Agenda item

The Committee considered

·  A report by the Group Manager – Development Management on applications for planning permission etc.

·  An Update Report by the Group Manager on Item Nos. 5 – 7, a copy of which is attached as Appendix 1 to these Minutes

·  Oral statements by members of the public etc. on Item Nos. 1 – 7, a copy of 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 10 Chapel Road, Clandown, Radstock – Erection of single storey rear extension – The Team Leader – Development Management reported on this application and the recommendation to grant permission subject to conditions.

The applicant made a statement in favour of the proposed development which was followed by a statement by the Ward Councillor Eleanor Jackson expressing concerns about the development.

Councillor Manda Rigby stated that the Ward Councillor Simon Allen was in support of the application. Councillor Ian Gilchrist considered that the development would have an oppressive effect on the adjoining property and therefore moved that permission be refused. The motion was not seconded.

Councillor Les Kew stated that the site visit was very useful. This was a small addition to the extension that had already been approved and he therefore moved the Officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Dave Laming.

After a brief discussion, the motion was put to the vote and was carried, 12 voting in favour and 1 against.

Reference was made by a Member to adding a condition regarding hours of construction but the Team Manager replied that this would not be appropriate as construction on the extension had already commenced and was not of a scale that would normally attract such a condition.

Item 2 No 39 High Street, Keynsham – Change of use of ground floor from Offices (B1) to Café/Bar (A3) with alterations to street frontage windows to sliding doors, new extract flue and use of public highway for siting of 2 tables and 8 chairs – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to grant permission subject to conditions. She stated that Condition 5 relating to hours of use would need to be amended to read Sunday to Thursday etc. instead of Monday to Thursday.

The applicant made a statement in favour of the proposal which was followed by a statement by the Ward Councillor Charles Gerrish.

Councillor Bryan Organ (Ward Member on the Committee) expressed concerns about the proposed use and stated that, if permitted, the conditions would need to be monitored closely. Councillor Les Kew considered on balance that this was a good use for the building and therefore moved the Officer recommendation but with no music on Sundays. Members discussed this proposed condition. The Principal Solicitor gave advice on this aspect as regards noise and licensing issues. Members discussed the installation of sliding doors on the frontage and the use of the pavement for tables and chairs to which the Team Manager responded. Councillor Les Kew decided to amend his earlier motion by removing the condition about no music on Sunday. Councillor Rob Appleyard seconded the amended motion.

After a brief discussion, the amended motion was put to the vote and was carried, 10 voting in favour and 1 against with 2 abstentions.

(Note: There was a brief adjournment after this item to rectify problems with the microphones)

Item 3 No 52 Sladebrook Road, Southdown, Bath – Erection of 1 dwelling, a replacement garage and associated works – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to grant permission subject to conditions.

The public speakers made statements against and in favour of the proposal which was followed by a statement by the Ward Councillor Dine Romero raising various concerns about the development.

Councillor Vic Pritchard moved that the recommendation be overturned and permission refused on the grounds of poor access and back land development. The motion was not seconded.

Councillor Dave Laming therefore moved the Officer recommendation on the basis that little traffic would use the access and the site could accommodate a single house. The motion was seconded by Councillor Malcolm Lees.

Members briefly debated the motion. It was considered that a condition should be added for a fence to be provided to protect the amenities of the adjoining resident. The Team Manager stated that a condition could be added regarding landscaping which would cover this issue. The mover and seconder agreed.

The motion was put to the vote and was carried, 10 voting in favour and 3 against.

Item 4 Land rear of 62 Sladebrook Road, Southdown, Bath – Erection of 1 three bed dwelling – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to grant permission subject to conditions.

The public speaker made a statement against the proposal which was followed by a statement by the Ward Councillor Dine Romero against the development.

Members asked various questions about the scheme regarding access for neighbours’ cars and emergency vehicles to which the Case Officer responded. Councillor Vic Pritchard considered that the access was poor and there would be an adverse effect on adjoining residents and their properties. On this basis, he moved that the recommendation be overturned and permission refused. The motion was seconded by Councillor Rob Appleyard.  After a brief discussion, the motion was put to the vote. Voting: 3 in favour and a substantial number against. Motion lost.

