Issue - meetings

The Committee considered:

·  A report by the Group Manager (Development Management) on various planning applications.

·  An update report by the Group Manager (Development Management) on item 1 attached as Appendix 2 to these minutes.

·  Oral statements by members of the public and representatives.  A copy of the speakers’ list is attached as Appendix 3 to these minutes.

RESOLVED that in accordance with the delegated powers, the applications be determined as set out in the decisions list attached as Appendix 5 to these minutes.

Item No. 1

Application No. 16/05504/OUT

Site Location: 34-35 Lower Bristol Road, Westmoreland, Bath, BA2 3AZ – Erection of two buildings to provide residential accommodation for students (up to 204 bedrooms) with ancillary accommodation and facilities and external courtyards, alterations to existing pedestrian and vehicular access and associated infrastructure following demolition of existing building

The Case Officer reported on the application and his recommendation to delegate to permit.  He advised the Committee that there were some amendments to the report as follows:

·  The site was not within the central area.

·  The standard reserved matters condition would be added.

·  Condition 7 should read “40 mcg”.

He also explained that the building was approximately 5m taller than the current building but that this was lower than some other buildings in the vicinity and was in line with the Building Height Strategy.

The registered speakers spoke for and against the application.

Councillor Ian Gilchrist, local ward member, spoke against the application.

Councillor Becker, local ward member on the Committee, noted that the Economic Development Team had raised an objection and would prefer industrial use for the site.  There was already a great deal of student accommodation in Bath.  He felt that the proposed design was ugly and too large.  On the whole he would prefer employment opportunities to be provided in this central location but if student accommodation were to be developed he would prefer this on a smaller scale and with an improved design.

The Case Officer responded to questions from members stating that the development would have to comply with the energy efficiency requirements of building regulations.  He also explained that although this was an outline application only, landscaping details were reserved matters, which would come back to the Committee for decision.

Councillor Kew stated that the proposed building was a poor design.  The Case Office pointed out that additional conditions could be added regarding materials if required.

Councillor Appleyard felt that the visual aspect was gloomy and dark and stated that the design could be improved.  He moved that the application be refused for the following reasons:

·  The application was overbearing and of poor design due to its mass and bulk.  This would have an adverse effect on the appearance of the area and would be damaging to the World Heritage Site.

·  The application would be contrary to policy and there were strong economic reasons for refusal as stated by the Council’s Economic Development Team.

Councillor Jackson stated that the building was depressing, gloomy and overbearing.  She  ...  view the full minutes text for item 144