Agenda and minutes

The Chairman will ask the Committee Administrator to draw attention to the emergency evacuation procedure as set out under Note 7

The Democratic Services Officer read out the procedure.

There was no Vice-Chair elected.

There were none.

Members who have an interest to declare are asked to state:

(a) the Item No and site in which they have an interest; (b) the nature of the interest; and (c) whether the interest is personal or personal and prejudicial.

Any Member who is unsure about the above should seek advice from the Monitoring Officer prior to the meeting in order to expedite matters at the meeting itself.

There were none.

There was none.

(1) At the time of publication, no items had been submitted.

(2) To note that, regarding planning applications to be considered, members of the public who have given the requisite notice to the Committee Administrator will be able to make a statement to the Committee immediately before their respective applications are considered. There will be a time limit of 3 minutes for each proposal, ie 3 minutes for the Parish and Town Councils, 3 minutes for the objectors to the proposal and 3 minutes for the applicant, agent and supporters. This allows a maximum of 9 minutes per proposal.

The Committee noted that there were members of the public wishing to make statements on planning applications and that they would be able to do so when those items were reached on the agenda.

To deal with any petitions or questions from Councillors and where appropriate Co-opted Members

There were none.

RESOLVED that the Minutes should be amended as follows:

in the fourth paragraph of item 87 on page 1, “Councillor Martin Veale” should be “Councillor Martin Veal”;

in item 91 on page 2, “verbal update” in the heading and in the first line of the item should be “oral update”.

The Minutes were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair, subject to these amendments.

The Senior Professional – Major Developments to provide a verbal update

The Senior Professional – Major Developments gave an oral update.

Planning permissions for the Bath Western Riverside Development had been issued on 23^rd December 2010 following the completion of the section 106 agreement. All documents were available on the Council’s website. The Homes and Communities Agency had recently announced that it would invest an additional £6m in the project.

An appeal had been lodged by the developer in respect of the proposed Park Road housing development to the south west of Keynsham, which had been refused by the Committee last year. It had been announced that a local planning inquiry would be held, but no date for it had yet been announced.

Item 1: conversion of the Henry Strachie Studio, Stowey Sutton, into a dwelling (resubmission) (10/03563/FUL) – The case officer made a presentation on the application and her recommendation to refuse.

Councillor Vic Pritchard, spoke in favour of the application. He prefaced his comments by stating that as the applicant was his brother, he had not wished to be associated with the application at an earlier stage. However, he thought his brother was entitled to the same service that he, as Ward Member, would provide to any other constituent.

Councillor Lees asked the Development Manager whether the view put forward by the applicant that the building is a heritage asset could constitute ‘very special circumstances’ under Green Belt policy. The Development Manager replied that it was possible, but it was for the applicant to make the case and he had not done so. She advised that officers considered that the property did not meet the criteria for redevelopment within the Green Belt, because it would require extensive rebuilding and it was unsustainable because it was remote from essential services.

Councillor Jackson disagreed with the comment in the report that the property was not within walking distance of the development boundary of Bishop Sutton and pointed out that there was a bus stop only 200 yards from the property with a frequent bus service. The Highways Officer responded that the criteria for sustainability included not only proximity to alternative transport, but also the nature of access routes and street lighting; officers had concluded that the site did not meet the criteria.

Councillor Willcox did not agree that the property, which had a steel frame with a skin of wire mesh and rendering, would need major reconstruction. He believed that the steel frame was sound and the skin could easily be replaced. It was a unique building with a unique history, which was worthy of preservation. He believed that the property could be restored sympathetically without the need for demolition and rebuilding, that it was not big enough to be occupied by a family, and that it was substantially hidden from view by tree foliage for eight months of the year.  He would therefore move to permit the application. This motion was seconded by Councillor Jackson, who agreed with the importance of the heritage associations, and felt that the alternative to a change of use to a dwelling was for the property to continue to decay. She suggested that a condition should be added to preserve the mural.

Councillor Darracott thought that the reasons for refusal given in the report were not convincing. He considered that the property could not be returned to commercial use and that the comments about sustainability would apply as much to a commercial use as to a dwelling. He thought the property had a quirky charm which was worth preserving.

