearby conservation area, as a result of the stepped height and massing spacing between the blocks and the high quality architecture, no harm would be caused to the setting of this heritage asset. As a result of the spacing between the proposed buildings and the neighbouring properties, the development would not result in an unacceptable impact on daylight or sunlight or outlook. In terms of highways impact, the level of car and cycle parking proposed and the arrangements for refuse collection and servicing are acceptable. Contributions towards local fireworks and parking control mechanisms will be secured by Section 106 agreement to ensure that the transport impacts in the locality are mitigated. Officers are of the view that the package of benefits that the development will provide merit support of the application and it is therefore recommended for approval. Thank you. We now move on to member questions and clarifications of this proposal, so I have already seen a couple of hands. Councillor ELLie and Councillor Austin. Thank you. First of all, can I thank you for your presentation. I am aware due to the deferral in this application. We have had a delay, but in my view, your belated Oscar audition was very effective, so well done. My question, in a way, has already been answered in a report and also you touched a bit in your presentation, but surely for the issue or transparency. Can I pose to you a question, raised several times in public forum, that actually the housing use, the assumed accommodation, the amount of it and also the height of the job wasn't permitted by the Bedminster Green framework. Can you just overtly respond to that challenge? So, if I understand your question correctly, you are asking whether the height exceeds the Bedminster Green framework, is that right? And the assumed use, because we have had complaints about the amount of it of the course. Okay. So, in terms of the use, the use of student accommodation is supported in the Bedminster Green framework and the local plan. Indeed, in the last appeal and the refusal, this did not form a reason for refusal and was not raised by the inspector, so the principle of student accommodation on this site is long and well established. In terms of the height exceedances of the framework, there's one element of the building that is 10 stories high, but the framework suggests an indicative height of 9 stories. When looking at this issue in the previous appeal, the inspector was clear that these are just indicative heights and they're not sort of thresholds that cannot be exceeded. And when coming to a view, we need to look at all of the application merits in the round. In this instance, it's clear that a design-led process has been followed and officers of the view that the architecture and the layout are all of high quality and therefore this exceedance, sort of any dis-benefits are outweighed by benefits. Thank you. Okay. Councillor Austin. Yes, I'm a bit slightly puzzled about this idea of the development being car-free and my question is, how would that be enforced? I understand there are mentions of the RPZ, but I'd just like some clarification on that because I could imagine that even if we wish it's so, students will own cars. Even with student accommodation, the terms and conditions of it will be that they won't be entitled to any future permits of any future parking. So, we find that students don't often own cars, but where they do, where there isn't an enforcement area. But hopefully, by the time they will be encouraged also with the travel plan that's in place, it will be helping them to make more green-efficient transport and those are all conditions linked to the application that we have to do that, and that is the most efficient way we currently have of being able to control that. Yes, good. Let's follow up, sorry, just for clarification. So, are we saying that, I might in this understood this, sorry, that a new RPZ would be introduced, and is that what we're saying? If so, when would that be in time for this new development to be permitted? The applicant has agreed to provide some funding towards what would be a consultation whenever we as a Highway Authority consult, it has to be subject to the consultation. So, if all local people don't want it, that isn't the developer's responsibility, but we would encourage people to think about that when that option comes up in their area, but at the moment, that's the best option. We've got to be able to fund an initial consultation on local need for it. Thank you. And whatever happens on that, any new development in the era would not be entitled to the permits that would go in and the existing residents with cars would have the priority on the curbside space. Thank you. Any other questions that anyone has or statements of clarification, I had Councillor PETE and then Councillor ONCHIN. And then. Hi there. I just wanted to address one of the statements and perhaps get a bit more clarification. So, obviously, neurodiversity comes under section 6 of the Equality Act, which is disability, and therefore, we all have the duty to provide reasonable adjustments where we can under sections 2021. I'm aware that there's going to be a well-being service, and obviously, there's going to be some green spaces and some recreational spaces as well as the disability parking spots for those, I think there's three that have been allotted. I was wondering if you could speak more to the well-being service to perhaps address some of the concerns around being neurodiverse or disability friendly. Thank you for your question, which unfortunately I can't answer. It's a matter for the management of the building and the student accommodation itself. I mean, I would just add in terms of the wider point and sort of the role of the committee and kind of the public sector equality duty that's engaged in this kind of considering this application today. I just refer members to page 69 of the report, which addresses that. So, there is a requirement on us to have due regard on that, but unfortunately, we don't have that specific level of detail here today. I had a part two to my question, if that's all right. The other question was, obviously, you have the three disabled parking spaces. What if there is a fourth disabled person who has a car? What then? Are you referring to people with a legitimate blue badge? Yes. Well, they can actually park anywhere in any case. So, with the parking those we don't know, they would prioritise for disabled students. If that year, nobody required that. They may come with a need for care of visit or things like that. So, we would expect the management to manage that space for the best need, but at the moment, we would prioritise them for blue badge. I wanted to ask about the overshadowing. Actually, two park questions was the height of the building, because it said the elements to plan was for nine floors and this one is 10. When we went on the site visit today, we saw, I saw a number of high buildings. I don't know how many floors there were, I didn't count them. So, that was as interested in the first place and the second one was the housing across the road from a leg, no, I can't say it. Malaga Road, will they be overshadowed because they are quite far away, I do realise, but could they be overshadowed by the heights of the building of the students? Thank you. So, in terms of overshadowing, that is addressed in detail in the report and our conclusion is that overall, there would not be an unacceptable impact on daylight, sunlight or overshadowing to those properties. Okay, did you have another second question there? The other one was if there were other buildings there, I'm not sure how high they were. There was one being built and the other students accommodation a bit further on, they're quite tall buildings as well. So, you're talking about plot five and plot three? The ones that have been built, they're already. They're not plots here and the other plots. I think you're referring to plot three. I don't have the exact height, but I think it's around 10 stories. And then there was another one that's busy being built, it's a number plot that was sort of diagonally across. Again, I don't know the specifics. I think that's 10 stories with a higher element around 14 stories. But, okay, thank you. Sorry, who was next to asking a question? Was it Councillor Freeman yet? Thank you. So, I've got a few questions and this is partly because I know the community and obviously we've seen it demonstrated today. So, many statements have come through. So, some of these things might seem minor, but I know are concerned. So, health care provisions come up quite a