Agenda item

The Committee considered

·  A report by the Development Manager on various applications for planning permission etc

·  Oral statements by members of the public etc on Item Nos 1-6, the Speakers List being attached as Appendix 1 to these Minutes

·  An Update Report by the Development Manager on Item Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5, a copy of which report is 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

Items 1&2 Cranwell House, Weston Park East, Upper Weston, Bath – Erection of a building adjacent to listed building following demolition of classroom units and outbuildings and refurbishment and alterations to listed building with associated landscape and engineering works including new retaining wall (Ref 12/00277/FUL & 12/00278/LBA) – The Planning Officer and the Senior Conservation Officer reported on these applications for planning permission and listed building consent respectively and their recommendations to (1) Authorise the Development Manager to Permit subject to conditions and the securing of the £10,000 contribution through a legal agreement; and (2) Delegate to Consent subject to appropriate conditions. The Update Report (i) provided further information on the planning application and revised the highway conditions numbered 2) – 7) in the Main Agenda; and (ii) recommended conditions on the listed building application. The Planning Officer reported the receipt of a letter of support from the Ward Councillor Colin Barrett on the proposals. He also advised Members that a signed Unilateral Undertaking had recently been received from the applicants and his recommendation was accordingly modified to Delegate to Permit subject to the Council approving the Unilateral Undertaking.

Various members of the public etc made statements on the applications which were followed by a statement by the Ward Councillor Malcolm Lees who raised concerns about the proposals. The Chair read out a letter of support received from the other Ward Councillor Colin Barrett. The Ward Member for the adjoining Ward of Lansdown, Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones, made a statement supporting the proposals. The Chair made some general comments about the proposals for Members to bear in mind when considering the applications.

Councillor Les Kew fully supported the proposals and moved the Officers’ recommendations to Delegate to Permit/Consent with conditions etc. This was seconded by Councillor Eleanor Jackson. Members debated the motions. Most Members were supportive of the proposals. The Team Leader – Development Management drew Members’ attention to the revised highway conditions in the Update Report. The motions were put to the vote. Voting on planning application (Ref 12/00277/FUL): Unanimously in favour. Voting on listed building application (Ref 12/00278/LBA): 11 in favour and 0 against with 1 abstention.

Item 3 No 40 Audley Park Road, Lower Weston, Bath – Erection of balcony, rendering of garage and utility and alterations to 2 storey side extension (Retrospective)(Ref 12/00488/FUL) – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to Permit with conditions. (Councillors Coombes and Nicol declared personal interests at this point). The applicant then made a statement in support of the application.

Councillor Doug Nicol supported the application and therefore moved that the Officer recommendation to Permit with conditions be approved. This was seconded by Councillor Bryan Organ. The motion was briefly debated after which it was put to the vote. Voting: Unanimously in favour.

(Note: Following this decision at 4.12pm, the Committee adjourned for a comfort break for approximately 15 minutes)

Item 4 Summerfield School, Lime Grove Gardens, Bathwick, Bath – Erection of 13 dwellings with associated parking and landscaping following demolition of existing school buildings (Resubmission)(Ref 12/00980/FUL) – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to (A) Authorise the Planning and Environmental Law Manager to prepare a Section 106 Agreement to secure contributions of £68,357.20 for school places and youth provision, £18,000 for improvements to pedestrian facilities; and for the Developers to fund a Traffic Regulation Order to prevent parking on the new access road; and (B) authorise the Development Manager to Permit subject to conditions. The Update Report reported on further consultation responses and provided an Officer assessment. It also varied the Recommendation to Delegate to Permit (A) subject to the satisfactory completion of a Unilateral Undertaking to secure a contribution of £78,433.80 for parks and open space provision in addition to the contributions referred to above, and added a further condition regarding implementation of the mitigation measures detailed in the Acoustic Report. The public speaker then made a statement raising concerns about the proposal.

Councillor Nicholas Coombes opened the debate. He considered that the proposals were flawed and were contrary to numerous policies in the Local Plan. He outlined the policies and the reasons why the proposals were contrary to them. He added that the adjoining Kennet and Avon Canal was found to be leaking and therefore any housing built on the land would need to be fully waterproofed. The motion was seconded by Councillor David Martin.

Members debated the motion and asked questions to which the Case Officer responded. Most Members considered that the proposal was acceptable despite the reduction in the area of the site which brought it below that where provision of affordable housing could be requested. A Member pointed out that, in the Officer’s report, there were numerous references to “no objections” by consultees against the proposals. It was also stated by a Member that, should permission be granted, it should be subject to a Construction Management Plan and must ensure that contractor’s vehicles were only parked on site. The Case Officer stated that the recommended Condition 12 covered these issues. The Team Leader – Development Management advised Members that a similar application for 18 houses had been refused permission last October and that the reasons at that time did not include those raised in the motion. If the applicants appealed against a refusal on these grounds, costs may be awarded to the applicants. The motion was then put to the vote. Voting: 3 in favour and a substantial majority against. Motion lost.

