Planning Committee transcript, 2 Sep 2026

Edited Transcript of YouTube video of Bristol City Council Planning Committee B on 2 September 2026: Planning application 26/11841/F for change of use of former St Joseph’s care home at Cotham Hill, Bristol, to student accommodation.

Notes:

1.     This is the YouTube transcript, edited by Andrew Waller, The Noise Pages (www.thenoisepages.com). I have removed unnecessary timestamps and “ums”, “ers” and other verbal tics, including duplicated words and phrases, and used ellipses (...) for significant deletions or where the speaker’s continuity broke down. Anything inserted for clarity is within square brackets. Reasonable care has been taken to ensure accuracy.

2.     If you make use of this text and wish to quote any individual, please check the relevant section of the transcript against the original video. The responsibility for accuracy is yours. Timestamps are included to help you.

3.     The meeting was chaired by Councillor Don Alexander, supported by a member of the council’s Democratic Services section, identified as Officer (DS). Two planning officers made presentations and answered questions.

------------------

0:00

Chair:  ... if you're watching us online. If you've not been before, we have toilets out the door and on the left and on the right. We're not expecting a fire alarm test, so if the alarm does go off, it's for real. Please exit by the main doors through which you came in. Turn right and head down to the paved area in front of the cathedral, which is the assembly point. Thank you.

Chair: Apologies for absence. We have some apologies and substitutions. Allison, would you like to begin?

0:36

Officer (DS): Yes, chair. We have apologies from Councillor Udin, with Councillor Eddy substituting; Councillor Poultney, with Councillor Stone substituting; Councillor Makawi, with Councillor Tshabalala substituting; and Councillor Calscione with Councillor Bartle substituting.

Chair: Okay, thank you. Anybody, any other substitutions? Apologies?

No. Right. Thank you.

Chair: Declarations of interest. Do members who are sitting on the committee have any declarations of interest, please?

No. Thank you. Minutes of the previous meeting.

1:15

Chair: I haven't been informed of any amendments proposed. So, can I have a seconder, please, to sign them? Councillor Eddy. Thank you. So I will sign those unless there are any objections. Happy with that? Right. Okay. Thank you very much. Action sheet.

Chair: We don't have anything on the action sheet.

1:41

Chair: There is a report on the appeals currently in progress. If you've read that, I don't think there's anything that officers particularly wish to highlight, but if you have any questions on appeals, you are very welcome. Councillor Eddy.

Eddy: Thanks chairman. Item 33 page 17 the property in Frome Vale. I'm used to actually split decisions but here we have a dismissal but actually the costs split could either the officer advise us here why or perhaps just email us later.

2:21

Officer (Cook):  Thank you, councillor. Yes, as you say, the the appeal itself was dismissed, but there was a partial award of costs on technical issues, but I can drop you a line later and just explain what they were.

Chair: Thank you. Any further comments on appeals questions? Okay, thank you.

Chair: Enforcement report. Any questions for officers on that?

Nope. That's great. Thank you. So we move to public forum on the one item we have on the agenda today.

3:01

Chair: And first of all we have questions. [To public gallery ...] There are some microphones now installed up there which I think will pick up your voice as you from wherever you are. We hope. And the first name I have for questions is Mr. Charles Draper. Oh, sorry. You're not attending, Mr. Charles Draper.

Nope. Councillor Poultney. Councillor Poultney is here. Your question, please. Supplementary.

You may start with your question and then we'll follow up with those. Yes.

3:39

Poultney: Great. So, first supplementary.

The council seems to accept that the additional late-night noise, the additional social behaviour and litter issues that the area is already experiencing exist and seems to then make the cognitive leap so that an additional 126 units will somehow either make it better or have no impact.

What I want to ask is if in terms of our own policies, I'm thinking particularly of section 4.4 of the HMO SPD, if this doesn't constitute unacceptable harm being experienced, what would? How would evidence be presented? What would residents have to present for the council to accept that there is an over-concentration causing harm?

4:36

Officer (Cook): Thank you, Councillor Poultney. As explained in the answer to the original question the HMO SPD doesn't apply in this case.

We're not dealing with an application for an HMO. The issue is essentially whether the new development causes harm. And the fact that there is a concentration of students in the area at the moment and there is some degree of harm does not necessarily mean that a new development will result in that additional harm. So ... the impact has to be directly related to the new development. That is what we are assessing.

5:28

Chair: You have one more supplementary.

Poultney: Thank you. Just on a quick point of clarity though, the HMO document does specifically state that the problems can be caused by PBSA and HMOs together. I'm not suggesting you apply the policy to this case. I'm saying that the council has evidenced it. (Chair: That's your supplementary ...)  [The] question is just for clarity, the council seems to rely in asking the committee to assess the benefit of this scheme on a government document that says that PBSA may help alleviate pressure on the private rental sector through students going to PBSA instead of HMOs. But “may” is the operative. Given that PBSA is mostly occupied by first years and that the university has said categorically that one of the principal constraints on their expansion is the lack of PBSA in the city, does the council accept that the net effect of 126 additional PBSA spaces for first year students that become second years, third years and postgrads may be net negative as in it may draw in additional students for one year who will need to live in private rental accommodation for years two and three and beyond. Does the council simply accept that the consequence might be net negative for housing benefit?

6:52

Officer (Cook): So firstly that is not the only benefit that has been highlighted. There are a number of benefits in the report in terms of bringing this building into use. In terms of your question I suppose on the macro level the position is that there are more students in the city than student beds. And that is the case at the moment. The figures are quoted in the report and the provision of PBSA, purpose-built student student accommodation, will relieve some of that pressure on the existing HMO stock. Whether or not that has an impact in terms of the university's policy -- terms of their intake -- is another matter entirely and that's outside of the council's control.

7:54

Chair: Thank you. Mr. Anthony Draper is observing. So we move now to statements.

Officer (DS): He just said he was attending to observe, but of course he can ask you to supplement.

Chair: Okay. Sorry. We were told that you were attending to observe only. Would you would like to ask a question?

Anthony Draper: If I may. Chair: You may, you may. It's not what I have on my paper but certainly.

8:28

Anthony Draper: Thanks. How do you gauge at what point density becomes harmful?

Residents with direct personal experience know that this will be harmful because we experience living with it every single day.

What methods have you used to arrive at your conclusion that it will not be harmful?

8:58

Officer (Cook): So as set out in the answer to Councillor Poultney’s question, what we're being asked to assess is whether the new accommodation will cause additional harm. And in doing that we have sought the advice of other professionals within the council, including our pollution control officers and our highway officers, who have confirmed that they do not believe that the additional student accommodation will result in harm. We've also reviewed the evidence submitted by the applicant. And I think key to this is the clear offer from the applicant of a premises management plan which will be the mechanism that the council can use to hold them to what they're promising in terms of the level of additional harm.

10:10

Anthony Draper: [Inaudible] ... already too high as experienced by residents every term day and the management plan has not been published so we don't know what it is or how it's going to work.

10:25

Chair: That's your second supplementary, Mr. Draper.

Anthony Draper: No, that's just an observation.

Chair: Okay. Well, then move to your second supplementary, please.

