Agenda item

The Committee considered

• The report of the Group Manager – Development Management on various planning applications etc.
• An Update Report by the Group Manager on Item Nos. 1, a copy of which is attached as Appendix 1 to these Minutes
• Oral statements by members of the public on Item Nos. 1-3, 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 4 to these Minutes

Item 1 Former GWR Railway Line, Frome Road, Radstock – Approval of reserved matters with regard to outline application 13/02436/EOUT for access, appearance, layout, scale and landscaping for Area 3 (Phase 2) of the development – The Planning Officer reported on this application and the recommendation to grant permission subject to conditions. The Update Report provided an officer assessment on further representations received. Consideration would need to be given to the imposition of a S106 Agreement or a Condition to secure the management of the structural Kilmersdon Brook bank retaining wall.

The public speakers made their statements on the application.

Councillor Bryan Organ considered that the details of the Reserved Matters were acceptable and that the applicants had a proven track record in their consideration of such developments. He therefore moved the Officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Karen Warrington.

Members debated the motion. Councillor Paul Crossley referred to his previous involvement in the regeneration of Radstock which he felt did not prejudice his consideration of the scheme and he still had an open mind. He considered that the scheme had now moved forward and would provide numerous benefits to the community and the area in general. He supported the motion.

Members discussed the S106 Agreement and it was considered that the retaining wall to the bank of the brook could be left to Officers to decide if it should be managed under a S106 Agreement or controlled by an appropriate condition.

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

(Note: Councillors Rob Appleyard and Eleanor Jackson were not present for the consideration of this application in view of their interests declared earlier in the meeting)

Item 2 No 2 Hermitage Road, Lansdown, Bath – Erection of detached dwelling with associated car parking and landscaping following demolition of existing dwelling (Resubmission) – The Senior Planning Officer reported on this application and the recommendation to refuse permission. She reported that agents for the objectors had requested that, if the Committee was minded to allow this development, a condition be added to restrict permitted development rights so that there could be no extensions or enclosures.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the application which was followed by a statement from the Ward Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones.

Councillor Donal Hassett considered that permission should be granted as recommended by Officers on the previous application. The development was partially below the hedge line and there would be no detriment to the area. He therefore moved that the Officer recommendation be overturned and permission granted which was seconded by Councillor Rob Appleyard who felt that the amended design was an improvement and the development sat well within the existing site.

Members debated the motion. Councillor Eleanor Jackson considered that the design was ugly, over square with a poor rear elevation. Councillor Les Kew disagreed and felt it was more in keeping with adjoining properties than the existing building and was not overbearing being on split-level. The Team Manager – Development Management referred to the recent planning history of the site and stated that Officers considered that the revised plans did not overcome the reasons for refusal for the previous application. There had been no planning policy change since the decision of the Council to refuse the previous application and this refusal  was a material consideration to be taken into account. He advised that the motion would need to be amended to Delegate to Permit with appropriate conditions which would include the request by the objectors’ agent that permitted development rights be removed for extensions (this would not include outbuildings), the ridge height of the proposed house would be controlled as would be the use of the flat roof and other appropriate conditions would be imposed. The Team Manager, Development Management also advised Members that if they voted in favour of the proposal they should first be satisfied that it overcame the reasons for refusing the previous application. The mover and seconder agreed.

The motion was put to the vote and was carried, 7 voting in favour and 2 against with 1 abstention.

Item 3 Norwood Dene, The Avenue, Claverton Down, Bath – Erection of 7 apartments and associated works – The Planning Officer reported on this application and the recommendation to grant permission subject to conditions. He stated that additional wording would need to be added to Recommendation (A) (i), namely, “in accordance with Policy CP9 of the Core Strategy”.

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

Councillor Jasper Becker considered that this was an acceptable development which would provide housing near the University. The development was set well back from the road and would be screened by existing trees. He therefore moved the Officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Bryan Organ.

Members asked questions about the proposed management of this development, the size of the flats and parking to which the Officer responded. Members debated the motion. Councillor Caroline Roberts expressed concerns about the size and design of the balconies but the Officer replied that these issues had been taken into account and it was considered that they did not warrant refusal. The Team Manager, Development Management pointed out that, with regard to the paragraph at the top of page 97 of the Report concerning section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the statutory duty did not apply as the site was just outside the Conservation Area, but the setting of the Conservation Area would still need to be considered.

The motion was then put to the vote. Voting: 8 in favour and 1 against with 1 abstention. Motion carried.

Item 4 Richmond House, Weston Park, Upper Weston, Bath – Erection of 1 four bed detached dwelling and creation of new access following demolition of 2 existing garages – The Planning Officer reported on this application and the recommendation to grant permission subject to conditions.

Councillor Karen Warrington considered that the application was acceptable. There were no objections and it was in accordance with national planning policies. She moved the Officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Bryan Organ.

Members agreed and therefore the motion was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.

Item 5 Space Fitness, 7 Hayesfield Park, Bath – Installation of 2 Velux roof lights to inner slope of roof – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to grant permission subject to conditions.

Councillor Bryan Organ considered that this application was satisfactory and therefore moved the Officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Eleanor Jackson.

Members agreed and therefore the motion was put to the vote which was carried unanimously.