lot. Is that going to be provided by the University or is that going to be accommodated within the local services expanding? That would be provided in local services. Okay, great. So, the NHS will commission those as part of their expansion. Yes, there's no provision within the scheme itself. Okay, great. And there are placement trees that need to be planted which you talked about earlier. Is there a deadline by which those need to be planted? How do we make sure that happens? So, the planting will be controlled by condition and within that there will be a time frame for planting as well as ongoing maintenance. Great, thank you. And one of the things that came up, I know has been a concern for a while, is the view of the escarpment. So, the view of William Hill and the coloured houses, which I'm sure lots of people know, and the way that this development affects that view. As I understand it, that's not protected in any way. Is that right? That's correct. Okay, so it can't be factored in. Okay, it is a consideration and has been factored into the decision, but it's not a sort of statutory protected view. Yeah, sure. Okay, thank you. And could you explain a bit more about the amenity space which is mentioned on the ground floor? Thank you. On the ground floor of the building or the landscape ground floor of the building? So, that is for use by students. It's not open to members of the public. The final details of that would obviously be subject to the management and the operator of the building. Yeah, Councilor, also? Yeah. Some overlap between myself and Councilor Freeman on the particular question. But in the office's report, you talk about active frontage. It's quite a misleading term to my mind. I assume that meant, as most people like, that active frontage is retail and other public uses, but that's, is that the case? I'm assuming not. There's no retail or public uses. In this instance, the term active frontage refers to the presence of doorways and communal entrances to the communal spaces at the ground floor level. So, rather than having a plane back of house, for instance, there's lots of doorways and windows that, in Liven the street, the activity can spill out from the building and the connection visually between the street and inside of the building is made. How would that in Liven the street, though? If I may ask, is it because you've got common all space on the ground floor? Yes. The presence of the communal space, which will be heavily used by the students coming and going, will create activity both within the building and on the pavement and in the spaces between. Thank you. I've just got one tiny more question. The, I think, Councilor Freeman was touching on this as well in terms of health services, but obviously, if this is approved, then you've got a lot of people coming into the community. How will pressure local services be mitigated? Is there any answer you could give on clarification on that, please? I think, essentially, sort of directly through this scheme, there won't be sort of mitigation secured as part of this approval, so it will be really as as advised earlier in terms of the local provision. Yep, Council ready? Just be helpful. At the last DC agenda conference, we delegated the officer approval for a new district, Bedminster Health Hub, which will have an enhanced vulnerability but also an anxious sentence practice. Okay, I think, Councilor Polton, you had your hand up. Thanks, Chair. I had a few, but I'll try and keep as brief as I can. Just actually, but just to follow on from those points, I was just wondering about public transport. I noticed one of the transport mitigations was a travel plan. I was just wondering what impact this is expected to have on local bus and rail services. In terms of what the development is giving that will benefit transport in the whole area, is that what you want to make? I mean, more in respect to the number of new people living in the area, what impact do you expect that to have on the use of local bus train services? Well, there's several things in the report that actually explains all the trip generations and how they're going to be, how they're being mitigated in the number. With the students specifically, the travel plan is the way with which we manage how they move in and out of the building, and also how they make their daily trips, hopefully in the most sustainable way. My colleague James is here to do because he is actually managing the program in the area for the cycle and bus improvements that are going in that area, and we wanted to be sure that you as members understood that we've been working with the developer, and that's how we've managed to get wider footways and everything around there. They have set back their buildings, added more better tree lines to do this. I know it's not exactly, but the details of exactly what we're getting are in the report, but it has been pretty well thought out with our city transport project program. We do feel that it's sufficient mitigation has been offered to be able to make that a benefit for everyone in the area, not just the new students, but the travel plan will be the key thing that manages their impact on the trip generation in the area. Does that make sense? I think so, yes, thank you. Just in relation to the, so just looking at the office's presentation of the final page, the one up there, in terms of the provision of student accommodation being a notable public benefit, and the contribution it makes to the housing land supply, obviously that's accurate if you would assume the target's not moving, is it, where the land supply remains static, or just when given that this is purpose-built student accommodation, how the number of bed spaces concerned here relates to the number of students we're expecting to have in the city, and particularly the year-on-year increase in the number of students that we have in the city. In other words, does this match the increase in the sizes of the universities as part of an overall development strategy, or are we racing to catch up? Are we falling behind? How are those two things relate to each other in terms of the recommendation? I don't have the exact figures as to projected student growth in the city, but to highlight two points that the University of Bristol is in support of the application and has been working with the applicant to ensure that it meets their needs, and secondly to highlight the revised local plan and the 1600 bed spaces that threshold that is set out in the new policy, this application goes some way to meeting that, but there is still significant unmet need there in terms of student bed spaces. Apologies, would you care to characterize how much unmet need? I wouldn't like to say the cumulative figures of current approvals, I'm not sure if any other officers have that to hand. Anyone got anything on that? No, it sounds like it looks like not by the response. I'm not sure we can answer that right here. Sorry about that. Yeah, I'll come back to Councillor Bonnie. I love the opinion that more student accommodation should mean that there will be less pressures on the private and social housing sector. Have there been any reports on how actually providing dedicated student accommodation in this area will actually hopefully provide more spaces for families to move into social and private sector accommodation, and whether that factored into the decision to make this dedicated student accommodation? Yeah, I think in essence, yes in terms of the framework and the identification of this location as being suitable for student accommodation, again just coming back to the kind of wide a sort of picture in terms of the city I say, I unfortunately don't have that here, here now, but I can certainly say that in terms of the framework and the policies that kind of support student accommodation in this location. So is there a hope that this will ease pressures on the private and social housing sector? Yeah, I don't think I say that. Sorry. Okay, there's not a kind of assessment that's been made of that, I think it's fair to say. Not that I have to hand. Not that you have to hand. Okay, okay, so that's an answer in the fact that there isn't an answer at this point. Simone, do you want to say something? I think the situation is fairly complex. The key point to make as well is that the new local plan is clearly proposing a new policy in that area, but you cannot give it much weight yet because it's not sufficiently progressed. As part of that, an awful lot of information is being submitted, probably also the kind of reports that you're looking for, but some of it is conflicting and because it's not yet been subject