Agenda and minutes

The Chair will ask the Committee Administrator to draw attention to the emergency evacuation procedure as set out under Note 6

The Senior Democratic Services Officer read out the procedure

A Vice Chair was not desired

There were no apologies for absence

At this point in the meeting declarations of interest are received from Members in any of the agenda items under consideration at the meeting. Members are asked to indicate:

(a) The agenda item number and site in which they have an interest to declare.

(b) The nature of their interest.

(c) Whether their interest is a disclosable pecuniary interest or other interest (as defined in Part 2 A and B of the Code of Conduct and Rules for Registration of Interests)

Any Member who needs to clarify any matters relating to the declaration of interests is recommended to seek advice from the Council’s Monitoring Officer before the meeting to expedite dealing with the item during the meeting.

Councillor Liz Hardman declared a prejudicial interest in the planning application at Paulton Infants School (Item 3, Report 10) as a Governor of the School and therefore she would make a statement and then leave the meeting for its consideration. Councillor Andy Furse stated that, although he lived in the vicinity of the application site of Lark Place, Upper Bristol Road, Bath (Report 9), he did not have any interest to declare. Councillor Malcolm Lees (later in the meeting) declared an interest in the planning application at Private Garden, Lark Place, Upper Bristol Road, Bath (Item 3, Report 10) as he was formerly acquainted with the applicant’s Architects.

There were no items of urgent business. However, the Chair informed the meeting that the Enforcement Report at Rough Ground and Buildings, Queen Charlton Lane, Queen Charlton, had been withdrawn and therefore would not be considered at this meeting.

The Senior Democratic Services Officer informed the meeting that there were members of the public etc wishing to make statements on the planning applications in Reports 9 and 10 and that they would be able to do so when reaching those Items on the Agenda

There were no items from Councillors

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 31^st July 2013

The Minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 31^st July 2013 were approved as a correct record and were signed by the Chair

The Committee considered

·  The report of the Development Manager on an application for planning permission at 4 Lime Grove, Bathwick, Bath

·  An Update Report by the Development Manager which is attached as Appendix 1 to these Minutes

·  Oral statements by members of the public etc, 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 3 to these Minutes

No 4 Lime Grove, Bathwick, Bath – Conversion of student lets into 2 maisonettes and 1 self-contained apartment with first floor extension at the rear (Resubmission of 12/01925/FUL) – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to grant permission subject to conditions. The Update Report referred to the receipt of further representations and recommended an additional condition.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the application which was followed by a statement by the Ward Councillor David Martin who was against the proposal.

After hearing Officer’s responses to various questions about the proposal, Councillor Eleanor Jackson moved that the recommendation be overturned and that permission be refused on the basis that there would be a greater intensity of use of the building and the garden, the design would affect the appearance and symmetry of the building when viewed from the rear, it would detract from the amenities of the adjoining property and would not preserve or enhance this part of the Conservation Area, all contrary to Policies D2, D4 and HG12 of the Local Plan. The motion was seconded by Councillor Doug Nicol.

Members debated the motion. It was felt that it would be unreasonable to increase the impact on the adjoining property with greater intensity of use and the loss of light resulting from the first floor extension. Members generally agreed that the proposal would detrimentally affect the amenities of the adjoining property. However, one Member considered that there would be minimal impact on the neighbour and that their light would not be affected; the boundary wall was possibly a little too high. The Team Leader – Development Management gave advice regarding the relevance of the Policies quoted as regards the motion to refuse permission.

The motion was then put to the vote. Voting: 10 in favour and 2 against with 1 abstention. Motion carried.

The Committee considered

·  The report of the Development Manager on various applications for planning permission etc

·  An Update Report by the Development Manager on Item Nos 1 and 5, a copy of which is attached as Appendix 1 to these Minutes

·  Oral statements by members of the public etc, 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 Rough Ground and Buildings, Queen Charlton Lane, Queen Charlton – Change of use of land to private gypsy and traveller caravan site – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to refuse permission. The Update Report informed of further letters of objection being received. The Officer recommended a further reason to refuse permission, namely, lack of sustainability. He therefore amended his recommendation to Delegate to Refuse.