10:36

Anthony Draper: Okay, you say there is no evidence this will have an adverse impact on antisocial behavior, but we're not aware of any outside noise assessment having been conducted. We're particularly concerned about noise from the gardens, particularly impacting residents who live very very close by in Hillside. The proposal cites that there's a high wall around it, but this offers no protection at all from garden noise for those nearby residents.

So, how do you judge that this is not going to cause a problem?

11:22

Officer (Cook): So again we've sought the advice of our pollution control team. Broadly speaking, their advice is that there is no sort of report that can be done which would, in effect, demonstrate what the level of noise would be from an external area. It depends entirely on how that area is used. It might be, you know, it might be that it's used for external parties constantly or it might be it's hardly ever used at all. And hence their advice on that is that the only meaningful way of controlling that is through the premises management plan.

12:10

Chair: Right, we move now to statements. Councillor Poultney.

12:17

Poultney: Thank you chair. The application should be refused. We've just heard that the council can't demonstrate through its own reports anything that would evidence what the residents know exists, what I know exists, what anyone who lives in this area or who has visited it for a moment can immediately appreciate. The area is overconcentrated. There are too many students. The community has become unbalanced. This is not an anti- student point. I get as many complaints from students about these issues as I do from the other residents.

The problem is a cumulative one. That hasn't been assessed by the professional colleagues, but nonetheless, it remains an essential part of our planning policy under DM2.

Residential amenity should be protected. The council has received 162 objections. Avon & Somerset [Police] have acknowledged this is a problem. The university pays for additional police because this is a problem and additional bin collections over the summer because this is such a problem. The only people who don't see the problem are the people who've composed this report. And respectfully, the idea that 126 additional bed spaces, massively increasing the concentration further, is going to make the problem magically better is fanciful. (Chair: Thank you.) It should be refused.

Chair: Your minute is up. Thank you, councillor Poultney. Councillor Ralston.

13:36

Ralston: Let's be clear. Cotham Hill residents are not anti-student. They're not anti-development. In fact, housing for families or the elderly would have been welcome on this site. They simply want to live in a balanced community not dominated by student accommodation. The adopted local plans policy DM2 says that specialist student accommodation won't be permitted if it would create or contribute to a harmful concentration within a locality because of exacerbating existing harmful conditions or reducing the choice of homes. Student numbers are already substantially higher in Cotham Hill than Bristol wide averages. Over 43% of the population are full-time students. Residents already experience significant harms from existing student accommodation including excessive noise.

So the harmful concentration already exists and adding a further 126 bed PBSA will exacerbate it and harmful conditions further. Policy H7 of the emerging local plan sets out locations where PBSA should be directed.

Unsurprisingly, Cotham Hill isn't one of them. As the high number of objections makes plain, this proposal is the wrong use in the wrong place. Any benefits of PBSA are purely speculative [but] existing harms are evidenced by local people. I urge members to listen to them, adhere to our own policies, and refuse this application. Thank you.

14:59

Chair: Thank you. Mr. Anthony Draper.

Anthony Draper: [Inaudible] ... resident of Cotham for 36 years. I am objecting on behalf of many who can't attend today. We know this proposal will have an adverse impact on our community and quality of life, supported by facts in the numerous objections by people who actually live here. We're not anti- studentent, simply wishing for balance in what data shows is an already unbalanced community. This opportunistic development breaches national and local plans on acceptable density of student housing. We're already far beyond levels designed to protect communities. There's no evidence that PBSA releases family HMOs for family housing. High levels of harmful student related antisocial behavior, especially noise, are well documented. More students equals more noise. The proposal states convenience to the universities. Others have equal and more valid needs for convenient access to services. Do the right thing, not the easy thing. And based on information from the people who know, refuse this application to preserve a balanced community. Thank you.

16:13

Chair: Thank you, Mr. Draper. Lee Menzies-Pearson, please.

Not here. Uh, Edaban Deu, sorry if I pronounced that wrong, Ed.

16:28

Khodabandehloo: Dear counselors, as a southwest-based developer, Harringay Real Estate are delighted to bring this application to committee. When we purchased the vacant St. Joseph's care home following its closure in late 2025, it became clear it’s ideal for student accommodation, occupying an exceptionally sustainable location, a short walk from Bristol University's main Clifton campus. We understand the concerns expressed by some local residents about the impact of students. However, the reality is that students will always want to live near campus and it is indeed sustainable and sensible for them to do so. Despite the proximity to the Clifton campus, there are currently no other PBSA schemes in the LSOA and there is only one other small PBSA scheme of 59 beds in the entire Clifton Down ward. This underlies the fact that most concerns being raised by residents must relate to unmanaged HMOs. 

Our proposals for St. Joseph's represent part of the solution, moving students away from the unmanaged sector into a managed controlled and [inaudible] ... (Chair: Please bring your comments to a close.) ... contained environment. We hope that you will agree with your officers’ recommendation to approve this application.

Chair: Thank you. Thomas Eddington, please.

17:44

Eddington: Good evening. I'm Tom Eddington speaking from Angus Meek Architects in support of the application. The St. Joseph site is exceptionally well suited to the proposed use given the proximity to the university. It provides a secure and self-contained setting and superb outdoor amenity. Access is achieved via a semi-private area utilizing the existing site entrance for deliveries, drop off, pickup, and site servicing off the public highway. A new secondary gate then gives residents resident-only access to the retained private gardens at the rear of the building. The existing building platform can be easily adapted, requiring little structural intervention and changes to the facades. This allows the building's character to be retained, whilst preserving the flexibility for future uses. The proposal achieves high-quality internal spaces through the reuse of large windows for daylighting, generous bedroom areas, and a high provision and distribution of communal spaces -- notably, a unique opportunity to preserve and celebrate the chapel's vaulted ceilings, creating a visually striking social space. This is an excellent opportunity to sensitively reuse [inaudible] ... (Chair: Please bring your comments to conclusion) ... to deliver high-quality purpose-built student accommodation. Thank you.

Chair: Thank you. Dan Yeates.

19:01

Yeates: Good evening, counselors. The scheme before you secures a suitable long-term reuse of a currently vacant historic building, ideally located adjacent to the university campus and faculty buildings. The proposal is policy compliant and has undergone all amendments requested by officers throughout the planning process. The proposal responds to an acknowledged housing and student need and would provide the only purpose-built student scheme in the immediate census area.

The proposal does not in itself increase student numbers. It rather provides secure managed accommodation for a student population that does not go away in the event of refusing this application. The concerns most often associated with student housing, noise, refuse, parking, etc. are characterized by HMOs, not purpose-built student schemes.

The scheme would be secure, professionally managed, and parking would be limited to staff and blue badge holders. Your officers conclude that there are no harmful impacts nor overconcentration issues caused by this proposal. And I respectfully ask that you support your officers’ carefully considered recommendation. Thank you.

20:07

Chair: Thank you. Simon Margatts and Emily Wolfe. And I believe Councillor Poultney is going to deliver their statement.

20:15

Poultney, for Margatts/Wolfe: Thank you. Yes, Simon and Emily send their apologies. Just for clarity on the issue that I was speaking to earlier, section 4.4 of the adopted HMO SPD says other forms of shared housing, specifically purpose-built student accommodation, can result in negative impacts when concentrated. These can include noise and disturbance caused by increased levels of activity surrounding such developments. In other words, the kind of things that can't be dealt with by a management plan. Emily and Simon have lived in this area for over 40 years. They have seen it change as the council completely lost control of the number of HMOs, setting a threshold of 10% as the point where things become harmful, where you start to experience impact as written in the council's own adopted policy.

