Agenda item

The Committee considered

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

·  An Update Report by the Group Manager on Item Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 7, a copy of which is attached as Appendix 4 to these Minutes

·  Oral statements by members of the public etc. on Item Nos 1-4 and 9, 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 5 to these Minutes

Item 1 Parcel 0006 Maynard Terrace, Clutton – Modification of Planning Obligation 12/01882/OUT to reduce the affordable housing provision to 33% (Erection of 36 dwellings and associated works (Revised submission) – The Case Officer reported on this application and her amended recommendation in the Update Report to authorise the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to enter into a Deed of Variation to the original S106 Agreement to reduce the level of affordable housing to 33%. The Update Report referred to further representations received and the Officer’s assessment.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the application which was followed by a statement by the Ward Councillor Karen Warrington against the proposal.

The Group Manager provided advice for Members regarding the issue of the 5 year housing land supply. The application still provided affordable housing that was 3% more than Council policy required. There were a number of options available to vary the S106 Agreement. Members asked questions about the application for clarification to which Officers responded.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson stated that she had attended the public local Inquiry to defend the Committee’s decision to refuse permission for the development. She expressed concern about the lack of a viability assessment to support the claim that the current scheme was unviable. She considered that the European Grant for viability was still in question and that there was a need for housing for young people in Clutton. She therefore moved that the recommendation be overturned and that the variation be refused on the basis of an inadequate viability assessment, failure to explore funding and the loss of social housing. The motion was seconded by Councillor Caroline Roberts.

The Group Manager stated that the funding mechanisms were not known and were not a planning consideration. The current planning policies needed to be considered and only 30% affordable housing was required and therefore the view of Officers was that viability testing was not required in this case. He advised that a new application on this basis would be compliant with the Council’s affordable housing policies. The Committee were advised that they could defer the application for a full viability assessment.

Members briefly debated the motion. Councillor Eleanor Jackson accepted the Group Manager’s advice regarding the funding issue and removed that reason from her motion for refusing the variation.

The motion was then put to the vote and was carried, 6 voting in favour and 2 against.

(Note: Councillors Rob Appleyard and Les Kew had left the meeting prior to consideration of this application in view of their declaration of interests).

Item 2 Land rear of Yearten House, Water Street, East Harptree – Erection of 8 dwellings and access – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to (A) authorise the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to enter into a S106 Agreement to secure various provisos; and (B) subject to the completion of the Agreement, authorise the Group Manager to grant permission subject to conditions. The Update Report provided further information on the application and amended the recommendation/conditions. The Case Officer clarified that there was a correction to the report in that it stated that the proposed development would not count towards the 10-15 house allocation for the village outlined in the Core Strategy. Given that the applicant had demonstrated that a denser form of development was not appropriate for the site to achieve 10 dwellings, this site may still be included as part of the housing figure because it was in the Emerging Place Making Plan and there were good reasons why it could not be developed for 10 dwellings.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the application which was followed by a statement by the Ward Councillor Tim Warren expressing concerns about the development.

Members asked questions about the application for clarification to which Officers responded. The issue of the applicants’ offer to reduce the number of houses to 5 was discussed but the Group manager advised that the proposal before the Committee needed to be considered and that there was not an application for 5 dwellings before the Committee. Councillor Rob Appleyard felt that the application was acceptable and that there would be less variety of design if the number of houses was reduced. He therefore moved the Officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Bryan Organ.

Members debated the motion. Some Members felt that the application should be deferred as there was insufficient detail to make a decision with the drawings being of too small a scale. Councillor Rob Appleyard, on reflection, withdrew his motion. Councillor Les Kew then moved that the application be deferred for a Site Visit which was seconded by Councillor Rob Appleyard. The motion was put to the vote and was carried without dissension.

Item 3 Fosseway Environmental Park, Fosseway, Englishcombe – Approval of Reserved matters in relation to Application 14/00839/EMINW for the proposed erection of residual waste facility including a materials recovery facility, aneurobic digestion plant, reception building, weighbridge, outdoor storage areas and other ancillary development – The Council’s Planning Consultant reported on this application and his recommendation to Approve subject to conditions. He stated that an amendment was required to Condition 3 so that landscaping was carried out in accordance with the drawings listed in the Condition as these were sufficiently detailed.

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

Councillor David Veale, Ward Member on the Committee, stated that there had been many problems with the site in the past but the current situation was now acceptable. Members asked questions about the application and the implications of this decision on any enforcement action which might be required at the site to which Officers responded. Councillor Eleanor Jackson considered this to be a positive step forward and therefore moved the Officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Bryan Organ.

