Agenda item

The Committee considered

·  The report of the Development Manager on 2 applications for planning permission etc

·  An Update Report by the Development Manager on Item No 2, a copy of which is attached as Appendix 1 to these Minutes

·  Oral statements by members of the public etc on Items 1 and 2, the Speakers List being 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 3 to these Minutes

Item 1 No 169 Newbridge Hill, Bath – Erection of an 11 bed care home to the rear of the existing care home and associated works – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to Permit with conditions. She referred to a further representation received and the receipt from the applicant of a Transport Survey.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the development.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson, although querying the protection of trees, considered that it was an acceptable plan and moved the Officer recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Bryan Organ. The Case Officer stated that Condition 10 would cover the issue of tree protection.

Members debated the motion. Most Members supported the proposal as the design was acceptable and would not be detrimental to the appearance of the Conservation Area. The impact on adjoining residents would be minimal. The issue of parking was raised by some Members as none was provided on the site and this would have an effect on the highways with more parking around the area. Councillor Caroline Roberts, as Ward Member, commented on the impact on adjoining properties, construction work and the effect on trees on the site – there would be an overbearing impact on the residents of Yomede Park. She felt a condition should be added regarding installation of obscured glass. The Case Officer responded to comments raised by stating that the site was in a sustainable location with good public transport. The windows referred to were south facing and mainly bedrooms and therefore it would be inappropriate to make them obscured glass. The Team Leader – Development Management informed Members that there was a Tree Preservation Order to protect trees that were of significant amenity value. There was a Condition to provide a Travel Statement which would inform visitors to the Care Home on how to travel to the site on public transport.

The motion was put to the vote. Voting: 9 in favour and 4 against. Motion carried.

Item 2 No 54 High Street, Saltford – Erection of a detached two storey dwelling and a new double garage for use by No 54, modification works to retaining walls to create wider entrance and associated works following demolition of existing single garage and stone retaining wall – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to Permit with conditions. He recommended imposing an additional condition regarding provision of a Construction Management Plan.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the proposal.

Councillor Martin Veal queried the additional condition and how it would be monitored. The Case Officer and the Team Leader – Development Management responded that action could be taken against a breach of the Condition and Enforcement Officers would take the necessary action when appropriate. Councillor Bryan Organ commented on the narrow lane and the loss of stone wall on the lane. He moved that the application be deferred for consideration of the Ecological Report and the Construction Management Plan. The motion was seconded by Councillor Martin Veal.

The Members debated the motion. It was considered that this was a beautiful site but which could accommodate the development and there would be tree protection. The positives of the development outweighed the negatives. The Team Leader – Development Management stated that the conditions requiring an Ecological Assessment and a Construction Method Statement would provide the necessary control. The motion was put to the vote. Voting: 2 in favour and a substantial number against. Motion lost.

Councillor Ian Gilchrist moved the Officer recommendation to Permit with conditions which was seconded by Councillor Liz Hardman. Members debated the motion. It was queried whether Permitted Development rights should be removed to which the Chair stated that this was covered in Conditions 8 and 9. A Member considered that it would be a shame to lose the garden in which the existing house was set and the potential loss of privacy; however, these would probably not be sufficient reasons to withstand any appeal.

The motion was put to the vote. Voting: 9 in favour and 4 against. Motion carried.