What we have here is an area that's at 40%. And a proposal to take it up beyond 60%.

The harms that the council acknowledges will be experienced if you do this are present now. (Chair: You have 10 seconds left) ...[inaudible] choice between making it worse or not. And you have to weigh that against a housing scheme that will provide not a single social unit, that will provide not a single affordable unit [Chair intervention] but which may well cook further the massively overcooked [inaudible] [Chair intervention].

21:30S

Chair: You've come to the end of your time I'm afraid. Thank you very much. Okay, we now move to the officer presentation. Dhruv, thank you.

(Presentation: 26/11841/F - St Josephs 66 Cotham Hill Bristol BS6 6JT)

21:39

Officer (Dhruv): Yeah, thank you chair. Good evening to members of public and and committee members. The case in front of us seeks permission for conversion of St. Joseph's care home at Cotham Hill into a purpose-built student accommodation providing 126 bed spaces through refurbishment and reuse of the existing historic building. The recommendation before members is one for approval subject to conditions and highway works.

22:08

I'll begin briefly by introducing the site to members. The site is located within Clifton Down ward on Cotham Hill.

It sits immediately adjacent to the University of Bristol precinct and is within walking distance to Clifton Down Railway Station, Whiteladies Road Town Centre and the Bristol City Centre. The site is therefore considered to be a highly sustainable location with excellent access to services and public transport.

To better understand the context, the diagram here highlights the University of Bristol building and other student accommodation in orange as you could see here and the site marked in red to St. Joseph's over here. This relationship forms an important part of the assessment in regarding the suitability of the site for student accommodation.

22:55

Officer (Dhruv): In terms of the existing site, the site comprises of the former care home and a chapel complex and has been vacant since summer 2025.

It is noted that the site is within Whiteladies Road conservation area and benefits from extensive landscape grounds and represents an important historic building.

In terms of the proposal, as already mentioned, the application seeks conversion for 126 student bed spaces. The existing building landscape settings are to be retained.

The scheme also introduces cycle, refuse and recycling facilities, staff parking and staff parking facilities and sustainability upgrades including low-carbon heating technologies and fabric improvements.

23:39

Officer (Dhruv): Following discussions with officers during the determination period, a number of amendments were secured through this period.

Firstly, the number of bed spaces was reduced from 132 to 126.

In doing so, additional communal spaces were secured for residents. Daylight performance was improved, servicing arrangements were improved and a package of highway mitigation works was secured in principle.

To briefly show the proposal, on the screen now we have the site layout. The site basically consists of two buildings: Building A, which is the main building over here, which could be seen from Cotham Hill, which also includes the former chapel towards the rear, and Building B, which was an existing staff and laundry building.

Both the buildings are to be converted into student accommodation. As you could see these buildings would be retained and the existing garden areas and all the green infrastructure would also be retained. In terms of access to the site, it would be accessed via Cotham Hill, which is an existing access to the site and would be the only access into the property. It would have a dedicated pedestrian entrance and a dedicated vehicular entrance for servicing. During the amendment process, we also secured an internal security gate to provide a better private and public differentiation between private and public spaces within the site. Doing that we could secure a better servicing layout and improve the security arrangement and flow within the site.

25:19

Officer (Dhruv): I'll quickly run through the floor plans which have come through. In terms of the proposed ground floor plans, the main entrance to the building would be from over here, which would be welcome via reception and post and admin services.

As you could see the rooms highlighted in green are studio accommodations and the rooms highlighted in pink are cluster accommodations.

Throughout the building there is a mix of studios and cluster accommodations. There's going to be 99 studio accommodations and 27 cluster units. The cluster units will have their own communal kitchen and living spaces.

Beyond that there are also common spaces proposed across the building.

26:06

Officer (Dhruv): A key concern during the assessment process was regarding the lower ground flow. During the assessment we found out that there were many rooms who did not have enough amount of daylight. Which via amendments we secured we got those rooms to be removed. As you could see, rooms over here were quite disadvantaged which were removed around the amendment process and those rooms are proposed to be common rooms for students which would facilitate laundry spaces, study spaces, cinema room and also a gym.

Beyond that on the very first floor the existing chapel is going to be is going to be converted into a big a common room. A representative visual has been provided which can be seen up here.

Beyond the common rooms which we could see in the plans, the external amenity space the existing gardens would also be retained and would be used as external amenity space which would be an added advantage for future occupants.

27:16

Officer (Dhruv): Turning now to consultation responses.

The application generated significant public interest through two rounds of public consultation. A total of 165 representations were received including 162 objections and three letters of support. The principal concerns raised throughout the consultation was regarding student concentration in the area, community balance, loss of the care home, highway safety, residential amenity, noise and disturbance.

Officer would also like to note that following the publication of the officer report, additional objections and further detailed representation from ward members were received. These have also been reviewed and reported within the committee amendment sheet. Officers concluded that the new objections did not introduce any new material planning consideration. They were repeated ... they express the same concerns as was expressed previously.

28:09

Officer (Dhruv): In terms of ward member concerns, objections were received from Councillor Ralston and Councillor Poultney which reflected similar objections as we could see in public objections, which talked about student concentration – again, HMO concentration, community balance, existing high level of noise and student activity in the area, residential amenity, highway safety and conflicts with emerging policy.

In terms of our internal consulties, the application was consulted to urban design, transport, sustainability, tree officers, pollution control officers. As you could see on the screen, no objections were received from any technical consultants subject to conditions and securing works.

28:52

Officer (Dhruv): Turning now to the principal issues which have come across, I'll try to focus on the matters which have been raised through the consultation and ward members.

First, the principal issue that relates to student concentration and which has come through multiple consultation -- through both the consultation rounds -- was regarding student concentration.

29:12

This was a principal concern.

Officers note that the site is adjacent to [the] university precinct and constitutes a mix of residential, educational, and institutional and commercial facilities in the area, which is considered to be a mixed-use area.

The area contains a high proportion of student population already, where approximately 43.5% residents are full-time students. Additionally, there are 196 existing and consented purpose-built student accommodation bed spaces within 200 metres of the site, which you could see is exactly opposite the application site, highlighted in green on the screen on the map here. To put it in context, the PBSA density within 200 m is 15.6 beds per hectare, compared to city center PBSA density which is 40 beds per hectare. The site sits right at the edge of the city centre.

30:09

In terms of policy for student concentration, we have assessed it against our adopted policy DM2 and policy HO9 of the new NPPF, which was published on 17th August.

30:23

Officer (Dhruv): Taking consideration of both the policies, officers have concluded that it complies with HO9 of NPPF which has a great weight to be given to the application. The character and the function of the area which is a mixed-use area would remain unchanged and unaffected with this development and no harm as identified under policy DM2 has been noted, which is detailed in the officer report.

There are two more concerns which are crucial to the application, regarding residential amenity and highway safety. As already raised in the public forum, objections were raised regarding noise disturbances from proposed common room and outdoor amenity areas and existing student behavior in the wider area. In terms of the assessment, we were given a noise impact assessment regarding noise produced from within the site which has been reviewed by pollution control officer and no objections have been raised, which has attracted a great weight in our assessment.