to independent examination, we can't give it that much weight. But yes, I would say common sense would dictate that if you have private student accommodation, it will relieve pressure elsewhere. But there is a lot of need, there's an awful lot of need for both student housing, for built to rent, for co-living, we just don't have enough of everything. And therefore, ultimately, what exactly kind of the figure under the line is, nobody will really know because we don't have the alternatives. So, yeah, ultimately, we'll still have to come out in the wash. Thank you. Okay, thank you. The Council appointed you to have anything else to ask, are you finished? We kind of went back and forth there. Don't worry if you don't. Go on, yeah. I did have a point that was kind of pertaining slightly to the point Councillor Pete was making earlier, albeit from a slightly different perspective. If we're limiting the number of disabled parking spaces on site, as it were, to three out of a total number of bed spaces, it's almost 500, I would assume that that's significantly less than the number of disabled people that would possibly need that space, or be entitled to a blue badge, within living within the accommodation at all, given that university accommodation tends to be cheaper, or at least less expensive, than private rental sector. Assuming that we are going to pay due regard to our equality's GG, do we not create a risk that our aspirations to reduce the number of cadres, journeys in the city, is having the unintended consequence of financially discriminating against disabled students in this case? I'm not quite clear what you need to know from me. When we don't know who any of those students are going to be, it's the same as when it will be residential. We don't know. What we do is have a minimum requirement of blue badge, which is prioritised for that space, but as I previously described, it's more about access, so there's a decent curbside for those people who would have mobility to be picked up. Students would have an arrangement with the university if they had that kind of impairment, they would need special cadres, so the travel plan would be able to build in how those people are dealt with, but we, at the planning application time, we look at the minimum needed to be protected space for those potential car owning students with mobility impairment, but they, other ones, would be entitled to park on curbside if there was a lot more, but we would, when the travel plan allows us to work out with the university across all their accommodation to find the sites that are most appropriate for the ability of the individual students, but that is beyond the planning system at this stage, what we do is put the travel plan in place and the minimum blue badge, so there's something there to start the ball rolling, but we have to work with the university about when the admissions come in and find across the whole city the best locations for the people with that, so I don't think we're doing anything that would, as a council, we would be doing anything that would prevent anyone getting a place that university for lack of dealing with their disability, if that makes sense. If I may just add to that, thank you. Paragraph 11.3 of the report deals with this issue in more detail, so it sets out that there is a policy requirement for residential use, but not for student accommodation, nonetheless when you apply that standard to the student accommodation, we would expect 10 of the units to be accessible, as has been highlighted obviously not all of those students with disabilities would own a car or choose to drive a car when living in the building, also the nearby Bedminster train station is wheelchair accessible as well, so it is taken into account in the recommendation. Which is just for clarity, did you say 10 or 10%, as in 10 students or 10% of the students? 10 of the units, so from a total of 484 units, just 10 we would expect to be accessible. If you were to apply the standard which applies to residential units of 2% requirement. Wow, that's a lot less. The other question I was going to ask, one of your questions was in relation to this overheating issue and begging the committee and the chairs indulgence, could you just take us through very quickly in sort of lay persons' times what the issue is with overheating and respectfulist development. It seems from reading as though in order to meet environmental targets, an issue has been caused that may cause the rooms to be hotter than is comfortable, is tolerable and blinds are being proposed as a mitigation for that, I just wanted to check, is it because the windows don't open, is that in effect the problem? So the windows do open, but due to noise, the noise level surrounding the site, the overheating modelling has to account for those windows being closed. So students living within the rooms would have the option to open the windows for sort of getting some fresh air in or if the room did become too hot for some reason, but the modelling and the mitigation has to consider the windows to be shut and as you say, I won't go into too much detail and it's quite complicated, but the Sustainable Cities team have reviewed it and are happy with the approach in this instance, essentially block A would require active cooling from 2080 onwards based on current weather predictions, blocks B and C would require blinds to be fitted from 2050 onwards. Okay, any further questions and clarifications of this proposal? Yeah, just one question and I don't know if you need the answer for this one for the decision, but it has been brought up. You talk about the blocks being at 2050 and 2080, so we're assuming these blocks will be around in that time period, which I certainly hope there will be, and we might change our policy on universities and students because we're working on the current figures of university growing, if that makes sense. Could these buildings be used for something else or could they be changed around to flat if needed in the future? We're talking 2050, 2080, obviously we need student accommodation now, but maybe not in 2050 or 2080. Giving demographics, we're supposed to be going down in population? Yes, so that is something that has been considered throughout the design process. Obviously, at this point we are considering student accommodation and we couldn't reasonably refuse something for not being adaptable, but looking at the floor plan and the placement of windows, it would be possible in future if it were to be converted to a domestic residential use, which would obviously be subject to a planning application and all sorts of planning conditions and controls through that as well. Okay, I have got a couple of questions myself, but are there any others that people would like to raise at this point? No? Okay, so my questions are, a simple one is around it's building C, and I understand, you know, plot five, which would be right next to that, hasn't been approved yet, and so there has been mentioned that because of the height of plot five buildings, that there is a kind of a weight given to the allowance of this height. Could you sort of comment on that? Is that a consideration which you'd be taking into account? So in determining the application, we have to have regard to the Bedminster Green framework, which sets out those indicative height parameters. In the framework, envisages plot five has been the centre of the new area with the greatest height. You are correct that the plot five planning application has not yet been determined, but it's likely that when it does come forward in an acceptable form, it will be as envisaged in the framework, and the tallest building in the area will be cited on plot five, hence the design decision to sort of step the buildings up towards the centre. Okay, thank you. And the second one was, maybe it's been answered, so just ignore me maybe, but the residence parking scheme, we can't, that's condition of, is it going to be a condition of this decision, if it's an approval? Or is it already in train? I'm just clarifying that. That's a highway authority. We haven't presented to the new cabinet member yet on what we would be and when we would do. But the principle is, the applicant is contributing 100,000 pounds, I think, towards the consideration, that would be the consultation. So we would city transport would design up an outline for consultation with this funding that would then, because it's subject to a traffic regulation order, that would have to go through a formal process with several stages of consultation before it could be done. But the knowledge we have today is that the applicant has agreed that