A representative of Compton Dando Parish Council made a statement against the proposal. The Ward Councillor Sally Davis made a statement agreeing with the Officer’s recommendation and the points raised by the public speaker.

After some clarification as to the use of buildings in the vicinity of the application site, Councillor Les Kew moved the Officer recommendation. This had been an on-going problem for the area and there were clear reasons for refusal. The motion was seconded by Councillor Bryan Organ.

Members debated the motion. Councillor Eleanor Jackson queried whether the openness of the Green Belt was affected. The welfare of the family should be considered and she felt that temporary permission could be granted.

After some further comments, the motion was put to the vote which was carried, 12 voting in favour and 1 against.

Item 2 Private Garden, Lark Place, Upper Bristol Road, Bath – Erection of a pair of two storey semi-detached 3 bedroom dwellings and a terrace of 3 two storey dwellings including access, parking for 3 cars, cycle storage and amenity provision – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to (A) authorise the Planning and Environmental Law Manager to enter into a S106 Agreement to secure various provisions relating to Education, Open Space and Recreational Facilities, and Transport; and (B) subject to the prior completion of the Agreement, authorise the Development Manager to grant permission subject to conditions set out in the report (or to be determined). He reported the receipt of 2 further objections.

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

Councillor Andy Furse opened the debate as one of the Ward Members on the Committee. He considered that there were 3 key issues/concerns, namely, the impact on local residents, highways/access, and loss of the allotments. He expounded on these areas of concern and other issues. Councillor Doug Nicol, the other Ward Member on the Committee, agreed with the concerns that had been raised and queried whether legal advice was required on the use as an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

To consider a recommendation to authorise enforcement action for use of land as a gypsy and traveller site including the stationing of caravans, structures and vehicles

The Committee noted that this Report had been withdrawn from the Agenda

Referring to the Committee’s decisions at its meeting on 5^th June to grant permission for various proposals at the above site, to note that the actual distance between the boundary of the composting site and the boundary of the nearest sensitive receptor is 131m, not 150m as reported. However, this would not have altered the recommendation that the applications be approved subject to conditions.

The Development Manager submitted a report (1) referring to the Committee’s decision at its meeting on 5^th June 2013 to approve planning applications at this site; (2) informing that the distance between the site and the nearest house (classed as a sensitive receptor) was 131m, not 150m as stated in the report to that meeting; (3) advising that the difference in distance was not considered material as the key distance was whether or not the property was within 250m of the site which it clearly was; and (4) recommending that the situation be noted.

Members considered the report and approved the Officer’s recommendation

RESOLVED to note that the actual distance between the boundary of the composting site and the boundary of the nearest sensitive receptor was 131m, not 150m as reported; however, this did not alter the recommendation that the applications should be approved subject to conditions.

To note the report

Referring to the Minutes of the meeting held on 5^th June 2013, the Committee considered (1) the report of the Development Manager which updated Members on the progress on addressing the various breaches of planning control at this site; and (2) an Update Report by the Development Manager, a copy of which is attached as Appendix 1 to these Minutes.

Councillor Martin Veal noted that it stated in the Minutes of the meeting held on 5^th June that the alterations to the site access were immune from enforcement action. He referred to and quoted S171b of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which inferred that the usual 4 year rule did not apply. A report to the Committee on 18^th July 2010 stated that enforcement action would be taken with regard to the access as it was within the 4 years. The applicants’ agent was now claiming that the site access was now lawful and he therefore requested advice as to whether this was the case. It was agreed that the necessary advice be provided to Councillor Veal subsequent to this meeting.

The Team Leader – Development Management gave advice on the Committee’s decision of 5^th June and updated Members with regard to applications received to regularise the situation.

The Committee noted the report.

The report was noted