Furthermore, restrictions on plant and equipment on the site and a premises management plan could be secured, which would further provide weight to the application.

31:36

Officer (Dhruv): In terms of highway safety, which is also of key concern for this application, we were concerned and also objections were raised regarding the narrow pavement along Cotham Hill, pedestrian safety, servicing and deliveries, and student arrival and departures. All of these issues have been carefully considered by our transport development management team and no objections have been raised, subject to securing section 278 works which would involve securing pedestrian improvement works, new crossing facilities, junction improvements and loading restrictions.

To provide a visual image for that ... A tentative plan showing all these works has been provided to us, which would be, as you could see, a continuous footway would be done in front of the main access. Other pavement improvement works would be done on the opposite side, on Woodland Road junction.

32:30

Officer (Dhruv): Overall, in terms of planning balance and recommendation, officers have given a substantial weight to delivery of 126 student bed spaces, reuse of the substantial vacant historic building, conservation and long-term retention of the existing historic building, sustainability and low-carbon heating and climate resilience improvements, a highly sustainable location of the site for student accommodation, improved management of student accommodation through a purpose-built and professionally managed scheme. We also do acknowledge and have given a limited amount of weight to the loss of the former care home and additional student bed spaces and increase in student population in this area. But then again, the two disbenefits are outweighed by the substantial benefits given in the application. Thank you.

33:21

Chair: Thank you very much, Dhruv. Do we have any questions? Councillor Eddy's hand was well up first there. Councillor Eddy, you're first.

33:29

Eddy: Dhruv, I've got two questions. We heard quite a lot of concern in public forum and also we read in the public's responses which seem to suggest a conflation of the PBSA and the HMO local figures. Now and they certainly there was the allegation that that was above the threshold in national or local policy. Now my reading of that, it doesn't reflect that, but can you clarify or perhaps yourself or Lewis Cook whether in fact for transparency reasons we have a conflict there or not?

34:23

Officer (Dhruv): Thank you, Councillor Eddy.

To begin with, an HMO and a PBSA are materially different considerations in planning terms and we need to assess them a bit in a different way. We acknowledge that the HMO SPD also mentions about student accommodations and they could lead to harmful impacts. But then again for us the principal assessment has to be against our adopted policy of DM2 and ... there are four criterias which we had to assess against, and assessing those four criterias, which includes noise and disturbance from the site itself, impacts on highway safety, cycle and refuse storage, and character of the area, which is mainly regarding physical alterations, and also we need to look at housing loss of any housing balance and none of this were kind of impacted in this assessment with this application, which was a primary area of assessment for this application.

In terms of HMO concentration as well, we did look at the HMO numbers in the area as well. I'd like to quickly bring that up on the screen as well, to make it a bit more helpful in terms of HMOs as well. While we are not supposed to consider HMO numbers to assess purpose-built student accommodations, there are only four licensed HMOs within 100 meters of the site, which represents approximately 5.26% of the housing stock. The map on the screen shows the existing ...

Eddy: Chairman, could I just remind the public gallery that however much they may disagree with what the officer is saying, he's doing so professionally and we need to hear what he says.

36:26

Chair: Thank you.

Comment from public gallery: How do we object to incorrect information?

36:32

Chair: You cannot because you have to listen [inaudible] ... absolutely, that's the way this works. Thank you very much. Dhruv. (To public) Please be quiet.

Officer (Dhruv): The map as you could see up on the screen right now is based on the latest monitoring data -- the HMO monitoring data -- as you could see, that's the site over there and within 100 meters would be around somewhere on ... that's the site. As you can see, the site itself is quite big. So within 100 meters we just have four licensed properties.

In addition to that I also looked at the number of HMOs in the ward itself and we have 491 licensed HMOs in the ward, which represents approximately 8.71% of residential properties. Neither of the proportions present on this moment reflected a harmful concentration in terms of numbers for HMOs. Keeping this aside for purpose-built student accommodations, we at this moment we do not have any numerical caps in terms of that could determine a harmful concentration in terms of number. So the the only thing we could assess against was the impacts in terms of noise from the site, highway safety issues and other things but not the numbers.

37:51

Chair: Thank you. Okay, [Councillor Eddy], then it's over to [Councillor Stone].

37:57

Eddy: Whilst I appreciate that the attitude of the planning inspectorate is not a material planning consideration, obviously it's a factor for members and in your professional view if this committee were minded to actually oppose this or refuse this application, do you have a professional view about the likely response of the inspectorate?

38:29

Officer (Cook): If I can answer that councillor, I mean the planning inspectorate will consider the application on the same basis as the officers have considered it. They will consider the evidence that's put in front of them and they will take a view on it. Whilst we could never guarantee what that decision will be, our professional recommendation is made on the basis of an assessment in the same way as an inspector will assess it. So our view will always be that that's the most likely result at any appeal.

39:06

Chair: Thank you. Councillor Stone.Stone: I just want some clarification. I've just checked the policy H09 on the NPPF and it talks about accessibility. So is that correct? Is that what you're referring to? Can you just explain that very briefly?

Officer (Dhruv): Yeah. Like what in terms of H09? What would you like to know? Can you please expand your question? Sorry.

Stone: Well, in your presentation it says the policy H09 of the NPPF. They're the key policies. It complies with policy H09 of the NPPF. I just want to make sure you're referring to accessibility. Is that correct?

Officer (Dhruv): Yes. So there are three things in H09 itself which is regarding accessibility but location of the site. And I quickly bring that up as well.

So yeah, there are three criterias for H09. Which includes location of the site, access to frequently used services, providing adequate living and storage spaces for future residents and being supported by a management plan.

Stone: Does that also go into, like, M4 and M4.3 accessibility, as in will accessibility etc. ... because I see accessibility as that type of accessibility. It says it's compliant. Is it compliant to those type of accessibility like M4 and M4.3?

40:40

Officer (Cook):  The NPPF refers to accessibility in terms of location in respect of this particular policy. It doesn't specifically refer to accessibility as an inequalities issue.

Stone: And does the plan of design actually, you know, provide accessibility from an inequalities issue like M4 and M4.3?

Officer (Dhruv): So at this moment I need to look at the numbers again but all the floors are being provided with accessible rooms with compliant sizes. But again that would be for Building Regulations to check if it complies with M3 or M4 or not. But at this stage, in what is in front of us, there are accessible rooms provided on all the floors, there's enough lift services which have been provided at this moment. And as we could see it in planning terms, the things have been provided.

Stone: What I'm trying to say is that your report isn't technically incorrect because it isn't doesn't actually comply to the accessibility arrangements under those circumstances. That's all.

Chair: No, I think your definition of accessibility is not a planning one.

Stone: But the planning policy does say H09 is accessible where disability is concerned. That's what you're referring to. That's the policy. I've just looked it up and that's what it says. Just want to make sure that's on there.

Chair: Okay. Well, obviously this has been an elderly care home for many years, so one would expect that there'll be a level of accessibility in your terms there. Yeah.

Chair: Thank you. Well, I'm sure Dhruv will take a look at that. Councillor Bartle. [Brief exchange with councillor.]