it would be something that would be something they agree to help fund the consultation, the design and consultation. So, in essence, it won't be in place before. Right, but it could be because once the money's done and the new cabinet member has got an agreed strategy of how curbside management will happen within the whole of Bristol, that might then trigger off that some of these that we have funding for could have their initial consultation. And once that started within an 18-month period, it could be in place subject to the support of it from the existing local community. Okay, thank you, that's helpful. I think that probably, and I've got one other question, which is around the community involvement statement and the sort of parameters that there are for that. What was the, presumably that was the applicant who made that decision, but is there any kind of way that the local planning authority can sort of suggest that it should be a specific amount of specific proximity or anything like that, or is that completely out of our control as a local planning authority? So, as a local planning authority, we personally are required to undertake the statutory consultation, but any consultation undertaken by the applicant is sort of voluntary, and we don't have any stipulations as to what that can be. Okay, thanks. Yeah, if I just may add to that, yeah, we have a statement of community involvement, which basically advocates for this sort of community involvement to be undertaken on a major application, sort of prior to submission. So, we understand that, yeah, that has taken place for this application, and that's actually covered on page 40 of the report, and yeah, there is also then the, in addition, as part of the planning application itself, the letters that go out to neighbours and also the sign, the press, notice, etc. Okay, thanks. Any other questions of clarification at this point? Yes, Councillor Fotany. Sorry, Chair, last one, promise. It was just a relation to the apologies that the number of 1,600 had come up in terms of the number of birdspaces identified within the strategy doc. I think it was the badness to framework, because that's correct. Could I ask, does that include HMOs? Does that include the number of student birdspaces that would increase in the surrounding area through growth in HMO numbers rather than PBSA? Anyone know that? I'm not entirely certain, but my understanding is it doesn't include it. It's just the PBSA, because it's, yeah, I think that's fine. I think that is certainly the position also in the local plan. Okay, okay, I think we've got to the point where we need to move on to member debate. So, has anyone got anything they want to raise straight away about this application? Yes, Councillor Freddie. I'm losing this while I believe I've actually determined now four plots of birds to green. Please, this came here today, and rightly it should, of course. Over in the five plots, there are very significant regeneration area, and of course, neighbouring White Hat Cross lane is additional regeneration area, which needs to be looked at. In my view, we've been exceedingly fortunate in the previous cabinet, actually commissioned, adopted a bed instead of bringing the framework, so we can look clearly at that. We've heard from the case officer today that both the residential student use is catered for on that. And the scheme, which has came forward, doesn't exceed the height of walk and scale limitations raised in that. Obviously, this particular problem, arguably, is the most difficult one to develop. Free principles have been unsuccessful and have encountered planning officers' problems and difficulties. It would seem clearly from the report we had from the MLA that this scheme actually meets the needs of the framework document. Actually, if we balance all the competing benefits, it's hugely beneficial. Not only are we getting almost 500 student specialist housing in an area where we've approved that. I believe that design is appropriate to good. There's also 25% land donated from the applicant to the council. We've got high ways of sustainability improvements. Also, land is given towards enhancing the drainage of the and the regeneration of the Malago stream, so all that's positive. Overall, I'm convinced this is a scheme that I can support and I urge members to do so. Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else want to throw anything in, anything you're thinking at the moment or thoughts about the application itself? I would say myself, I feel the overall sort of the need for development on that site is obviously quite profound. We actually, obviously, need to use these brownfield sites. Absolutely, needs to put something there. My concerns are about the scale of the buildings. I do feel like the scale is higher than I would ideally like. But at the same time, the applicant has responded and the council has, the local planning authority has responded to the concerns raised and has worked with them to some extent. It's a difficult one to balance at the moment. I'm not entirely sure which way I'm going. Anyone else want to say anything else? Yeah, I think Richard identified the positives. We could imagine a more beautiful building if we tried, but then the current situation, or the situation as it was two or three years ago, was very challenging, I would have said. So, I'll just certainly be supporting this. Yeah, I have doubts about it. I'm still bouncing my own, I suppose. But it's certainly better, and the fact that it's now three blocks rather than four in a continuous wall is a positive thing. However, although it's better, is it good enough is the question. I think some of the design is fairly generic and bland. It could be sort of a cookie cut in anywhere as well. The landscaping, I think, is a positive thing. But I think the main issue is not something that's a planning consideration. The main issue is we can't really do anything about this. It's an accumulative effect of student accommodation, and although technically student accommodation contributes to housing targets, it's not really solving the critical housing crisis we have in this city for local residents. So, I really do sympathise with people's concerns about that. But on the other hand, it's a brownfield site, and if not here, where? I mean, having seen it this morning, that is the very definition of a brownfield site. So, yes, I suppose coming back to my concerns, that doesn't really contribute to what ordinary people will consider to be housing supply needs in the city. It's an accumulative effect. The Bedminster Green Framework, as well as I understand it, it's not an SPD, it's not a master plan. So, its status is less than the usual SPD master funds, isn't it? So, those are just my comments. Not very succinct, but just thoughts at the moment. I've forgotten who it was. I've cancelled lunch in Yakum. I just wanted to say, if I could wave a magic wand, yes, I would like to build social housing absolutely everywhere. But as this is a private site, and it's not in our consideration to change that, student accommodation is very much needed, and students have been homeless while they were studying in Bristol, and it's a very serious effect on students if they don't have a home to live, or a decent place to live, because some of the student accommodation in HMOS is very subpar. So, from that point of view, it's got a higher, it will take something that doesn't have a very high biodiversity and actually increase that. So, that's quite good. As same with you, I would think it would be nicer to have built an interesting building, but that's not our planning consideration, unfortunately. So, from that point of view, I'd say I'd support it, because like you said, it's a brand-filled site where we're going to build it, we have to build it. I cycled from the back to here, through the building sites, and made it in nine minutes, so it is pretty reachable to most places. Only at the hands, yes, Councillor Friedman. I agree with what everybody said, it's, you know, it's quite tricky wand, I think. One of the things when I was looking through the paperwork was realising how many conditions there are with this, and actually pulled them all together. There's nearly 20 sets of conditions ranging from the parking spaces to back mitigation, all sorts of things, and I think the devil's in the detail, and I would just want to, I mean, I have to trust that those conditions will really be healthy, because I think a lot of those will mitigate a lot of the concerns that people have. Okay, thank you. Any other comments here? Councillor Piet, and then Councillor Classic, and then Councillor