Agenda item

The Committee considered

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

·  An Update Report on Items 1 and 3, a copy of which is attached as Appendix 1 to these Minutes

·  Oral statements by members of the public etc. on Items 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 Bath Press premises, Lower Bristol Road, Bath – Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide a residential-led mixed use comprising 244 dwellings (Use Class C3) and 1,485.2sq m GIA flexible employment space (Use Class B1), basement car park, substation, associated landscaping and access – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to delegate to permit, namely, subject to the submission of further and satisfactory details about the treatment of the retained windows in the retained façade fronting Lower Bristol Road and the treatment of the rear of this façade; details of the retained south boundary wall and details of the proposed pedestrian access through this wall; amendments to the windows and balconies to the southernmost housing and flats to safeguard the privacy of existing residents to the south of the site; amendments to the on-site pedestrian links to the new pedestrian access through the southern boundary wall to ensure that there is a ramped access instead of, or in addition to, the steps serving this access; confirmation of the unrestricted pedestrian and cycle routes through the development; and to add, amend or remove conditions as appropriate as a result of the submission of any further or revised information/plans; and (A) authorise the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to enter into a S106 Agreement and a S278 Agreement to secure the requirements set out in the Recommendation on the Main Report and the subsequent Update Report; and (B) subject to the completion of (A), authorise the Group Manager – Development Management to grant permission subject to conditions. The Case Officer also informed Members that there was an additional matter that needed to be agreed with the applicants to the satisfaction of Officers before planning permission was granted, namely, the minimum clearance under the building for access for refuse vehicles, and the S106 Agreement should include provisions to secure a minimum 14% affordable housing delivered in accordance with the Council’s Planning Obligations SPD and to ensure that there is permanent public access to the publicly accessible footpaths through the site. It was also possible due to recent alterations to the proposed pedestrian access from the south side of the site which affects a proposed planting area that the financial contributions towards tree planting outside of the site might need to be recalculated. Additional planning conditions should also be added to the planning permission to ensure that the publicly accessible pedestrian/cycle routes are not gated or otherwise enclosed without planning permission and that details of the proposed boundary treatment on the corner of Dorset Close and Lower Bristol Road are submitted for approval. The Case Officer also advised that Condition 34 would require amending as regards facing materials. The Update Report contained information on Parking and comments from the Parks Department and recommended an amended Condition 3.

The applicants’ representative made a statement in support of the proposed development which was followed by a statement by the Ward Councillor June Player who objected to the application.

Members asked questions for clarification to which Officers responded. Councillor Paul Crossley opened the debate by moving the Officer recommendation as he considered that it was a good mixed use with partial red brick for materials at the rear and a link to the old building and retained façade. However, he had some concerns regarding the existing clock, the potential for residents of the development to use adjoining parking zones (where Permits were required), and the low level of 14% affordable housing. However, the removal of flat roofs was a good feature but he would like to see more balconies included. The motion was seconded by Councillor Bryan Organ who felt that the development should not be occupied until any new school provision was developed or made available. The Officers responded to some of the points raised. Residents’ parking was a scheme operated by Parking Services and it was possible to refuse permits from adjoining areas – Parking Services could be advised accordingly. The parking area for the commercial units could be used by residents at night. Councillor Rob Appleyard expressed concern regarding vehicular egress onto the busy Lower Bristol Road and the houses to be built opposite the school in Dorset Close as regards dropping off and picking up times. He hoped that the proposed houses would not become HMOs. Despite these concerns, there were numerous benefits of the scheme. The Team Manager – Development Management responded that a yellow hatched box could be painted on the Road to allow vehicular egress from the site; Parking Services would be able to manage any issues arising from the School; and any applications for HMOs would be considered as and when received. Councillor Les Kew rounded off the debate by stating that there were a number of positives from the scheme which was welcomed but that the low level of affordable housing was regrettable. The use of red brick was acceptable and he agreed that the clock should be kept in working order. The Team Manager clarified that the brick to be used was not red and clarified the actual brick to be used as in the Officer’s report.  She also advised against imposing a Condition to ensure that the clock was kept in working order as such a Condition would not meet the relevant test and suggested that this matter be delegated to the Officer to consider what could reasonably be agreed by Condition. These points were accepted by the mover and seconder.

The motion was put to the vote and was carried, 9 voting in favour and 0 against with 1 abstention.

Item 2 Parcel 3300 Temple Inn Lane, Temple Cloud – Approval of reserved matters with regard to outline application 13/03562/OUT allowed on appeal on 19.08.15 for 70 dwellings and associated roads, drainage, landscaping, open space, parking, layout, scale and appearance – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to grant permission subject to conditions.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the proposals which was followed by a statement by the Ward Councillor Tim Warren.

Members asked questions for clarification to which Officers responded. Concern was expressed regarding the close proximity to an end house on the existing adjoining development, the provision of Grow Spaces and maintenance of the hedgerow and proposed Management Company. It was felt that a bit more work was required and that the Parish Council should be involved in the maintenance issue.

Councillor Paul Crossley moved that the application be deferred to enable negotiations to take place between the applicants and Officers on the long term maintenance of the green space on the site including the Grow Spaces. The motion was seconded by Councillor Les Kew. The Team Manager – Development Management advised that the Unilateral Undertaking, which accompanied the outline permission, required that a Landscape Scheme Management Plan be agreed prior to the development being commenced and that was currently being discussed as covered in the Officer’s report. There was no reason for not determining the application at this meeting as the two matters were not linked. She pointed out that the wording in Condition 2 required an amendment for clarity. She suggested that, as the maintenance issue was a separate matter, the Case Officer could enter into negotiations with the developer and report back to the Spokespersons. However, this was not acceptable to Members. There was further debate and the Principal Solicitor advised that it was possible for the Committee to defer the application.

Members debated the motion. There was still concern about the hedgerow and adjoining fence and water supply for the Grow Patches. The Chairman suggested that the matter could be brought back to Committee at its next meeting to allow the negotiations to take place which was accepted by the mover and seconder.

The motion was then put to the vote and was carried, 8 voting in favour and 1 against.

(Note: Councillor Caroline Roberts was not present for the vote on this matter)

Item 3 Kings Cottage, Nempnett Street, Nempnett Thrubwell – Change of use of a traditional stone barn and its curtilage to create a 2 bed holiday cottage with associated external works – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to refuse permission. She referred to the Update Report which provided amendments to the text of the main report as regards Impact on the Green Belt and on Amenity.

The applicant made a statement in support of the proposal.

Councillor Les Kew moved that the Officer recommendation be overturned and permission granted on the basis that the building was capable of conversion without much reconstruction or major external works and would be in keeping with its surroundings, it would not result in replacement agricultural buildings, and it would not have a materially greater impact than the present use on the openness of the Green Belt. The motion was seconded by Councillor Eleanor Jackson.

Members debated the motion. Councillor Rob Appleyard suggested that a Condition be added to ensure that the holiday lets continued in perpetuity which was accepted by the mover and seconder who therefore amended the motion to Delegate to Officers to grant permission subject to appropriate conditions.

The motion was put to the vote and was carried, 9 voting in favour and 0 against with 1 abstention.