42:21

Bartle: So I have two questions. The first one: so emerging policy H7 has been given low weight. And I felt, like, on the basis of that policy it would be reasonable to reject this on the basis of density, given the already approved student accommodation that's going to be built in the area just over the road. But you've said that we shouldn't put too much weight on this on the basis that it's possibly in conflict with the NPPF. So, I wanted to clarify what those conflicts are and whether we think that it's quite likely that that policy will have to be removed or adjusted in our final submissions because it's, yeah, I don't think it's been in our previous versions, but I know that there's new NPPF.

43:30

Officer (Cook): So, yeah, we're in quite a difficult position with the publication of the new NPPF. And as you'll appreciate, I think of two weeks and two days ago or something that's been published. We've got an emerging local plan which has been through the proposed modifications process and is currently with the planning inspectorate. So we're waiting for comments back from the planning inspectorate on that policy, amongst others. So the NPPF, the wording is very similar. But basically the NPPF says we can give weight to emerging policies if they are uncontentious --  we give more weight to emerging policies if they are uncontentious and they comply with the NPPF. This policy was contentious, is still contentious. And the issue of compliance with the NPPF is -- so when the NPPF was consulted on and particularly on policy HO9, ourselves, amongst a number of local authorities, have said to the government that we feel that concentration should be part of policy HO9 and as you know that's part of emerging policy H7.

Now, the government in their wisdom have expressly not included that within the policies in the NPPF. So the government's view on that, we are presuming, is essentially that concentration is not amongst the most significant issues that we should be considering when considering student accommodation. And that's why we've given the policy relatively limited weight because of that potential conflict there.

45:27

Bartle: Thank you. That's quite helpful. Okay. And I suppose, maybe, well okay -- my other question is, kind of it's already been asked, but I'm still not comfortable I have a strong sense what would a harmful cumulative impact of students look like, if not this.46:15

Officer (Cook):  It is always difficult to answer those sort of questions on a speculative basis. There are in the policies, both in the NPPF and in our current adopted policy, specific issues that it asks us to have a look at. And essentially that's what we've done. We've reviewed those specific issues and found that there are no evidence before us that would justify refusal on those specific issues. We haven't got -- as Dhruv said earlier -- we haven't got a numerical cap. And I think it would be fair to say that it would be unreasonable for the committee to decide now that of some kind of numerical cap because that would have to be tested as a policy. So we are assessing the impact. And having assessed the impact against the specific issues that are raised through the policy, we don't feel that a refusal is justified. That's on the basis of the evidence we have. So it's almost impossible to say at what point that will change. But it will be about evidence of harm, essentially.

47:33

Chair: Also, HMOs are not necessarily student accommodation.

47:38

Bartle: Yeah, but the officer did say 43% of this area is already students. Is that not true?

47:48

Chair: Well, it is right next to the university, so that's in one way not surprising. But the fact that you've got HMOs doesn't mean that those are students in there. They may be young people. They may be individuals who can't buy a house ...

Bartle: I wasn’t talking about HMOs.

Chair: Yeah. But in a sense as a local planning authority, you can't set in stone that somebody can't live here because they are a student and they are studying. It has to be someone who's not studying. You know, one's looking at land use. [Inaudible comment from public benches.] Well, I'm afraid that's what it's coming across as on occasions. I think we have, Councillor Durston, I think, next.

48:29

Durston: Thank you. It's a question around the loss of the care home accommodation.

So we know that there is a real need for accommodation for older people and specialist housing in Bristol and that is acknowledged in the report and you referenced reasons why it would not be viable for this site to continue as a care home. It also talks about how it's a non-designated heritage asset. Can you talk to that a bit and how that limits or doesn't limit – like, what are the implications of it being a non-designated heritage asset in terms of uses for that site? Are there other uses that could be ... I recognize this isn't a material planning consideration ... but are there other potential uses for this site, say another type of housing?

49:33

Officer (Dhruv): It will be difficult for us to confirm if any alternative uses are possible or not. That would be like an assumption. So I can't give you, like, a very concrete answer whether something else could be done or not. In terms of what has been presented to us, we did ask for a thorough reasoning and justification for why this care home could not continue. To give a bit of more context, the care home was run by a charity which could not continue running the care home. They were having a substantial ... they needed to bring it to modern care standards and bring it to fire regulation standards. So they had to leave because the cost was substantial. In terms of viability, the applicants did -- I mean, it's kind of, there are two bits which you mentioned: It's a non-heritage asset -- in terms of non-heritage assets, it does not enjoy the same benefits as a listed building or any other designated heritage asset but still it it is an important architectural piece and historic piece for that area. So, the external massing is very important. It's crucial to maintain and we'll also try to maintain whichever important architecture elements exist in the building. So, it's kind of like a balanced view we need to take over there. So, when we look at the existing building there right now it already has like long corridors, rooms for care homes.

So, looking at the least impact on the building, the impact on the structure of the building, and looking at a viable solution, student accommodation has come in front of us as the most appropriate solution.

Again, I do understand it's difficult to answer that question, but then there are multiple things that we had to take into consideration and accept the evidence presented in front of us.

51:33

Chair: Councillor Dudd.

Dudd: Thank you. I think part of my question's been answered around the cumulative impact. But I do have a little supplementary on that. When you're considering that cumulative impact, is there a certain geography that you take into account? Is it citywide? Is it the super impact area or is it both?

Because, you know, a 43% concentration is, I would say that has kind of breached the cumulative impact, but probably that horse had bolted maybe five, six, seven, maybe 10 years ago anyway, so I just wondered could you answer that question around the geography of that test? Are we talking citywide or super output area, ward area or within a certain, you know, radius of the university, for example? How do we assess that?

52:35

Officer (Dhruv): I think there are two parts to the answer here ... we'll look at it in terms of the local area -- the impact it would have in terms of noise and disturbance from the site and other things which I already mentioned -- and the other part [of] this question would be regarding numbers. The difficulty would be that population would not define a harmful concentration completely. We'll have to look at what that building would do or ... in planning terms, basically, what that building would generate. Adding 126 students on this site -- so we'll have to look at how much noise they would generate from the site itself and not what they would do outside. It will be outside planning control. So, it is a bit difficult for us to give weight to that. So where we do acknowledge that the area has a considered [?considerable] amount of student population, but then really relating that population to harmful impact in terms of concentration is a bit difficult in planning terms.

53:46

Officer (Cook): I think just to add to what Dhruv said, I think in terms of the geography that we're looking at, we can assess it on a number of levels, and I think -- is that ward level, Dhruv, the 43%? So that is for Cotham Hill ward? Clifton Down ward, sorry. So, and there's also when we've looked at the HMO concentration within 100 metres of the site. Uh, most, all these figures, are these ward-based? Dhruv ...

54:28

Officer (Dhruv): Yeah, the figures that we see are ward based. But then again different assessments require different areas or boundaries. In terms of population wise, we have looked at the LSOA for Clifton Down ward. So those are the numbers up there. In terms of HMOs, we need to look at 100 metres from the site. But then again, they're all focusing on a local level area. We have provided the city-level figures to give like a comparison of how this compares to the wider city to just put it a bit more in context and for reference.

