Agenda and minutes

The Chair will ask the Committee Administrator to draw attention to the emergency evacuation procedure as set out under Note 7

The Senior Democratic Services Officer read out the procedure

A Vice Chair was not required

There were apologies for absence from Councillors Patrick Anketell-Jones and David Veale whose substitutes were Councillors Tim Warren and Sally Davis respectively

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.

There was none

There was none

The Senior Democratic Services Officer informed the meeting that there were numerous people wishing to make statements on planning applications in Reports 9 and 10 and that they would be able to do so when reaching those items on the Agenda. The Chair stated that timings had been extended for applications on the Bath Recreation Ground and St James’ Surgery, Northampton Buildings, Bath. He requested that the time also be extended for the Fosseway Environment Park to which the Committee concurred (see Speakers List attached as Appendix 1 to these Minutes).

There was none

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 2^nd July 2014

The Minutes of 2^nd July 2014 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair

The Committee considered

·  The report of the Group Manager – Development Management on a planning application by Bath Rugby Ltd on the Bath Recreation Ground

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

·  An Update Report by the Group Manager on this application, which Report is attached as Appendix 2 to these Minutes

RESOLVED that, in accordance with their delegated powers, the application be determined as set out in the Decision List attached as Appendix 3 to these Minutes

Recreation Ground, Pulteney Mews, Bath – Retention and/or replacement of, and extensions to, the existing temporary spectator stands along the north, west and eastern sides of the retained playing field (as approved under permission references 09/01319/FUL, 10/01609/FUL, 10/01608/FUL, and 10/01611/FUL), provision of new hospitality boxes to either side of retained south stand, new control room and associated works and ancillary facilities comprising toilets and food and bar facilities (temporary application for period of up to 2 years) – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to grant permission subject to conditions. The Update Report contained references to further representations and Officer’s observations.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the application. The Chair responded to some of the issues raised by Steve Osgood in his statement.

Councillor Tim Warren stated that he was a season ticket holder of Bath Rugby Club and queried whether this amounted to an interest that he needed to declare. The Senior Legal Adviser stated that it was a matter for Councillor Warren’s judgement in accord with Members’ Code of Practice to consider whether his participation in the item was reasonable as it may be an interest but not a disclosable pecuniary interest.

The Chair referred to a letter sent to Members and Officers by the Friends of the Bath Residents’ Recreation Ground alleging, amongst other matters, that a decision by the Committee would be illegal. The Senior Legal Adviser stated that these issues were of a property nature and not planning – if permission were granted, it would be for the Recreation Ground Trust to consider these issues. He responded to some aspects raised by Councillor Malcolm Lees regarding the possibility of Members being charged and held liable for any possible wrongdoing in determining the application. The Chair summed up the advice given. However, Councillor Lees considered that, without a guarantee that Members would be indemnified from prosecution etc., consideration of the application should be deferred, and he so moved. The motion was seconded by Councillor Dave Laming. Members briefly debated the motion. Councillor Manda Rigby (Ward Member on the Committee) considered that a decision should be taken today but that a definitive legal statement was required to differentiate between property and planning matters and that one did not have a bearing on the other. The motion was then put to the vote which was lost, only 2 Members voting in favour and a substantial majority against.

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

The Committee considered

·  The report of the Group Manager – Development Management 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 Group Manager on Item 8, 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 4 to these Minutes

W T Burden Ltd, Bath Road, Farmborough – Demolition of existing building and redevelopment of site with up to 14 dwellings with associated means of access, access roads, car parking, boundary treatments and landscaping, conversion (Including recladding) of retained building to provide office/workshop accommodation (Class B1) with associated car parking – The Senior Planning Officer reported on the application and the recommendation to refuse permission which had been overturned by the Committee at its previous meeting on 2^nd July. At that meeting, as the decision was contrary to Green Belt policy and Officer advice, the Team Manager – Development Management had decided to exercise his discretion under Paragraph 7 of the Committee Protocol which rendered the decision of no effect until the application was reconsidered by the Committee at a subsequent meeting when it could make such decision as it saw fit.

The public speaker made his statement in support of the application.

Councillor Sally Davis (the Ward Councillor on the Committee for this meeting) considered that this was an exception to Green Belt Policy as stipulated in Paragraph 89 of the NPPF as this was complete redevelopment of a previously developed brownfield site which she considered as infilling. She considered that there would not be any impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the existing commercial uses would be far more detrimental to the amenities of local residents. It would be an advantage, however, if the 30mph speed limit could be extended across the site frontage. On this basis, she moved that permission be granted. The Group Manager – Development Management advised that Green Belt tests had been applied and this was inappropriate development which by definition was harmful. Paragraph 89 provided guidance that excluded temporary buildings and there was only 1 permanent building which would be demolished. Openness meant the absence of development. The key test was whether the proposed development would have a greater impact on openness than the existing permanent development at the site. In this case, Officers considered that replacing one permanent building with 14 dwellings would have a materially greater impact on openness. There was a risk if not complying with the NPPF and a legal challenge to the decision without full discernable grounds if permission was given. The motion was then seconded by Councillor Bryan Organ.

Members debated the motion. It was considered that the situation had not changed since the previous meeting when Members would have given permission, No precedent would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

To confirm the Bath and North East Somerset Council (63 Bloomfield Road, Bath No 299) Tree Preservation Order 2014

The Committee considered the report of the Senior Arboricultural Officer which (1) referred to an objection being received to the making of a Tree Preservation Order to protect a Cedar at No 63 Bloomfield Road which makes a contribution to the landscape and visual amenity of the Bath Conservation Area; and (2) recommended that the Order be confirmed without modification.

It was stated that the Ward Councillor David Bellotti supported the confirmation of the Tree Preservation Order.

Members discussed the condition of the tree, its roots, the canopy, and the possible effect on adjoining properties. The Officer responded to queries raised.

It was generally felt that the tree did not contribute to the landscape and visual amenity of the area. Councillor Vic Pritchard felt that it did contribute and therefore moved the Officer recommendation to confirm the Order without modification. This was seconded by Councillor Gerry Curran. The motion was put to the vote. Voting: 4 in favour and 7 against with 2 abstentions. Motion lost.

Members considered that work could be undertaken on the tree whenever it was required (subject to Bath Conservation Area control) and that it was not worthwhile to confirm the Order in the interest of amenity. It was therefore moved by Councillor Bryan Organ and seconded by Councillor Tim Warren that the Order not be confirmed. Voting: 7 in favour and 4 against with 2 abstentions. Motion carried.

The report was noted