Councillor Coombes did not accept that the property had to become a dwelling if there was no commercial use for it. He also believed that ideally restoration should  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103.

The Committee considered

• The report of the Development Manager on various applications for planning permission etc

• Oral statements by members of the public on items 1 and 2, the Speakers List being attached as Appendix 1 to these Minutes

• An Update report by the Development Manager on items 1 and 2, which is attached as Appendix 2 to these Minutes

RESOLVED that, in accordance with their delegated powers, the applications be determined as set out in the Decisions List attached as Appendix 4 to these Minutes.

NOTES: Decisions were made by the Committee as per the Officers’ recommendations set out in the Agenda Report and were carried unanimously or without dissension unless stated otherwise. Where the Officer’s recommendation was overturned, or there were amendments whether lost or carried, or there were decisions on matters other than on planning applications, these are listed below.

Item 1: Golden Valley Paddocks, Parcel 6616, Woolley Lane, Charlcombe, Bath (10/04188/FUL) – Members had made a pre-Committee visit to this site. The case officer made a presentation about the application and the recommendation to permit, and drew attention to the update report, which recommended the imposition of an additional condition requiring that re-grading operations should be carried out in accordance with a method statement. The speakers made their statements to the Committee.

Councillor Willcox referred to the concerns which had been raised regarding the slumping of one of the banks of the pond and suggested that there should be a condition requiring the applicant to plant vegetation to stabilise the soil. The Development Manager advised that if the Committee were minded to permit the application, that they consider amending the suggested condition in the update report about soil stabilisation to instead require the submission to the Council of an operational statement to be approved by the Council which would deal with the technicalities of how the slumping of the bank would be remedied and that replanting might be included in such a statement.

Councillor Curran referred to the concern expressed by one of the public speakers about a water course becoming contaminated from the pond, but noted that the Environment Agency had not raised any objections. He thought a pond would be ecologically and visually preferable to troughs. There was a natural flow of spring water in the field and the pond would help promote biodiversity. He moved to permit the application subject to the conditions contained in the report, and the update report, revised as suggested by the Development Manager. Councillor Willcox seconded the motion.

Councillor Coombes said that he thought it odd to create a pond on a slope, though admittedly the terrain was undulating. However, he accepted the views of officers that there would be no damage to local ecology or the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and would support the motion.

Councillor Webber said that he had concerns about water collecting at the bottom of the hill and the instability of the land.

The motion was put and it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.

The case officer made a presentation on the Article 4 Direction.

It was moved by Councillor Kew and seconded by Councillor Jackson and RESOLVED to follow the officer’s recommendation to confirm the direction and make it permanent. Voting: 11 in favour with 1 abstention.

The Chair noted that the report covered the period during which the Planning team moved offices and when 4-5 officers were on sick leave.

Councillor Coombes asked whether the planning officers found their new office accommodation comfortable and conducive to efficiency. He also enquired about the new process of requiring most plans to be viewed on line. The Development Manager replied that staff had now settled in and found the new office entirely satisfactory. The office had been refitted to a high specification and all staff were pleased with the clear desk policy which was being implemented successfully. At present public access was restricted, but there were plans to construct a one-stop for all Council services on the ground floor of the building  The aim had been to put the majority of plans online; concerns had been raised on a couple of occasions which related to the ability to view high resolution plans on line. Officers were grateful for the constructive criticism received and had resolved the issues as quickly as possible. She also commented that colleagues in Council Connect had been extremely proactive in assisting and supporting the changes and that the two services continued to work well together.

Councillor Jackson asked about the proportions of major and minor applications. The Development Manager said that there about 80 major applications a year from a total of  3,000 applications. This meant that any small deviation from targets in the “major” category had a disproportionate impact upon percentage performance. 

Councillor Darracott commented that performance had not been good during the period and the Development Manager agreed. She said that there had been restructuring within the servicewhich meant that some additional backlog needed to be dealt with at a time when work loads had unexpectedly risen by 33%. A problem compounded by long term sick leave.

She confirmed that performance remained a central part of the Planning Service aim to provide good customer service and that all officers would be working to improve this.

RESOLVED to note the report.

To note the report

RESOLVED to note the report.