55:04

Dudd: Okay, thanks for that. And I've got one more question on the highway safety issues. Obviously, you've identified a particular site that's going to get some investment. Is it the junction of the top of Cotham Hill? And we know in the area there's a number of problem locations. St. Michael's Hill is an example of where the pavements are really narrow. You've got hundreds of students walking through that location every, you know, every 10 minutes or whatever the time frame you want to use. And often I go through there and I see people walking onto the road, vans coming past them. And I don't know what the kind of accident figures are for that particular area, but I know it's something that the council are aware of, that that requires some investment in that location. Clearly this scheme on its own isn't going to provide enough section 106 to deal with that problem. But then that plays into the cumulative impact. How are we ... mitigating the cumulative impact of student development in the city? When obviously this scheme alone is not going to generate enough funding to deal with some of those wider problems that this scheme is then adding to. So, how are we (a) making developers take responsibility for this, but also the university in terms of the investment that they're putting in to deal with some of these problems. And I know the St. Michael's Hill issue has been going on for years and years in terms of trying to get secure investment to get safety improvements for that area. And it just seems to go on year after year and there's there's no solution in sight. But ultimately it's the developers and the university's problem and they should be investing in these solutions. And what are we doing about it?

56:55

Chair: A planning application was approved many years ago for the university library which covered the roads around that area as well. I was on the committee for that. So, it may be something that Councillor Poultney would like to take up when he's on the university court, which he is. Any ... next one I saw was Councillor Tshabalala.

57:20

Tshabalala: Thank you. I just want to follow up on Lisa's question there and I've got two questions on that. So thanks for the presentation and for some of those questions that you've answered already. Now there's a strong narrative on the paper around the care home. You've just alluded there that you've done some sort of assessment to see if that care home would be viable or not. I'm interested in understanding how long has this site been unused for, first.

57:56

Officer (Dhruv): It's had been unused since summer of 2025.

58:00

Tshabalala: Okay. So, clearly the care home thing is not there. I don't understand why the narrative of the care home is so much emphasized when the care home in itself, in the current state of the building, is not there. It's like talking about spilled milk. It's gone. So can you just highlight why the narrative has been so strongly focused on the care home yet that's not really what it is and why would it not focus on the social housing focus because that is the need or something else? Like, can you just explain that please?

58:38

Officer (Dhruv): In terms of the existing use of the building, is a social care home. It's a residential institution.

58:44

Tshabalala: It’s not existing, ‘cause it's closed. You just said it closed ...Chair: In planning terms it is, and we're looking at a change of class designation. In planning, currently it is a care home -- that's the issue (Tshabalala: Current licence? Officer (Dhruv): yes. Tshabalala: okay) ...

Officer (Dhruv): So that's why the assessment started itself by looking at the loss of the care home. Bristol has an identified need of care homes and residential institutions, that's why it was a material consideration and it occupied quite a substantial -- it is part of the narrative because of that reason itself.

59:21

Tshabalala: Okay. All right. My first question .... [Brief procedural exchange with Chair.]

Thank you. So part of the harm that I haven't seen being addressed and is more in line with our own policy in terms of our place strategy, in terms of managed school placements because of different demographic changes in different catchment areas where you have schools. Now we have a 14% reduction in some of the schools -- that is about 700 fewer children -- and in that sense further changing a demographic of an area like Cotham and Redland where the schools have consistently been great. The schools' quality hasn't changed. The demographic is changing. Therefore, they don't have the same sufficiency and we find ourselves in a position where if these demographics continue to change and we're not necessarily making the provision for families, what we end up with is having to close schools down. All right, we've had some of these scenarios, but I don't see that as part of a harm here. I see that as a harm because that's a situation that's been happening in Hotwells, as an example, from the primary school there. Yeah. So it’s something -- how have you addressed that within this? Have you actually explored that ... because in everything that you've mentioned, you haven't mentioned the school?

1:00:53

Officer (Cook): I think the simple answer to that is that this planning application is not removing family housing. So there will be no reduction in family housing as a result of the application and therefore presumably no direct impacts on school numbers. So if there was a loss of family housing then that would be something we would consider. It isn't, by the way, covered by planning policy at the moment, but it could be a material consideration -- but because there's no loss of family housing, we haven't considered it in this case.

1:01:29

Tshabalala: I'll let you off on that one. Thank you for your answer. My last question is there's a quite a number of material considerations. And why is it that there's such a huge list of material considerations that are actually not resolved before this comes to committee and one of those is obviously the waste management plan. We know that in that catchment there's quite a large waste issue within students and that is also a burden in terms of council ‘cause student accommodation doesn't pay council tax. You know we've got a flurry of it. We've seen it now in the summer, but yet this thing is a planning consideration and there's quite a list of them. So, can you explain why we have so many conditions based on, if approved then you'll do X, Y, and Z, as opposed to doing all of those things first and then we've got much more meat on the bone. It just feels like there's some unanswered questions.

1:02:28

Officer (Cook): Again, I think the main sort of response to that is that there isn't an operator on board at the moment. ... So the applicant, if they get planning permission, will then engage with an operator who will do those things: the management plan, the refuse-management plan, those sort of things. And it is pretty standard that those things come after planning permission has been granted. It's not unusual for a development of this nature to have this level of conditionality, purely because or partly because the applicant won't want to or won't be able to get buyin from operators until there is a planning permission.

Tshabalala: Thank you.

1:03:20

Chair: And they would actually need to get that condition signed off. So any decision we made here would be conditional on them getting that signed off. So it's not that it's being ignored; as with all conditions, they have to be fulfilled before the permission that we give or not is valid.

Tshabalala: Thank you.

1:03:42

Chair: Councillor Stone and then Councillor Jemphrey and then I think I'm going to move to the ...

Stone: Just got a quick couple of questions, some clarification as well. It goes on from the idea of social housing and the heritage site that you were talking about. If you go over to Ashley Down, you'll find that there's a couple of buildings there that used to be ex-colleges that have turned into some really lovely designed family homes and apartments, which this could easily have been, there being put in place. Also, you know, students do turn into -- students do leave college ...

Chair: Do you have a question, Councillor Stone? The discussion of architecture may come later if you like but if you have a question for officers now.

1:04:25

Stone: Yes. So students do -- going back to what Councillor Tshabalala was explaining -- is that you know students do actually leave university and they go on to actually {inaudible] and often a lot of students do stay in Bristol. So you know although those family homes are not there now, you know, that contentious issue about, you know, school placements should have been and should be a consideration within this planning application. My question kind is also based on the fact that you chose a confirmation [?comparison]. Why did you choose the city-center purpose-built student accommodation densification at 40 beds per hectare when you were comparing it with, you know, the densification of this area? Why did you choose that? Why did you not choose somewhere else? Because I would see that as confirmation bias within your report. You're actually trying to show, you know, this is a lot less when actually other areas in the city ... So what was your reasoning for choosing the city center and comparing it to the area of Clifton Down?

1:05:25

Officer (Dhruv): The primary reason was the site sits at the edge of the city center boundary. So, if I could bring that map up for you ... as you could see on the screen at the moment, the purple line as you could see here is the city center boundary and that's the application site. So, it sits at the edge of that and in addition to that the university precinct, which also is part of the city center, is also at the edge of it. So those are the two main reasons why we compared it; we took that into consideration for this site.

1:06:03

Stone: Okay. So you could say that actually, you know, if you're so close to the city-center site which has got so much purpose-built student accommodation actually is highly densified as well. So you could argue that point. And the other point I wanted to ask: Did you discuss the antisocial behavior and that with [the] police because you told me in the report when you were reading out that you discussed it with pollution control and highways. Did you get the advice from Avon & Somerset Police?