It was therefore moved by Councillor Les Kew and seconded by Councillor Bryan Organ to approve the Officer recommendation to Delegate to Permit etc but with adequate conditions to prevent contractors’ vehicles parking on-street. Councillor Nicholas Coombes felt that a condition should be added regarding noise attenuation for habitable rooms. This was not accepted by Councillor Kew. The motion was then put to the vote. Voting: 9 in favour and 3 against. Motion carried.

Item 5 No 53 Minster Way, Bathwick, Bath – Erection of new detached dwelling in the grounds of the existing house and associated new vehicular access and hardstanding (Ref 12/00292/FUL) – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to Permit with conditions. The Update Report referred to a further letter of objection being received which did not affect the recommendation. The public speakers made their statements on the proposal.

Councillor Nicholas Coombes did not support the application and therefore moved Refusal as it was contrary to numerous policies in the Local Plan, namely: D.2(b) not of high quality design; D.2(f) would cause harm to the amenities of residential properties by overlooking to the gardens of No 53 and increase enclosure to the garden of No 55; D.4(a) does not respond to local context in terms of appearance, siting, spacing and layout; GB.2 would be visually detrimental to the adjacent Green Belt; NE.9 may be of harm to the adjacent area of nature conservation (no consideration had been submitted); BH.1 would be harmful to the World Heritage site; BH.6 does not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in terms of size, form or position; BH.6(i) does not retain existing street patterns, historic grain or building lines; and BH.6(iv) does not retain the relationship of buildings to open space. The motion was seconded by Councillor David Martin.

Members debated the motion. Some Members supported the motion considering that the proposal would be detrimental to the amenities of local residents and impact on the appearance of the estate. Other Members felt that the proposal was acceptable and would complement the streetscene and preserve the character of this part of the Conservation Area. The motion was put to the vote. Voting: 6 in favour and 6 against. The Chair decided to exercise his casting vote in favour of the motion to Refuse and therefore voting was 7 in favour and 6 against. Motion carried.

Item 6 Leaning Pines, Thrubwell Lane, Nempnett Thrubwell – Erection of single storey dwelling following demolition of existing dwelling and associated outbuildings (Ref 11/05320/FUL) – The Planning Officer reported on this application and the recommendation to Refuse permission. She reported that the Arboricultural Officer would like to see conditions added regarding trees if the Committee decided to grant permission. The report also set out highway conditions to be added should permission be granted. The applicant made a statement in support of her application.

Councillor Les Kew considered that this was a huge improvement on the design of the previous proposal. With regard to Green Belt policy, he queried whether the basement area, which was not habitable accommodation but housed equipment/installations for renewable energy, should be included in the volume calculation. He felt that the proposal was sustainable because it incorporated renewable energy features and it would not affect the openness of the Green Belt. Councillor Kew therefore moved that permission be granted. The motion was seconded by Councillor Martin Veal.

The Senior Legal Adviser gave advice regarding Green Belt policy. He stated that it was correct for Officers to take account of the basement because the proposal had to be assessed on the basis of its volume - as such, it was inappropriate development in the Green Belt. However, there were a number of factors which Members should consider when deciding whether there were very special circumstances. In particular, he drew Members’ attention to an extract from the National Planning Policy Framework regarding renewable energy proposals in the Green Belt. If Members were minded to grant permission, he recommended that the motion be Delegate to Permit subject to appropriate conditions, including a condition to secure the implementation of the renewable energy measures detailed in the application.

Members generally supported the proposal due to the fact that it did not affect residential amenity, it provided a package of renewable energy and was supported by the Parish Council. The Chair pointed out that the basement area was included in the Green Belt calculation and therefore it was still inappropriate development even though it could not be seen. Councillor Les Kew, with the seconder’s agreement, amended his motion to Delegate to Permit with appropriate conditions on the grounds that there were very special circumstances which outweighed any potential harm to the Green Belt, namely, there was already an extant permission for a similar proposal and the current proposal was of a superior design, there would no adverse effect on the openness of the Green Belt as the increase in volume was largely due to a bigger basement, there were benefits to replacing the current derelict building, and the basement would contain renewable energy plant which Members considered was in line with Government policy on renewable energy. The Team Leader – Development Management stated that conditions should include the removal of permitted development rights and establishing a new hedgerow on the boundary as well as conditions recommended by Highways and Arboricultural Officers.

The motion was put to the vote. Voting: 11 in favour and 1 against. Motion carried.