Issue - meetings

The following 3 applications will be considered in the morning session starting at 11am:

1.  21/04590/FUL Homewood Park Hotel Homewood Hinton Charterhouse Bath

2.  21/00677/FUL Proposed Development Site Lansdown View Twerton Bath

3.  21/05622/FUL 36 Naishes Avenue Peasedown St. John

The Committee considered: 

A report by the Head of Planning on various planning applications. 

An update report by the Head of Planning attached as Appendix 1 to these minutes. 

Oral statements by members of the public and representatives.  A copy of the speakers’ list is attached as Appendix 2 to these minutes. 

RESOLVED that in accordance with the delegated powers, the applications be determined as set out in the Main decisions list attached as Appendix 3 to these minutes. 

Item No. 1

Application No: 21/04590/FUL

Site Location: Homewood Park Hotel, Homewood, Hinton Charterhouse, Bath.

The Case Officer introduced the report and gave a verbal update of amendments since the publication of the report and update report following a review by legal officers:

1.  The greenbelt section of report had incorrectly included building K store 2 within the volume and area of the buildings to be demolished and replaced under exception D of paragraph 149 of NPPF. 

2.  This building was in existence in previous pre application plans but since the writing of the report, it had been clarified that it was not in existence and had not been included in the submitted application and therefore should not have been included in the assessment of the volume and footprint of the current development.

3.  As a result, the greenbelt calculations had changed in terms of floor area and volume, but this did not alter the officer conclusion. The existing footprint was 412m² rather than 422m² and existing volume was 1295m³.

4.  In terms of assessing whether the proposal was materially larger under exception D, the existing was 367m² and proposed was 382m² which was an increase of 15m² (4%) which was still not considered by officers to be materially larger.

5.  In terms of volume, there was an increase from 1295m³ to 1504m³ which could be considered to be materially larger, however officers did not consider this to be the case taking into account spatial and visual aspects.

6.  In relation to the volume of spa and extensions, the increase would be 34.5% which was approximately 1/3 and therefore acceptable in terms of greenbelt policy. 

7.  With regard to the openness test, if the proposal fell under exceptions C and D, then the development was considered appropriate, and a separate assessment was not required.  The committee was therefore requested not to take the separate assessment into account.

8.  In relation to the assessment of car park, the committee was requested to disregard the paragraph “Additional Car Parking” and replace as follows:

“The proposal sees the addition of further car parking spaces within the site which will beconstructed of Grasscrete and located along the existing entrance track. It is considered that these car parking spaces fall in exception B of paragraph 150 of the NPPF which provides engineering operations are appropriate development provided they preserve the openness of the greenbelt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. The Grasscrete itself is not considered to have  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9