1:06:30

Officer (Dhruv): No, we hadn't consulted them on this one.

1:06:43

Chair: Thank you, Councillor Jemphrey:

1:06:45

Jemphrey: Thank you. I've got two quick questions hopefully. One was that I noticed the public forum raised some concerns about the bat roost potential and that the ecological impact assessment says no further surveys required because potential roost features will not be affected but the submitted drawings show a lot of more roof lights and altered roof access. So I just wondered if you could clarify that apparent discrepancy.

1:07:11

Officer (Dhruv): We did confirm this with our nature conservation officers. The primary question in regarding that was, has there been enough amount of movement in the site since the site has been vacant? On confirming with the applicant and also while doing a site visit we could confirm that there has been, like, sufficient amount of movement within the site. It could be it has been via inspection by new buyers. So there has been, like, a constant movement in the site because of which nature conservation officers felt a bit more assured that there's limited chances of bats being on this site at the moment, and in terms of the new works that have been proposed the major works of the roof are mainly for roof lights. The potential for bats taking place would be, based on the advice I've received, under coves or in hidden areas that would be quite easily possible. The areas where the roof lights are going to come in are are existing rooms at the moment which I could confirm during the site visit. So to improve the light quality for that lights are going to be added. I visited the site; there were no roosts in those specific rooms. So those are the two main things which I would say we could combine those, bridge the gap then.

1:08:32

Jemphrey: Okay. Thank you. And my second question was about the noise impact assessment. So I note that noise impact assessment focused on the impact from the chapel common room, I believe, but residents are very sort of concerned about potential noise from the gardens, but there seems to have been no noise impact assessment around that. Can you clarify why?

1:08:53

Officer (Dhruv): Sorry. Can you repeat that question?

Jemphrey: So there's been no noise impact assessment on the likely noise coming from the gardens, from the outside area that the students will be able to access. And I wondered why there's been no noise impact assessment around that.

1:09:12

Officer (Cook): We did discuss this with the pollution control officer and as I mentioned earlier his view was that you can't really do a meaningful noise impact assessment on an external space because it depends entirely on how it's used. So in terms of managing that space his recommendation was that that should be picked up as part of the management plan and we could secure, for example, hours of use of that space and those sort of things to control the level of noise.

Officer (Dhruv): And to add to that, there is no mention of any events taking place in the communal garden spaces. So that again further limits the assessment areas for us.

Chair: And students are only there for half of the year. [Laughter from public benches.] So, sorry, discussion now. Would you like to -- Councillor Eddy.

Eddy: Chairman I believe you've had the privilege of a visit to St. Joseph’s though I suspect I'm the only member of this committee who's very familiar with it. Over the years I visited various friends who were residents there and I've perhaps more sadly attended a number of funerals in the chapel. Nevertheless, I believe I can approach it purely in terms of planning terms and it's in that way I will do so as I do every other planning issue. First of all can I respectfully remind colleagues the very first thing we learn basic members planning training is you are there to consider the application received against local [and] national planning rules; you are not there to invent or encourage other uses of course. I do think it's important we actually remind ourselves of that. I mean, for example, some people might fancy St Joseph’s Home as a huge vegan café, primarily, I guess, because I wouldn't be able to eat there, of course. But no, we are considering this application and this alone, of course.

1:11:56

As we've heard clearly, St. Joseph's home is an important locally listed asset. It's not listed in national terms, but it's a distinguished building. In my view, the scheme I've seen is the most sensitive and appropriate alternative use. It is not knocking down major things. It's maintaining and improving the landscaping. As we've heard from the case officer, the accommodation, there's more space than originally proposed. The lighting has improved. So there seems in my view a lot to commend it. Plus of course we've heard of the very necessary local highways improvements and I agree with Kye, clearly. We do need to look wider at that of course. So I'm impressed with that and I recognize that. As far as we are looking at purpose-built housing, student housing, not a grand HMO. We know and I've certainly heard here and elsewhere in licensing many issues with the problems created in neighbourhoods by HMOs but this is not one, but by having this manage specialist student provider accommodation will actually manage the problem far better. So I can't see a sudden explosion of nuisance or noise and that sort of thing locally at all. This is part of the solution, not part of the problem. So I'll be supporting this with all the relevant conditions. And by the way, Lewis was absolutely right, obviously, not only has a lead person, owner, manager not been selected yet, but also in the time we take to sign off the section 106 agreement, we can agree all these other conditions.

1:14:17

Chair: Thank you, Councillor Peat.

1:14:21

Peat: Thank you. Bristol Live reported just two days ago that record levels of new students will be coming to Bristol, exceeding last year's intake of 70,000.

Now, I'd love to go into lengthy rant about why this is happening but I fear that tangent would not be welcome. Students are not the enemy, though. We should be all mindful to ensure that the discourse today does not devolve into their demonization, nor should we dismiss their genuine needs for housing. But there are over 20,000 households waiting for housing in Bristol via home choice. And PBSA will not ease the weight for any of those waiting. Instead, it will increase the intake further for universities -- not to house current residents [or] students who are otherwise in desperate need of accommodation -- but to continue the pattern of developers proposing applications like this, often to just take advantage of the circumstances of first-year international students who are already forced to pay an extortionate amount to be here.

1:15:18

Bristol is one of the most unaffordable cities in the UK, more unaffordable than Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh, and London, the literal capitals of the countries we live in. The Independent recently reported that roughly 48% of wage slips go on rent with the average rent now costing above 1.8 thousand a month. Regarding this application, we must be very intentional about why, if we do, potentially refuse it. Rejecting it just because we don't like it will just lead to successful appeals, which would be a waste of already tight council funds. At face value, the only changes could be construed as just the addition of windows and the change over the average age demographic of residents. However, I find the concerns that the proposal conflicts with the Bristol local plan DM2, policy BCS18, and the emerging local policy plan H7 relating to student accommodation to be convincing enough and substantial enough to vote against this proposal. As someone who's currently drafting their own objection to a different local planning application, cumulative impact is something that is not taken seriously enough. Just because there is a high density of PBSA now does not mean that it justifies more. In essence, a paper cut on your finger does not mean that you should get rid of the whole hand. Thank you.

1:16:40

[applause]

Chair: Councillor Jemphrey.

1:16:44

Jemphrey: Thank you. Firstly, I'd also like to note I'm concerned how little time residents had to scrutinize the recent officer report. My understanding is that it was less than 48 hours between the report being published and the deadline to submit questions, which I don't think is enough time to have an active working democracy.

1:17:02

Chair: That is incorrect.

1:17:05

Jemphrey: It was more than 48 hours? My understanding ...

Chair: It is incorrect, according to Democratic Services.

Jemphrey: My understanding is that papers were published on the 24th and the deadline was  5 p.m. on the 26th. Is that incorrect?

Chair: Democratic Services would clarify now, please.

Officer (DS): The papers were published on Monday, the 24th of August. They would normally be published on the Tuesday, the 25th, but we have to adjust the deadlines because of the bank holiday. The deadlines for questions would be the same whether it was published on the Monday or the Tuesday, the same distance between two days. So ... originally questions would have been required by the Thursday but because the papers were published on Monday they were required by the Wednesday. So it's the same deadline [as] if it [had] not been a bank holiday.