Councillor Dave Laming moved the Officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Les Kew. The motion was put to the vote and was carried, 9 in favour and 3 against with 1 abstention.

Item 5 Carisbrooke, Bathampton Lane, Bathampton, Bath – Erection of new house following the demolition of an existing 20^th century house – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to grant permission with conditions. The Update Report gave the comments of Bathampton Parish Council on the application.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the application. The Ward Councillor stated that he was happy to leave the matter to the Committee to consider the proposed development and determine it accordingly.

Councillor Les Kew considered that this was an exciting scheme that would be energy efficient and enhance adjoining properties. A building construction plan was required but there was sufficient space for construction vehicles to access the site although there would inevitably be some disturbance while construction was taking place. He therefore moved the Officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Vic Pritchard.

Members debated the motion. Councillor Brian Webber stated that he could not support the motion. The proposed development had some attractive features but he considered that it would not be appropriate in this location and would not relate to the existing properties. This was supported by Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones. However, other Members did not agree and considered that the design had great merit with good use of materials and employed energy saving features. The Chair summed up the debate and expressed his support for the proposed development.

The motion was put to the vote and was carried, 10 voting in favour and 3 against.

(Note: After this decision, there was a brief adjournment for a natural break)

Items 6&7 Cleveland House, Sydney Road, Bathwick, Bath – (1) Change of use from B1 Offices to C3 Residential including the erection of a single storey side extension with first floor terrace including internal alterations following the demolition of the existing single storey lavatory block (Revised proposal); and (2) internal and external alterations for the change of use from B1 Offices to C3 Residential including the erection of a single storey side extension with first floor terrace following the demolition of the existing single storey lavatory block – The Case Officer reported on these applications and her recommendations to refuse permission/consent. The Update Report referred to receipt of amended and additional drawings on the proposals. A model of the stone clad door and closing mechanism was available for Members to view before the meeting.

The applicant made a statement in favour of the development which was followed by a statement by the Ward Councillor David Martin in support.

The Case Officer responded to queries about access to the roof garden. Councillor Ian Gilchrist stated that, having visited the site and heard the views of the Officer and the Ward Member, he considered that the benefits outweighed the disadvantages of the proposal and he therefore moved that the recommendation to refuse permission be overturned and permission be granted. The motion was seconded by Councillor Dave Laming.

Members debated the motion. Queries were raised by Members regarding the blind window being changed to a door for access to the roof terrace. The Case Officer responded. However, further doubts were raised on the matter and it was therefore decided to adjourn the meeting for Tea in which time further information could be obtained to clarify the matter.

The meeting therefore adjourned for Tea and reconvened after approximately 25 minutes. The Case Officer clarified the issue of the door which would not be as high as previously envisaged. She also clarified that the string course along the door area would be removed.

Members continued to discuss the scheme. Some aspects of the scheme were praised such as residential use and the removal of the lavatory block. However, various concerns were raised including removal of half a blind window for provision of the door and the loss of part of the string course. Mention was made of the viability of the scheme and the high specification to maximise profit. Councillor Dave Laming on reflection decided to withdraw the seconding of the motion. Councillor Vic Pritchard therefore seconded the motion.

Members continued to debate the motion. A Member considered that the scheme would benefit from the blind window remaining. The Team Manager stated that the motion would need to be amended for Officers to be given delegated authority to grant permission with appropriate conditions which was accepted by the mover and seconder. He stated that, as the Georgian Group had objected to the proposals, the application would need to be referred to the Secretary of State. The Group had stated that “this was a remarkable survival of a Georgian office building”. He continued by saying that there was little evidence to justify a viability argument by the applicant. The motion was put to the vote. Voting: 3 in favour and 7 against with 3 abstentions. Motion lost.

Councillor Bryan Organ therefore moved the Officer recommendation to refuse permission. Voting: 8 in favour and 3 against with 2 abstentions. Motion carried.

The application for listed building consent was then considered. Councillor Bryan Organ moved the Officer recommendation to refuse consent which was seconded by Councillor Les Kew. The motion was put to the vote. Voting: 8 in favour and 3 against with 2 abstentions. Motion carried.

(Note: Councillor Neil Butters left the meeting after consideration of this Item)