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 required

There was an apology for absence from Councillor Les Kew whose substitute was Councillor Sally Davis. It was noted that Councillor Malcolm Lees would be late due to a Mayoral function.

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.

Councillors Brian Webber and Eleanor Jackson stated that they had connections with allotments or allotment holders but that these were not prejudicial and therefore they would speak and vote on the planning application on the allotment site at King Georges Road, Twerton, Bath (Report 9 on the Agenda). Councillor Ian Gilchrist stated that he had known the partner of the applicant for the application at Candywood Leys, Meadow Lane, Bathampton (Item 5, Report 10) in a professional capacity but this did not prejudice his ability to vote on the application.

There were no items of urgent business

The Chair informed the meeting that notice had been received from Kirsty Pristo to present a Petition objecting to the proposed development at King Georges Road, Twerton, Bath (Report 9). At the Chair’s request, she presented the Petition which had 405 signatures. The Chair received the Petition which would be taken into account when the application was considered under that Report.

The Chair read out a statement provided by Councillor Sharon Ball regarding the planning application at King Georges Road, Twerton, Bath, which would be taken into account when that application was considered under Report 9.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 11^th December 2013

The Minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 11^th December 2013 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair

The Committee considered

·  A report by the Development Manager on an application for planning permission at King Georges Road, Twerton, Bath

·  Oral statements by members of the public etc, the Speakers List being attached as Appendix 1 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 2 to these Minutes

Proposed development site, King Georges Road, Twerton, Bath – Erection of 11 houses and 10 flats following the demolition of half an existing apartment building – The Team Leader – Development Management reported on this application and the recommendation to grant permission with conditions. He informed the meeting of revisions to the plans and contributions by the applicants to provision of open space, allotments, together with improvements to the highways under a S106 Agreement.

The Chair informed the meeting that the speaking time for public speakers on this application had been extended to 15 minutes which would give the objectors one and a half minutes each. The public speakers then made their statements. The Ward Councillor June Player made a statement on the proposal.

Members asked questions about the proposal for clarification to which the Officer responded. An earlier refusal of permission for development was discussed together with density, parking and highways issues and whether there was a badger sett on the site. The Transportation Planning Manager responded to queries on highways matters. Councillor Bryan Organ considered that there were various drawbacks to the proposal particularly the access and moved that the application be refused contrary to the Officer recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Martin Veal.

Members debated the motion. The need for affordable housing was appreciated but it was generally felt that this was overdevelopment with a poor access which would affect the residential amenity of occupiers of adjoining properties. Furthermore, there had not been an adequate assessment of pedestrian and vehicular movements in the area to demonstrate that there would be no detriment to highway and pedestrian safety, Councillor Bryan Organ reaffirmed his motion based on these reasons.

Members considered the reasons for refusal. A Member requested the Officers’ views on the reasons. It was stated by Officers that the road network could accommodate the development. The proposal was in a sustainable area of existing high density development. It would provide 100% affordable housing on unused land. The Council were not in a position to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing as required under the NPPF. Good reasons were required to run contrary to the Officer’s recommendation. If the applicants decided to appeal against a refusal, there was a possibility that it would be successful and costs could be awarded against the Council. In response to a Member’s query about Policy CF8 in the Local Plan and this being an allotment site, the Team Leader – Development Management stated that this had been considered. Other allotment provision was available within 1000m of the site at Monksdale Road,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 118.

The Committee considered

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

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

·  An Update Report by the Development Manager on Item Nos. 1-3, 5 and 6, a copy of which is attached as Appendix 3 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

Items 1&2 Cross Keys Inn, Midford Road, Combe Down, Bath – (1) Erection of single storey single dwelling incorporating the conversion of existing listed outbuilding, boundary walls, parking and garden; and (2) internal and external alterations to existing listed outbuilding as part of development of self-build single storey single building – The Case Officer reported on these applications and his recommendations to grant permission/consent with conditions. The Update Report included a reference to a Decision Taking Statement to be added to the Recommendations if approved.

The applicant made a statement in favour of the proposal.

Councillor Nigel Roberts considered that the key point of the application was its effect on the Cross Keys Inn which was a listed building. He felt that this was minimal as the proposal was low level. He supported the Officer’s recommendations and moved accordingly. This was seconded by Councillor Doug Nicol.

Members debated the motions, It was considered that the proposal would enhance the area. The motions were put to the vote and were carried unanimously.

Item 3 Church Hall, School Lane, Batheaston, Bath – Erection of a new single storey village hall building including multi-use main hall, activity rooms, kitchen, toilets and stores and associated external works to provide accessible access to the hall and fields following demolition of the existing Church Hall (Resubmission) – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to grant permission with conditions. She referred to the Update Report which added a further Condition relating to a Construction Management Plan and an amendment to Condition 7. She also made reference to a letter from solicitors acting for objectors as regards hours of operation.

