Agenda item

The Committee considered

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

·  An Update Report by the Development Manager on Item Nos 1 and 2, a copy of which is attached as Appendix 1 to these Minutes

·  Oral statements by members of the public etc on Item Nos 1, 2, 4 and 5, 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 4 to these Minutes

Item 1 The Old Colliery Yard, Wick Lane, Pensford – Use of land for 12 pitches for Gypsy and Traveller use with associated works – 12 dayrooms and hardstanding (Resubmission) – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to refuse permission.

The public speakers made their statements against the proposal. This was followed by a statement by the Ward Councillor Jeremy Sparks who supported refusal of permission.

The Chair commented on some points raised by one of the objectors. Councillor Eleanor Jackson moved the Officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Martin Veal. She considered the site to be inappropriate for this development and was too remote. The proposal failed on all counts as outlined in the report. Councillor Veal in supporting the motion referred to various issues including land contamination and the impact on the Green Belt with no special circumstances being identified to outweigh the harm to the appearance of the area. He felt that the development would overwhelm this small village.

Members discussed the proposal. It was generally considered that this was the wrong site for the proposed development.

The motion was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.

Item 2 Land between Hillside View and Bath Road, Greenlands Road, Peasedown – Erection of 89 dwellings (72 houses/17 flats) and 288 sq metres of Class B1 floorspace. Provision of public open space (including allotments) and landscaping. Two vehicular accesses from Greenlands Road. Undergrounding of existing overhead lines – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to Permit with conditions. She referred to the Update Report which provided an Officer Assessment on further representations from the Highways Development Officer and amended the Recommendation with regard to the terms of the S106 Agreement relating to Highways.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the proposal. The Ward Councillors Sarah Bevan and Nathan Hartley made statements against the proposal.

The Chair posed some queries regarding S106 contributions relating to education, health facilities and highways to which the Case Officer responded. 

Councillor Martin Veal opened the debate. He was acquainted with the site and couldn’t accept the Environment Agency’s view that there was no drainage problem. It was outside the housing development boundary and would create a danger to school children walking to school. In addition, the Medical Centre would not be able to cope with the increased population that would result from this development. He therefore moved that permission be refused on the grounds of the adverse impact and permanent serious harm to the landscape. The motion was seconded by Councillor Liz Hardman. Councillor Eleanor Jackson suggested additional reasons for refusal, namely, unsustainable location by virtue of the lack of school places and the pressure on the existing health facilities. The mover and seconder agreed to these being added.

Members debated the motion. Concern was expressed on the impact on the landscape and the possible problems regarding education and health provision. The Team Leader – Development Management responded to these points and drew Members’ attention to the relevant passages of the Report, in particular that the Officers took a different view on the effect on the landscape; considered that the existing school could be extended or pupils bussed to other nearby schools; and that there was no evidence that Dr’s Surgeries could not cope with increased numbers. Regarding housing provision, he referred to the NPPF which took precedence over the Local Plan and there was a presumption in favour of sustainable development and permission should be granted unless there were any adverse impacts of doing so which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework when taken as a whole. He advised that the Officer view was that there was not adequate evidence to support refusal of the application given that the presumption in favour of sustainable development applied in this case.

Members discussed the issue. It was considered that good reasons were needed to defend the refusal if there was an appeal. The Chair queried the advice that monies from highway improvements would not go to the site but to the Bath Package to which the Highways Development Control Team Leader responded.

The Chair summed up the debate and then put the motion to refuse permission to the vote. Voting: 7 in favour and 3 against with 3 abstentions. Motion carried.

(Note: After this decision, at 4.45pm, there was a natural break for 10 minutes.)

Item 3 Trident Works, Marsh Lane, Clutton – Erection of 2 storey extension to provide new rest room and office including new roof over existing rear stores – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to Permit with conditions.

Councillor Bryan Organ moved the Officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Eleanor Jackson. The motion was put to the vote and it was carried unanimously.

Item 4 Cutting Edge, 7 North Parade Passage, Bath – Change of use of ground floor level only from Hairdressers (Use Class A1) to Tea Shop (Use Class A3) – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to refuse permission.

The applicant made a statement in support of the proposal.

Councillor Brian Webber, as Ward Member, opened the debate. He referred to the protected retail frontage policy. However, there was an example of a similar property in the Passage being allowed a change of use on appeal in 2010. He considered that there would be no changes to the building or impact on the street scene.

Councillor Ben Stevens made a statement in support of the proposal.

Members discussed the proposal. Various points were raised as regards fragmenting the shopping frontage, the weight given to the example where permission was granted on appeal, the demand for A1 use etc. The Case Officer and the Team Leader – Development Management responded to some of the issues raised. Councillor Manda Rigby, as the other Ward Member, commented on the proposal which she considered would still provide an active street frontage – she therefore supported the proposal.

Councillor Brian Webber moved that the recommendation be overturned and that permission be granted on the basis that the proposal would add to the vitality of the centre and it would not alter the general character of the street. The motion was seconded by Councillor Manda Rigby. The Team Leader advised that the motion would need to be altered to Delegate to Permit so that the application could be advertised as a Departure from the Development Plan. The mover and seconder agreed. The motion was put to the vote. Voting: 6 in favour and 6 against with 1 abstention. The Chair used his second and casting vote against the motion which was therefore 7 against. Motion lost.

It was therefore moved by Councillor Eleanor Jackson and seconded by Councillor Doug Nicol to accept the Officer recommendation to refuse permission. Voting: 7 in favour and 5 against with 1 abstention. Motion carried.

Item 5 No 4 Lime Grove, Bathwick, Bath – Conversion of student lets into 2 maisonettes and 1 self-contained apartment with first floor extension at the rear (Resubmission of 12/01925/FUL) – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to grant permission subject to conditions.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the proposal. The Ward Councillor David Martin made a statement and considered that permission should be refused or a Site Visit be held so that Members could assess the impact of the development on the adjoining property.

It was moved by Councillor Ian Gilchrist and seconded by Councillor Doug Nicol to defer consideration for a Site Visit accordingly. The motion was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.

(Note: Councillor Martin Veal left the meeting prior to consideration of this application.)