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

(Note: Following this decision at 4.35pm, there was an adjournment for 5 minutes for a comfort break).

Item 4 No 153 Newbridge Hill, Bath – Provision of 5 parking spaces at the rear of 153/155 Newbridge Hill – The Planning Officer reported on this application and the recommendation to refuse permission.

The applicant’s agent made a statement in favour of the application.

Councillor Donal Hassett, Ward Member on the Committee, considered that the application was acceptable as it would tidy up the area and reduce the amount of parking on-street which was at a premium. He also felt that the proposed garden would enhance the area. On this basis, he moved that the recommendation be overturned and that Officers be authorised to grant permission subject to appropriate conditions. Councillor Caroline Roberts, also Ward Member on the Committee, supported this view and seconded the motion.

Members debated the motion. Some Members were sceptical about the reason for the application but it was generally supported. The number of spaces was acceptable to Members. The Group Manager informed Members of the reasons why Officers were recommending refusal.

The motion was put to the vote and was carried, 8 voting in favour and 2 against.

(Note: During the debate, Councillor Bryan Organ stated that he knew a member of the applicant’s family but that he had no financial connection to him and they were not friends. As such, he considered that he did not have an interest to declare.)

Item 5 Wansdyke House, Claverton Down Road, Claverton Down, Bath – Outline application with all matters reserved for the erection of a new house in the rear garden of Wansdyke House (Resubmission) - The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to grant permission subject to conditions. The wording of Condition 4 would need to be amended to include hours of working and that the reason for the Condition was in the interests of amenity. The Chairman reported on a comment received from the Ward Councillor Steve Jeffries who was satisfied that the issue of access was now covered.

Councillor Les Kew considered that this was a good presentation and an acceptable scheme and therefore moved the Officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Bryan Organ.

Members asked questions for clarification to which the Officers responded. The Group Manager stated that the site was located within the built-up area of Bath and had received planning permission on a number of occasions; there was not therefore an objection in principle to the residential development of the land. It was a large site and the proposal would not be out of character. Members debated the motion.

After due consideration, the motion was put to the vote and was carried, 5 voting in favour and 4 against with 1 abstention.

Items 6&7 No 10 Grove Street, Bath – (1) Change of use from 4 student flats to 4 cohesive self-contained residential flats, openings in existing partition walls, additions of new doors and creation of en-suite shower rooms (Ref 15/01872/FUL); and (2) internal alterations for the creation of 2 cohesive self-contained residential flats and openings in existing partition walls, additions of new doors and creation of en-suite shower rooms – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to grant permission/consent subject to conditions. The Update Report provided further information on the application for listed building consent.

Councillor Les Kew considered that the scheme was satisfactory and therefore moved the Officer recommendations which were seconded by Councillor Paul Crossley. The motions were put to the vote separately and were both carried unanimously.

Item 8 No 11 Holloway, Bath – Extension of kitchen into existing balcony with provision of roof and glazing to cover balcony – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to grant permission subject to conditions.

Councillor Bryan Organ considered the scheme to be acceptable and therefore moved the Officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Les Kew.

After a short debate, the motion was put to the vote and was carried, 9 voting in favour and 1 against.

Item 9 Joseph House, Church Lane, Englishcombe – Erection of a wooden garden pagoda – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to refuse permission.

The representative of the Parish Council made a statement in favour of the application.

Councillor Les Kew considered that the development with the use of timber was not inappropriate - it was a facility for outdoor recreation and it would not harm the openness of the Green Belt. On this basis, he moved that the recommendation be overturned and that Officers be delegated to grant permission subject to appropriate conditions. The motion was seconded by Councillor David Veale.

Members debated the motion. Comments were made for and against the motion. Some Members considered that the scheme should be supported whereas some Members considered that the appropriate planning policies had to be followed as there were no very special circumstances to justify the development within the Green Belt. The Group Manager explained the reasons for the recommendation to refuse permission and that he did not consider this to be a facility for outdoor recreation, rather that it was a domestic feature. The motion was put to the vote. Voting: 4 in favour and 6 against. Motion lost.

It was therefore moved by Councillor Paul Crossley to approve the Officer recommendation to refuse permission which was seconded by Councillor Eleanor Jackson. The motion was put to the vote and was carried, 6 voting in favour and 4 against.

Item 10 Parcel 3100 Charlton Road, Keynsham – Comprehensive Masterplan and Design Principles for the proposed redevelopment of the site at Charlton Road, Keynsham, pursuant to Policy KE4 of the Bath and North East Somerset Core Strategy 2014 – This matter was covered in the following Report