Chair: Proper procedure was followed and normal procedure was followed. Councillor Jemphrey, please continue.

1:17:56

Jemphrey: Thank you. Perhaps that's a wider issue to look at then.

Chair: You need to speak to those leading the council if it's not being done properly.

1:18:05

Jemphrey: Well, we'll look at that maybe after this. I'm concerned that we don't seem to have any input from the police. I do find the comparison between the city center levels of student beds and Cotham levels of student beds rather ... I'm not convinced by that, because as we've heard the effect of the student population in Cotham is already affecting local businesses. The city center businesses are clearly not affected in the same case. So I'm not convinced that that is adequate comparison. I do feel that implying that we want to control who lives in HMOs is a bit of a straw man argument. It seems common sense to look at who ... at the levels of the population there already, and common sense tells us that the HMOs are part of that. We're not trying to control who lives in HMOs. We're trying to prevent further damage. Just because damage has already been done doesn't mean that you let it continue happening. I do find the comment that students are only there for half the year quite shocking and that no events are planned. The idea that that then will mean that there's no impact from the noise ... So I'm quite concerned about the lack of the noise impact assessment. So at the moment I'm minded to vote against it.

1:19:25

[applause]

Chair: Anybody else or shall we move to the vote? Oh councilor ...

1:19:32

Durston: Thank you. So for me the key consideration here is whether the harms that have been identified by people who've come here today and in the report outweighed the benefits. I recognize the concerns that have been raised about the loss of the former care home and the impact of more student accommodation in this area. I do have to weigh those concerns against the fact that this is a vacant building with no realistic prospect of continuing in its former use and that the current proposal will bring it back into use and secure an important heritage asset.

Thank you for everyone who came here today and raised their concerns, which I think really speak to wider issues around the cumulative impact of ... these kinds of issues that need addressing, and with the point that [Councillor Dudd] made on issues like highway safety. But having considered the planning balance, I don't think the adverse impacts substantially outweigh the benefits. And for that reason, I am minded to support the officer recommendation.

1:20:38

Chair: Thank you. Would someone ... Okay. Councillor Tshabalala.

1:20:47

Tshabalala: Yes, just as my fellow councillor there [Councillor Jemphrey] was saying about the community impact and the “design out crime” report. As a city center councillor, I see every single building come with a “design out crime” report. Even a development that's just about to come to committee hopefully with six homes is also providing a “design out crime” report. So I'm a bit disappointed.

1:21:20

Chair: It's not being redesigned. This is a change of use. It's not a design. It's not a new building. It's not being designed. It is a change of use of an existing building.

1:21:29

Tshabalala: I understand. But the change of use is a different use. And the different use will have different impacts. And the different impacts need to be measured to understand what is the impact it will have on antisocial behavior and on crime. The city center has got the highest crime level out of all wards. So it is quite important for the police to be involved in planning decisions so that they can assess the lighting. You know we talk about safety of girls. We talk about night-time. We talk about all of these things. We talk about safety in the harbour. That is why that report is important because it provides the lighting. It provides the suggestions about CCTV cameras. If we say we care about the safety of the people at the night-time economy or daytime, then it is important that every single planning actually comes with a design-out report in areas where there is already high crime. So that is for me a fundamental issue and you know I I can't simply accept a development of this scale when I've got one with only six units -- which is also just a renovation by the way. But it's got a “design out crime” report. Yes, it may fall short on a safeguarding element, but I think it is super important that we have that. And secondly I don't see a statement of community involvement in this application. And you can correct me if I'm wrong.

1:22:50

Officer (Dhruv): There was a statement of community involvement done by the applicants and it is within the report as well.

1:22:56

Tshabalala: Submitted by the community?

Officer (Dhruv): Submitted by the applicant.

Tshabalala: Okay.

Chair: I mean, the community don't submit an application. The applicant submits an application.

Tshabalala: That's fine. But we are just about to enter into a role of devolution. And part of that devolution will come with the community right to govern. And part of that community govern means that communities will have a stronger say in the things that matter to them. You've had 126 objections. That to me is the statement of community involvement.

Chair: That’s obviously government policy and I support that because it's Labour government policy. It's not relevant to what we're talking about here today.

Tshabalala: I understand. I'm just making my statement.

Chair: But I'm glad that you like Labour government policy. But please continue.

Tshabalala: You know what? You actually closed neighborhood partnerships. So, you know, you kind of going around circles if you want to bring the Labour government up on that. But anyway, let's leave that alone. That's not what I'm talking about.

Peat: This is not a political committee.

Tshabalala: Yeah, I know. [People talking over each other; inaudible or unintelligible.]

Chair: Come along: Please conclude your speech, Councillor Tshabalala.

1:24:18

Tshabalala: Thank you. So on that basis we need to be mindful of community power and for me all of this is community power and through what's coming from the Labor government we're going to have more community power and that community power needs to know that its say is heard and I'm hearing this comment and therefore I'll not be supporting this application.

[applause]

Chair: Councillor Jemphrey, haven't you spoken already?

Jemphrey: A very quick ...

Chair: Make it very quick, please. Very quick ... because Councillor Eddy is desperate to propose something, I think.

1:24:58

Jemphrey: First, I would like to echo calls that we not turn this into the political debate. That's I'm sure not what the community want. Secondly, the community involvement statement is not currently accessible via the planning portal. I'm trying to look at it right now and it says document unavailable.

Eddy: Chairman, the case officer does summarize the community report in his statement. So surely that's good enough.

1:25:36

Chair: I think so.

Eddy: Can I ask formally just move the officers’ recommendation?

Chair: May I just give Councillor Bartle just a chance to, and I'll accept that you've moved that but may I just ask Councillor Bartle because she did just have her hand up at the same time roughly speaking. Very quickly please because [we’re] treading on Councillor Eddy's toes here.

Bartle: I wouldn't dream of doing so. Yeah, so I just wanted to reflect that this is a really challenging decision for me because I think that the application in and of itself looks great and I think that it should be a sustainable location for students to live that close to the university. I think however that the emerging H7 policy would have given us a reason to refuse it if it weren't for the NPPF having been reissued two weeks ago. So, I just want to acknowledge in this decision that planning policy is changing very swiftly. So, it's probably appropriate for us to stand by our ... put more weight on the older existing policies and not looking at those new ones as much. But it is very difficult for me thinking, oh, if our local plan had been accepted last week, this would have been a much easier decision. So, I just want to reflect that to the community.

Chair: Thank you. Councillor Eddy.

1:27:13

Eddy: I think I moved the officer recommendation.

Chair: You did. Do I have a second for the officer recommendation, which is approval? Councillor Bartle. Thank you. [Bartle subsequently withdrew, having misunderstood the motion, and Councillor Durston seconded.]

--------------------- end of transcript -----------------------------

Summary of vote (not part of transcript)

Proposal: To accept officers’ recommendation to approve application

Proposer: Cllr Eddy, seconder Cllr Durston

For: Eddy, Durston, Alexander (chair)

Against: Bartle, Jemphrey, Stone, Tshabalala, Peat

Abstain: Dudd

Result: Motion defeated, 3 votes for, 5 against

(Final 10 minutes of meeting not edited: This involved a brief discussion, and a second vote, on a motion to instruct the officers to write a new report recommending refusal.)

(ends)