Agenda item

The Committee considered

·  The report of the Group Manager – Development Management on various planning applications

·  An Update Report by the Group Manager on Item 2, a copy of which is included in the Minutes as Appendix 1

·  Oral statements by members of the public etc. on Item Nos. 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 Land adjacent to Tree Tops, Firgrove Lane, Peasedown – Erection of straw bale, timber framed living/work unit (Retrospective) – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to refuse permission.

The applicant made a statement in favour of the proposal. The Ward Councillor Nathan Hartley then made a statement in support of the application. Councillor Manda Rigby informed the meeting that the other Ward Councillor Sarah Bevan couldn’t attend the meeting but also supported the proposal.

Councillor Malcolm Lees sought clarification on whether the site was outside the Green Belt. The Group Manager confirmed that the site was indeed outside the Green Belt and, though adjacent to it, would not impact on its setting.

Councillor Dave Laming moved that the recommendation be overturned and that permission be granted. The motion was seconded by Councillor Malcolm Lees.

Members debated the motion. Councillor Les Kew opened the debate. He stated that the development was outside the housing development boundary and a green field site and queried whether anyone with a bit of land being used for some agricultural purpose could be granted permission for a dwelling. Although he had sympathy with the applicant, this was a policy issue and it would set a dangerous precedent if permission was granted. The Group Manager agreed that there was a consistency issue. There was an obligation for the applicant to demonstrate that an agricultural use required that workers or a family live on the site. An Agricultural Appraiser had been appointed who advised that the use did not generate the need for someone to live on the site. The Development Plan needed to be taken into consideration as to whether this was an essential use and this application did not meet that test. If the application was refused, the Council would need to consider if it was expedient to take enforcement action and an enforcement report would be formulated for consideration by Committee. If enforcement action was approved, there would be an amount of time for the occupants to find alternative accommodation. Regarding a few queries by Members regarding building regulations approval, measures to avoid setting a precedent and rearing alpacas on the site, the Group Manager stated that building regulations were not for consideration at this meeting; it would be very difficult to grant permission without setting a precedent; and specialist advice would be required regarding alpacas which at the moment was a hypothetical issue.

Members continued to debate the motion. It was suggested that a personal permission could be granted to prevent occupancy in the future by anyone else other than the applicant. Also, a temporary permission for up to 5 years could be granted. It was pointed out that if permission was refused, the applicant could appeal against the decision. Reference was made to an apparently similar development at Bathampton but it was pointed out that, in that case, the applicant was a traveller with health issues. It was generally felt by Members that there were good policy reasons for refusing permission. The reasons for overturning the recommendation were discussed. It was felt that the development created a carbon free environment and that an alternative lifestyle should be supported. The motion was put to the vote. Voting: 3 in favour and 7 against with 3 abstentions. Motion lost.

It was therefore moved by Councillor Bryan Organ and seconded by Councillor Vic Pritchard to refuse permission as recommended by Officers. Voting: 7 in favour and 3 against with 3 abstentions. Motion carried.

Item 2 Rentokil Tropical Plants, Pipehouse Nursery, Pipehouse, Freshford – Erection of 10 dwellings, including access road, car parking and hardstanding, landscaping and associated works and services following demolition of existing buildings and structures – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to (A) authorise the Planning and Environmental Law Manager to enter into a S106 Agreement to secure various provisos relating to Transport and accessibility, Affordable housing, Open space and recreational facilities, Education and Protection of boundary hedges; and (B) subject to the prior completion of the above Agreement, authorise the Group Manager to grant permission subject to conditions (or such conditions as may be appropriate).

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

Councillor Neil Butters, the Ward Member on the Committee, referred to the Neighbourhood Plan and the provision of affordable housing (which this development would provide). However, he had issues with the proposal as regards the windows, the access from a narrow lane and its unsustainability regarding shops and public transport facilities being a distance away. On this basis, he moved that the recommendation be overturned and permission be refused. The motion was seconded by Councillor Brian Webber.

In response to a Member’s query, Officers provided information regarding the number of dwellings to the acreage and potential percentages on affordable housing based on the size of the development. The motion was debated and found some support amongst Members. It was felt that the site was long and thin like a “finger” pointing into the countryside. Too many houses were proposed and 3 or 4 may be more appropriate. It was considered to be overdevelopment. There were also issues of traffic and pedestrian safety. Affordable housing issues were discussed and some Members felt that this was not the best site for such development. Concern was expressed regarding refuse and recycling bins and their collection. The Group Manager stated that, if permission was granted, details could be negotiated with the applicant. He outlined the reasons for refusal as discussed by Members. After commenting on the application, the Chair put the motion to the vote. Voting: 6 in favour and 7 against. Motion lost.

Councillor Bryan Organ therefore moved the Officer recommendation including details to be provided on bin storage and collection. The motion was seconded by Councillor Rob Appleyard. On being put to the vote, the motion was carried, 7 voting in favour and 6 against.