Portney. Okay, everyone. So before COVID, I was a student, and I was living in rented accommodation, where it was £450, all bills included. After COVID, it was £600 without bills being included. This was due to the huge amount of students who then got deferred during the COVID period. This has meant that housing is extremely competitive. Now I like to look towards those who, that was just for shared accommodation, let alone for those who are looking to start families or wanting family homes. As much as I think we all want social housing, I think that by decreasing the competition between families and students is always a good thing, and dedicated student housing will bring down the competition and hopefully ease the pressures on those looking for homes. I think that the developers have looked at all the considerations, you know, they've cut it down from four to three buildings, they've got the recreational spaces, they've got the 25% land back to the council for the restoration of the river and the highways, they're completely compliant with the laws and regulations. I, for one, do support this move. Okay. Thank you, Councillor Classic. Thank you. So I agree with other Councillors who've brought up that the actual buildings are very uninspiring and all of that things, and that this is a very, very tricky application. The sad thing is the non-tricky applications don't come to this committee, they get delegated authority and signed off. So that is just the nature of every scheme that is going to come to this committee, that we will be debating. On balance, though, I think this is definitely a better scheme, the reduction of the buildings and the reductions of the height. I, you know, I think that certainly I go past that land quite frequently on the bus, and so you can see from the top deck over, there needs to be something on there. If we were, if this was kind of maybe like the first thing in the area of high-rise, I'd probably be against it, but there are a number of schemes in the area, and I think so it will be in keeping with the rest, that little section. In terms of the student population, the expansion of the university and the site near Temple Means will see a student population in Bedminster and Southville. It's an attractive area, I live there, that's, I like it. It's close to the city centre, it's close, it's got a lot of amenities, we've got E Street and North Street, both have got shops, bars, it's an attractive area to live, and I think if we don't manage that student population properly, if we don't provide that accommodation, it is going to impact the other housing stock even more, and it is already becoming an area that the price of the area has exceeded massively over the last few years, and it will get worse if we see an excessive sort of student landlord buying up housing stock, we will see families even more priced out, so I think that the scheme is better than an alternative, and so I'll likely be waiting for it. >> Thank you, Councillor Volney.

Ooh, okay. Just to start off in a bit of a tangent, but I promise it is relevant, and I will come back to it, so I represent the Wood of Cotton, which is the ward within which the University of Bristol substantial amount of its campus sits, where a significant amount of the neighbourhood has been taken over by HMOs, HMOs have grown in cotton, completely out of control. There's been no realistic way of stemming that evening with including the managing HMO SPD. A huge amount of my casework is taken out by students living in absolutely squalid accommodation, utterly unacceptable at absurd rents, so I would stress I would like to see nothing more than better quality student accommodation being provided in the city to allow for a rebalancing of the community in which I live. However, that only works if you assume that that is what's happening, as Councillor Pete suggests, but the fact is just from a quick glance, the student population in Bristol has increased by about 20,000, roughly speaking since 2016. It's estimated to grow by another 20,000, roughly speaking, over the next eight years. If there's anyone in the room thinking that we can build 40,000 additional birdspaces to catch up, before we start looking at the housing targets, before we start looking at the social waiting list and the council waiting list. And things that building more PBSA is a realistic response to universities that are growing eight, 10, 12 per cent a year. I don't think we can build houses that fast. I don't think we have the land to build houses that fast. So I'm slightly wary of the recommendation the officers report that says this is an inherent good. I would welcome it absolutely if it was meeting that unmet need that it seems to trigger further unmet need when you build these properties at some points. It's also worth noting, I think for what it's worth, that this is a building just on averages that we'll be bringing in about £66,000 per week in rent for the university. So right, that should pay for quite a lot of mitigation to address the issues that will be caused in the local community by the development. And I do wonder whether we could have negotiated a little bit more firmly with some of that mitigation. But here we are, as far as where we are, this has been turned down twice on the basis of height and massing. It's going to appeal twice, it's failed twice in the west of height and massing. It's still a story height and it's recommended in the local framework. I think the committee is getting a flavour of where I'm at with this application at the moment. It's not to say my mind couldn't still be changed. If someone can persuade me that the net benefits to the city as identified in the office is summing up, document up there. If someone can tilt that balance back for me, fantastic. But right now, I'm afraid I'm struggling to come to the same view as the committee. OK, Councilor Adi? I suspect Council support me as a better man than me. I know they're going to be ambitious enough to persuade him, of course. But I think we've had detailed debates, so can I formally move the office's recommendation for approval subject to committee, to conditions, please? Do I have a seconder? I just want to make a quick point, I'm sorry. Yeah, if it's all right, Councilor Adi, can we just take the final bit of debate and then we'll come to that? I'll come back to you. Thank you. I just wanted to say I suppose I'm just listening very carefully to all, like I'm here, and the pros and cons for sure is a very tricky one. As you say, that's why at the committee we get tricky applications. I would be much more comfortable if this was application for housing stock, for regular housing, you know, for local people, that is absolutely sure. I'd like to think in future, Councilor should mention this very important point that there will be some adaptability there, so that if we do reach a bubble in the market and the demand of student accommodation in future declines at that could be adapted. I think that would be very useful. This is not the forum for this. I know it's not a planning matter, but I think a discussion has to be had about how much expansion in student numbers in accommodation the city can take in the long term. It's just a practical discussion. I'll leave it there. Thank you. Thank you. I'm aware, Councilor Adi, you wanted to move a motion. Do you want to do that still? I'm happy to do it myself, because I have to do that. It's the next thing. I have a second. Okay. So, seconded by, well, who should we say, Councillor PETE? Councillor PETE will say. So, all those in favour of approving this in line with the officer recommendation, please show. All those against? Okay. That's carried. So, I think that's everything we need to do on this planning application. Do I need to move on to anything else? No. Okay. Brilliant. I think we should take a short break at this stage, come back in 10 minutes. So, that's at 3.45, let's say, 8 minutes. Thank you. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you. I do not think that this particular proposal has been designed in such a way that it delivers the benefits it could. Let us remember it's green space in a name quality management area in a city that has declared a biodiversity crisis. The Native conservation officers comments have not been published before this meeting, so the local people have not had an opportunity to review them. Neither have any of the interest groups who are here today with considerable knowledge. So we're not able to respond fully to the picture. I suggest that these decisions should be deferred until that's possible. In countries policy BCS9, we suggest the development should extend the coverage of green space network, and that's not happening here. This development is in fact reducing that network and arming the future environment for the development. And I would suggest that this is not considered as a single episode of loss, but actually something that we should be looking at and saying, well hang on, we've cut down the trees along the highway next to the territory car park. We're potentially losing the green roof building, that is the palm operation building and well loved. And we're substantially building on top of the nature garden next to it. This is an application that's going to affect the green infrastructure much, much more than we think rest in some more significant loss. Thank you. Thank you. Statement six, BS3 planning group. No? OK. Statement seven, James Moore's. Statement eight, Marta Siffwentes. Statement nine, H. Adsted, so that's Andrew Kemp to speak. Thank you. Once again, on behalf of Ellen. A mature tree placed host to a huge amount of wildlife, insects, lichens, mosses, birds, small mammals, and a host of wildlife in the soil around its roots. A mature tree provides a barrier to noise and light, it provides oxygen and filters and softens the environment around it. The trees on Bem's to green, especially the mature trees, particularly the enormous longevity poplars, offer exactly what's needed for people to relax and to thrive. We're inviting and building the new residents to join us living in this neighbourhood. We need every mature tree we have. If restoring the river could be done well without losing on mature trees, this would be a wonderful addition to the green, beneficial for wildlife and people. And this is not the case here. Bem's to green is a green land for a new population. We need to rely solely on Victoria Park nearby. People in wildlife don't just need warm, large, green space. We need a network of them. We need to be able to look out of our windows, step out of our doors and have green, green wildlife immediately within our sites. We've already lost the trees in the Johnny Kemp Park. We may lose the nature garden and green roof of the farm building. The actual green with its mature trees is all that will remain in this corner of Bristol. If you have it, you have visited the green. Thank you. For that, pause and imagine the trees gone. Thank you. Statement 10, James Anderson. Statement 11, Liz Anderson. Statement 12, Kieran Dempsey. Statement 13, Katie Crookshank. Statement 14, Marcus Wilcox. Statement 15, Christine Higgett. Thank you. Statement 16, Laurie Davidson. Statement 17, Sophie Mayer. Statement 18, Dan Gitsham. Statement 19, Dr Charlotte Cameron Beaumont. Angela Truall to speak. Bedminster Green provides a part of a large interlocking and continuous canopy of trees, providing much needed food and shelter for wildlife, including birds and bats. Contrary to the current policy, BCS9, this planning application will result in the destruction of these many huge, beautiful, mature trees and their related ecology. Bit by bit, the green of Bristol disappears. Each bit is small and each bit is considered insignificant. At what point is there no green bit left? Thank you. It's coming straight back to you, I think. So, Statement 20, Angela Truall. This development will damage beyond repair a much-loved public green space with material trees, a strategic wildlife corridor for birds, bats and other mammals. Most of the material trees will be felt, an important public place, lost to build a flood defence for private developers. It won't benefit existing wildlife. There's no room on the site to replant the trees. This is an irreplaceable loss for a densely populated area at a time of climate and biodiversity crisis. Risks in opening up the Malaga at this point have not been fully detailed in the Office's report. The EA raised detailed concerns about flooding risk, water pollution and contaminated land. Two other applications impacting the green, and in it, strictly connected with this one, will lead to even greater losses to the green. Thank you. Statement 21, Stephen Wickham. Hello. Yep. I'm objecting to the Bedminster Green quarter of this FB application, and as it's an FB application, asking you to send it back for alteration and improvement. The proposal and the heat network having been allowed to sneak under both the green and the Malaga by officers under delegated powers completes the destruction of the green as anyone living now knows it. Ambitious claims have been made for the green throughout the Bedminster Green District saga, but really this promised gilded hectare, which the community already had, was a mirage. And yet competing space claims have been made for paths to access sites, desire lines to new entrances to the railway station, and now what the professionals acknowledge is a developer's flood alleviation scheme, not a public amenity. I doubt there is a quarter of the current land left for a football kickabout, and seriously doubt any eighth, where mum is going to allow her child out to play here alone. Residents present and future have been sold down the river, and I urge you to insist upon improvement prioritising people and nature. Thank you. Very good with time there. You stop speaking exactly at the red light model. Statement 22, Tessa Fitzgiont. Statement 23, Ruth King. Statement 24, Lucy Sanson. Statement 25, Jan Castle. Statement 26, Diane Bello, or Bellod. Statement 27, Councillor Ed Ploughton. Okay. Okay, so I'm just going to read out this statement. One of the key issues about this application is the biodiversity implication. For an unknown reason, the Council is using three separate tree assessments for each of the three applications they are involved in on this one plot. This should be rationalised. However, the pressing issue given that the biodiversity net gain is a major issue is the lack of any written comments from the Nature Conservation Officer. As this is a key issue fundamental to the application, I do believe that it is fair that it is fair that a variable update that is not fair is the variable update that the meeting should be acceptable. Stateholders and the public are very right to see this assessment and be able to make comments on it rather than have to hear this from the officer after the opportunity for public feedback. Please defer considering this application until the officer's report is complete and there is a fair chance to comment on the issues in light of the expert assessment. Thank you. Thank you. Statement sorry, I've lost track. So, statement 28, Liz Lewington. No, statement 29, Susan Beale. Statement 30, Ben Holder. Statement 31, N Townsend. This scheme is deeply unpopular with local residents. It was so to us as a means to improve the green. We now know that this was dishonest, this is a flood prevention scheme. Therefore, consultation does not happen and it's one of the reasons why planning is in such a low self esteem by people. The main question surely is does opening the Malago increase or decrease by diversity. The Bristol tree form has clearly shown that it decreases it. And to be honest, trees half a mile away and no good to us. A related question is does the opening of the Malago justify destruction of much less blood trees? Actually, it isn't a river. I'm a teacher. I bought a visual aid. That's a river. That's a river, OK? What we've actually got here is a pimped up concrete drain. And I asked people about amphitheatre and they said it will be littered with beer cans immediately. Thank you very much. Statement 32, Sally Davis, Director, Avison Young. Good afternoon. In 2019, Bristol City Council produced a roadmap for how development should progress in Bevins to Green. And that was outlined in the Bevins to Green framework. Front and centre of the vision within the framework was to unlock the potential of the Malago, to manage drainage and flood risk and to create an enhanced network of public community spaces, planting and habitats. The application before you to deliver the restoration works is therefore a major milestone in this roadmap. To help deliver a sustainable urban quarter at Bevins to Green. When taking into account the replacement planting across the wider BCC estate and the proposed landscaping across the developer plots, the works will deliver 10% biodiversity net gain in habitat units and 51% biodiversity net gain in water you cause units. There are many public benefits including reducing flood risk, enhancing the public realm and providing access to nature. This is in accordance with the framework, the development plan and the 2050 goals of the Bristol One City plan. Thank you. Thank you very much. Lastly, Statement 33, Sally Kavanagh and John Derek. Are they here? Okay. Thanks very much everyone. That completes, point four and thanks for all your statements. We're now going to move to the officer report and recommendation for this application. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. So this application is for the proposed restoration of a section of the River Malago, including bringing the existing underground river back above ground, replacing some channel walls with vegetated embankments, in channel improvements, public realm improvements, including a construction of a new seating area with associated landscaping. So the reason for Committee referral today is the number of public comments, which totals 18, two letters of support, one letter of comment and 16 letters of objection. Looking at the application site in detail, the site is split into four land parcels shown in red on the plan here. So the southern most parcel of land lies to the south of Hereford Street, adjacent to the boundary of plot one, and is a linear parcel running from northeast to southwest. To the north lies a larger parcel adjacent to what's known as the plot five site within the Bedminster Green framework and within the existing Bedminster Green area. Plots three and four further north run adjacent to Clark Street and Bartlett Street and Dolby Avenue. And both of these parcels of land lie adjacent to the plot three redevelopment site. Here's an aerial view showing those sites at present. And looking in detail at area one here, the proposals for this parcel of land include re-rooting the channel through the use of dry stone walling and scour protection, coir rolls, coir pallets and new planting. This is a CGI showing a section looking upstream through plot one. In area two, which lies on Bedminster Green, there would be excavation on the southern side of the green to create access down to the river. There's the creation of a deck and amphitheatre seating with a new ramp to access route. In terms of the channel, again re-rooting of the channel through dry stone walling and scour protection and coir rolls along with planting is proposed. Here are some CGI's showing that part of the green. In area three and four, again new and reinforced retaining walls and ballast raids. And as with the other land parcels, the use of coir rolls and bank walls on the stretch parallel to Clark Street complimented with coir pallets on the flat margins of the river. This CGI shows area three looking upstream adjacent to Clark Street. And this shows the area between Clark Street and Dolby Avenue within plot three looking upstream. In terms of tree removal, this plan shows the tree groups to be removed in area one. So that's the parcel adjacent to plot one. So that's shown in red. Area two, which is the Bedminster Green, shows the tree removal associated with this planning application in red. Area three and four, the proposals for tree retention here. So in terms of the offsite replacement, so under the Bristol replacement tree standard 31 replacement trees are required within one mile off the site. So this shows the locations that have been agreed with the trees team. Further 86 trees are proposed within the Bristol City region to achieve biodiversity net gain. So I must apologise here, I've just realised this is an older slide deck. So the figures in this are not correct, but I will provide the correct figures verbally now. So in looking at the planning balance for this application, at a national level, the proposals are in accordance with the policies in the MPPF and the project accords with the objectives of sustainable development. The project will deliver holistic flood risk mitigation and makes effective use of land in a growth and regeneration area. It will provide mitigation to avoid increasing the vulnerability to the impacts of climate change for existing and new development occurring through the regeneration of Bedminster Green. The Bedminster Green framework was approved in 2019 and sets out the principles to guide the regeneration of the area, including the flood mitigation measures and transport improvements required to support growth. The Bedminster Green regeneration framework is supportive of the proposal of decolverting and enhancing public access to the river. The proposals would fully align with the aims of the framework. The existing river is heavily urbanised, including culverted and canalised sections, a relief sewer and associated heritage structures. The channel has historically been over widened, reducing flow velocities and resulting in the deposition of fine sediment, creating poor conditions. The surrounding area is also at risk from tide-locking fluvial flooding. This is expected to be exacerbated by climate change. The proposals would reduce flood risk by creating an additional 2,226 cubic metres of flood storage capacity within this part of the river. The application will also create a new seating area and will improve public access to the river banks through an accessible path and boardwalk. This improved public access to nature and appreciation of the river malago is a significant public benefit. The proposals would preserve the character and appearance of the Bedminster conservation area, a designated heritage asset. In terms of the non-designated heritage asset of the channel walls, the harm caused by their partial removal is balanced by the benefits of the repair and retention and significant sections of the channel and the decolverting of the historic river. Overall, there is a public benefit as the heritage value of this non-designated asset will be enhanced. Removal of trees is necessary to facilitate the decolverting and the public realm improvements. This would cause moderate harm to the character of the area as well as associated impacts on biodiversity. To compensate for the loss of on-site habitats as a result of tree removal, 116 trees are proposed to be planted off-site and the scheme would achieve 10.18% biodiversity net gain in habitat units. In addition, the proposal would achieve 51.17 BNG units for river units. This biodiversity net gain is a significant public benefit weighing in the planning balance. The proposal would not cause any harm to residential immunity or to the functioning of the local highway network. The application is therefore recommended for approval. Thank you, Emily. Thanks so much. Let's move to member questions. Any clarifications that you want to ask of Council officers? Anyone got anything they want to ask or anything about this application? Yep. Go for it. Thanks, Chair. I had one minor query related to fish spawning. I just wanted to check in the officer report. I think this is probably a typo, but I just wanted to check. It does affect the meaning. It seemed to say that the wording used just as the season during which percussive methods of construction couldn't be used or the construction couldn't restrict fish flow through the river would be March and I think it was March and July inclusive. I'm assuming it was March to July inclusive. I just wanted to check that the state proposal would be the construction. Any construction that involved those issues would have to take place in August or September. That would be the only one. Yes, March to July. Cool. And just in respect of the statements related to conservation officer's report, could you just let us update us on that? Is it that what we've received is in replacement of the verbal update mentioned in the report? So at the time of drafting the officer's report, the comments of the nature conservation officer hadn't been received, but those comments are provided in the amendment sheet which was published before this committee. So all comments are available and have been available in that document. The nature conservation officer does not have any objection to the scheme and is content with the proposals. Thank you. Sorry, just to confirm. But the comments from the nature conservation area offset other ones at the bottom of page 132 of the supplementary pack. Is that right? I've read JBA's comments in response to BCF and Bristol rivers and streams network. And in my opinion, these satisfy the questions raised. That's correct. That's the totality of the conservation area officers contribute. We're not waiting on anything else from the conservation officer. No. Okay. Anyone got any other questions or clarification that you'd like to move? Yep. Okay. Can anyone specify how much of Bedminster Green will be taken up with hard-standing fault or any other of this project? So I'm just not clear, really. How much of Bedminster Green would disappear or its natural green habitat would disappear