The public speakers made their statements on the application.

Councillor Martin Veal read a statement provided by Ward Councillor Gabriel Batt and referred to a letter to Councillor Batt supporting the proposal. He clarified that, whilst he had been lobbied by both sides of the debate, and he was a member of the local theatre group and an occasional user of the existing hall, this did not prejudice his ability to vote on the application. He spoke in favour of the proposal which was to be built on the existing site of the Hall close to the centre of the village and was of a sympathetic design. He stated that it was a desperately needed facility and was supported by the community and the Ward Councillors. He therefore moved the Officer recommendation to grant permission  ...  view the full minutes text for item 119.

To consider a recommendation regarding the terms of the Section 106 Agreement for this development

Referring to the Minutes of the meeting held on 25^th September 2013 and the planning application for the redevelopment of the former Cadbury Factory site, Somerdale, the Development Manager submitted a report which (1) informed Members that it had been decided that a Section 106 Agreement be authorised to secure, amongst other matters, the fit-out and delivery of employment space on the site to an agreed specification and programme; (2) advised that negotiations with the applicants on the fit-out of the employment space had stalled and therefore authority was being sought for the specification and for alternative provision.

The Ward Councillor Charles Gerrish made a statement expressing some concerns about the changes recommended.

The Council’s Planning Consultant reported on the matter and answered Members’ queries.

Members discussed the matter. It was felt by some Members that changes needed to be made to give Officers flexibility to negotiate. The Buildings B and C should remain as employment space. The Team Leader – Development Management advised that a marketing strategy had still to be arranged for employment use and that the buildings would be fitted-out later. If no payment was received, within the 5 year timescale recommended, the monies could be used for other developments in the area.

Having listened to the discussion, Councillor Nigel Roberts considered that no changes should be made to the specification of the Section 106 Agreement and to keep the status quo. This was seconded by Councillor Martin Veal. The motion was debated. The Officers responded to queries. The Officers needed a fall-back position in case for example the applicants applied for change of use say to residential and the proposed changes would protect the Council’s position regarding provision of employment in the area. It was generally felt by Members that this was a better course of action to follow. The motion was put to the vote. Voting: 5 in favour and 8 against. Motion lost.

Councillor Bryan Organ then moved the Officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Malcolm Lees. The motion was put to the vote and was carried, 8 voting in favour and 4 against with 1 abstention.

RESOLVED That the Planning and Environmental Law Manager be authorised to secure an Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure amongst other matters:

(a)  The fit out and delivery of employment space on the site to an agreed specification and programme; and

(b)  Provision of a financial contribution towards the delivery of employment off site should Buildings B and/or C not be refurbished and occupied within an agreed timescale (5 years) and an alternative use be proposed for the use of the buildings or land.

(Note: After this item, Councillors Sally Davis and Manda Rigby left the meeting)

To consider a recommendation to confirm this Tree Preservation Order with modification

The Committee considered a report (1) drawing attention to objections received to the making of a Tree Preservation Order at Gay Court, London Road West, Bath which sought to protect 8 individual trees which made a contribution to the landscape and visual amenity of the area; and (2) recommending that the Order be confirmed but with a modification to rectify the identification of trees T7 and T8 (Note: The Update Report had slightly amended the Recommendation in the Report.)

The Senior Arboricultural Officer reported on the matter and answered Members’ queries.

Members discussed the matter. Councillor Martin Veal pointed out that there was a problem with falling leaves from T1 onto the adjoining public footpath and that the residents would like to see a study of the tree being undertaken over the next few years. Councillor Eleanor Jackson felt that this was a separate issue and moved the Officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Doug Nicol.

The motion was debated. Various issues were raised including whether the Council could be liable for any damage to property from trees covered by a TPO and also that insurance companies were sometimes unwilling to insure properties with nearby trees. The Team Leader – Development Management and the Senior Arboricultural Officer responded to the points raised. Councillor Martin Veal stated that the residents of Gay Court have denied that they own the tree T! and therefore he enquired whether Officers knew who owned it. The Senior Arboricultural Officer stated that she would respond to Cllr Veal on this aspect subsequent to the meeting. The motion was then put to the vote.

RESOLVED to confirm the Tree Preservation Order entitled “Bath and North East Somerset Council (Gay Court, London Road West, Bath No 289) Tree Preservation Order 2013” subject to a modification to rectify the identification of T7 which is a Horse Chestnut (not Sycamore) and T8 which is a Sycamore (not Horse Chestnut).

(Voting: 9 in favour and 0 against with 2 abstentions)

The report was noted