under the scheme? So there would be no loss of open space according to the definition in the local plan. But green space is a slightly different thing, isn't it? So with the amphitheater, what is the proportion of the Bedminster Green that would take up? I can't give you the exact figures as to the permeable hard-standing that would be laid down. But overall, there is biodiversity net gain. Okay. Any other questions or clarifications? Yep. It looked to me on the plans like the amphitheater was planted. It's not a built brick amphitheater. So if I flick back to the slides, just... So primarily areas of planting, both within and around, the channel to enhance biodiversity and provide mitigation against flooding. There is the area of the path, and then obviously the amphitheater structure itself will require some construction. A bit of a replanter to be constructed and implanted, or is it a... That's what I understood up when I lived in the lands. So you can see here, in the image, significant planting and landscaping will occur. The only other one was there was a path through that. There was very well used while we were standing there. So the people can still walk through that path, through the path. Yeah, there is, yeah. So the path is retained on the top left. Okay. Any further questions? Yeah. Cast a bit more. Um, obviously we are going to be experiencing, as you said, the biodiversity net gain. But obviously there is going to be a transfer, essentially, of green spaces. How long is it going to take from the completion of the works for the biodiversity to return overall? Um, I don't have the answer to that. It's something that would be dealt with by a condition to ensure that it is achieved and maintained. Um, I'm sorry, I don't have the exact answer. Do you have any just off the cuff targets of what you would like to see? Um, so I think with the tree planting, that's normally expected to be within five years of the development starting. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions or points of clarification? Yep, quick ones for me. Yeah, I think we might move on. Um, are we, are you still awaiting a tree officer report or assessment? Is that what I picked up earlier? From Councillor Stone? No, no. Okay. Um, I think we're okay to move to a member debate now. So is there anything anyone wants to say about this application to start with? Yep, Councillor, I need to go for it. Be mercifully brief. This is supported by the bed and screen frame look. The counterplouting reduction measures are necessary, of course. Um, it will, in my view, enhance the conservation area and provide greater public access. So, um, frankly, your water's there not to like. Okay. Yep. Councilor is under go for it. Yeah, I mean, this development produces an increase in biodiversity net gain. I think that's something we should all applaud. And we need to remember the biodiversity doesn't just exist in trees or on things that are green. It also exists in rivers. And that's really important, perhaps lacking thing in Bristol, especially in what a river that has been coveted and invisible to most people going through a drain effectively. Thanks. Anyone else want to contribute? Yeah, Councillor Freeman, go for it. I just want to acknowledge, really, people's concerns about the trees that are being lost and having gone on the site visit today. You know, there is a whole area of trees that are going to go. I understand, you know, that there will be net gain. I think it's really helpful to understand the kind of timeframe that's happening. But I just really want to acknowledge the concern that there is around that and the passion that local residents have expressed in relation to that. I think so we can't ignore. Yeah, I just want to echo that and say that I think that the actually going and visiting was really important today to see what the situation was in, in Alabama's degree. And I think it is always difficult and paying decisions about this because clearly mature trees, we want to protect them as much as possible. It is really difficult in terms of just an emotional connection we all have with nature. And I think that's worth recognising. At the same time, I do think, just to add to what others have said, I do think overall on balance this does present a really good opportunity to, you know, free them out of go. It has an opportunity to kind of give people space to see the river in a way that they haven't perhaps in the past. I would suggest that in that context, it's useful as an application. I think that I would support it. So, yeah. Anyone else want to contribute to the rate? Just to say also, I care what you were saying, Councillor Veeam and Chair, about those trees having gone to the site today. And seeing some beautiful trees, it is heartbreaking to see them go. So, it's really, really, really difficult. It was site visit. It was very useful to see amendments to green in its context. And, yeah. So, it's a difficult decision because there are some beautiful trees there. Okay. Any further comments as part of the debate? Yep. Go for it, Councillor Holyday. I was just wondering if the officer could clarify. In terms of the biodiversity net gain, because, obviously, it's something that everyone has noted. This is something of significance here that should be given significant weight. It's something that the community has raised as well. In terms of the river units, as it were. That seems to be something that's inherent in the development. The loss of the trees, on the other hand, taken in isolation, I suppose. The biodiversity net gain, as it pertains to the trees, solely the developer's financial contribution to planting trees elsewhere. In other words, it's a loss of biodiversity. But the developer pays money for the council to plant trees elsewhere, and then it becomes a biodiversity net gain. That's correct, isn't it? Go on. Yeah. I mean, in essence, yeah, it's essentially providing mitigation for that loss on site. Yeah. If I may, then, just to reflect on that, I can see that the officer wants to come in as well. It's just to say, it's always a huge challenge in these committees, because very often this is the first time the public become aware that that is the council's policy and has been for some time, and will continue to be for some time. And as a result, I sometimes feel people attend these committee meetings expecting that that's something that this committee is empowered to override, rather than at the stage where the local plan was in development, being the point where it would have been possible for the council to go a different way. Yeah. Yeah. If you want to come in to me. Sorry. Just to say, clearly, the regulations are about biodiversity net gain were intended that to enable offside provision, because there are sometimes situations where it's simply not possible to solve things purely on site. Also, we wanted to come back briefly on a question earlier where we didn't have the information to hand quickly enough around how long it takes to, that we actually have the information, how long it takes for things to be established again. And that's in the metric, but, Sarah, did you want to add? So, yeah. Within the metric, it gives a handy kind of column against each of the habitat created or enhanced to say how long it expects it to take to reach target condition and target habitat type. So, it looks like it's about six years for all of it to be created according to the metric. Sorry, that is on site for the trees you're correct. It will take longer for trees to measure. Okay. Okay. We've just a reminder that, you know, this is the committee's meeting. Okay. So, it can't support me. Yeah. I'm 99.9% sure the answer is question is going to be no, but I thought it was worth asking. In any case, there's no possibility of making the delivery of that offsite provision that tilts the balance of the biodiversity net gain back of pre-commencement condition is there, as in they wouldn't be able to start the work on both site until that offsite mitigations happened. No, that wouldn't meet the tests or the condition. Yeah, afraid so. Okay. Any other comments in the member debate? Okay. I think I will then move the motion in accordance with the recommendation of the officers in their report to approve this. Can I see all those in favour? Oh, sorry. Any a seconder? I apologise. I've got a seconder. I'll have to ask that Eddie. All those in favour, please show. All those against? Thank you very much. That does carry. I think the only thing left to say is when the next committee will meet 6pm on 24th of July 2024. Thanks, everyone. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.