Agenda and minutes

The Senior Democratic Services Officer read out the procedure

A Vice Chairman was not required

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Matthew Davies and Sally Davis and their respective substitutes were Councillors Donal Hassett and Karen Warrington

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.

With regard to the application concerning the Former GWR Railway Line, Frome Road, Radstock, Councillor Rob Appleyard stated that he is a Director of Curo and that as the application might impact upon Curo’s property interests he felt he should withdraw from the meeting for its consideration. Councillor Eleanor Jackson declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in the same application, as she could view the site from her house and she would also leave the meeting for its consideration. During the consideration of that item, Councillor Paul Crossley clarified that whilst he had had previous involvement with the project when he was the Leader of the Council, he was entirely open-minded about this planning application.

There were no items of urgent business

The Senior Democratic Services Officer informed the meeting that there were members of the public wishing to make statements on the Enforcement Items (Report 11) and on various planning applications (Reports 9 and 10) who would be able to do so when reaching those items on the Agenda.

There was none

To approve the Minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 23^rd September 2015 as a correct record

The Minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 23^rd September 2015 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman

The Committee considered

• The report of the Group Manager – Development Management on 2 planning applications
• An Update report by the Group Manager on Item 1, a copy of the Report being appended as Appendix 1 to these Minutes
• Oral statements by members of the public on Items 1 and 2, a copy of the Speakers List being appended 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

Item 1 No 10 Entry Hill, Bath – Erection of 1 two bed dwelling – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to grant permission subject to conditions. The Update Report corrected some aspects of the Report. He stated that the words “.. and retained thereafter” needed to be added to Condition 11 of the Recommendation and ‘in the interest of residential amenity’ should be added to the reason for Condition 4.

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

Councillor Caroline Roberts raised concerns about parking to which the Officer responded. Councillor Paul Crossley considered that location was the main issue for consideration. He considered that this was inappropriate development for this location and would cause harm to the amenities of adjoining residents. In addition, there would be problems with construction due to its location which would have a detrimental impact on neighbours. He therefore moved that the recommendation be overturned and permission refused which was seconded by Councillor Caroline Roberts.

Members debated the motion with opposing views being discussed. Councillor Les Kew considered that the site was suitable for development and any construction issues could be overcome.

The motion was put to the vote. Voting: 4 in favour and 6 against. Motion lost.

Councillor Les Kew therefore moved the Officer recommendation to grant permission with conditions which was seconded by Councillor Bryan Organ. The motion was put to the vote and was carried, 6 voting in favour and 4 against.

Item 2 Rosebank, Common Lane, Compton Dando – Erection of two storey extension following the removal of existing conservatory – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to refuse permission.

The applicants’ agent made a statement in favour of the proposal.

Members asked questions about the proposal to which the Officer responded. Councillor Paul Crossley considered that this development would affect the openness of the Green Belt and therefore moved the Officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Eleanor Jackson.

Members debated the motion and discussed the Green Belt policy of allowing an increase of up to 30% of the volume of existing buildings. The Team Manager stated that the Council’s SPD with regard to extensions to dwellings within the Green Belt  was in accordance with the NPPF, and this application applied for a 186% increase which was significantly greater  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

The Committee considered

• The report of the Group Manager – Development Management on various planning applications etc.
• An Update Report by the Group Manager on Item Nos. 1, a copy of which is attached as Appendix 1 to these Minutes
• Oral statements by members of the public on Item Nos. 1-3, a copy of 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 Former GWR Railway Line, Frome Road, Radstock – Approval of reserved matters with regard to outline application 13/02436/EOUT for access, appearance, layout, scale and landscaping for Area 3 (Phase 2) of the development – The Planning Officer reported on this application and the recommendation to grant permission subject to conditions. The Update Report provided an officer assessment on further representations received. Consideration would need to be given to the imposition of a S106 Agreement or a Condition to secure the management of the structural Kilmersdon Brook bank retaining wall.

The public speakers made their statements on the application.

Councillor Bryan Organ considered that the details of the Reserved Matters were acceptable and that the applicants had a proven track record in their consideration of such developments. He therefore moved the Officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Karen Warrington.

Members debated the motion. Councillor Paul Crossley referred to his previous involvement in the regeneration of Radstock which he felt did not prejudice his consideration of the scheme and he still had an open mind. He considered that the scheme had now moved forward and would provide numerous benefits to the community and the area in general. He supported the motion.

Members discussed the S106 Agreement and it was considered that the retaining wall to the bank of the brook could be left to Officers to decide if it should be managed under a S106 Agreement or controlled by an appropriate condition.

The motion was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.

(Note: Councillors Rob Appleyard and Eleanor Jackson were not present for the consideration of this application in view of their interests declared earlier in the meeting)

Item 2 No 2 Hermitage Road, Lansdown, Bath – Erection of detached dwelling with associated car parking and landscaping following demolition of existing dwelling (Resubmission) – The Senior Planning Officer reported on this application and the recommendation to refuse permission. She reported that agents for the objectors had requested that, if the Committee was minded to allow this development, a condition be added to restrict permitted development rights so that there could be no extensions or enclosures.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the application which was followed by a statement from the Ward Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones.

Councillor Donal Hassett considered that permission should be granted as recommended by Officers on the previous application. The development was partially below the hedge line and there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

(1)  ROUGH GROUND AND BUILDINGS, QUEEN CHARLTON LANE, QUEEN CHARLTON To consider a recommendation that, having considered the relevant enforcement options available, the Local Planning Authority should seek an Injunction from the Court under S187b of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to restrain the breach of planning control and that it is expedient to do so

(2)  43 UPPER OLDFIELD PARK, BATH To consider a recommendation that, after planning permission has been granted, the Enforcement Notice dated 8^th May 2015 is withdrawn

1.  Rough ground and buildings, Queen Charlton Lane, Queen Charlton

The Committee considered

• The report of the Group Manager – Development Management (i) on the unauthorised use of this land for residential purposes which was in breach of planning control; and (ii) which recommended that having considered the relevant enforcement options available, the Local Planning authority should seek an Injunction from the Court under S187B of the 1990 Act to restrain the breach of planning control and that it was expedient to do so
• The Update Report of the Group Manager which provided further information on the matter
• Oral statements by members of the public against and in favour of the recommendation

The Enforcement Officer provided a power point presentation on the matter and informed Members that the word “proposed” should be deleted from the words “The proposed development …” in paragraphs 1-4 under the heading of Expediency of Enforcement Action in the Report.

Councillor Karen Warrington expressed sympathy for the occupiers of the site but considered that this was a breach of planning control. The nearby housing sites had been dealt with in accordance with the Core Strategy and had followed proper process. She therefore moved the Officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Bryan Organ.

Members debated the motion. Councillor Paul Crossley considered that the matter needed careful consideration. The land was not always used for residential purposes as this was a touring family and therefore would not cause any lasting harm – there were also health issues and the education of the children to be considered. He felt that the matter should be delayed until the Appeal Inspector’s decision had been received. Councillor Eleanor Jackson referred to the inconsistency on the Committee’s decisions with other similar sites involving travellers. She could not support the motion which she considered to be premature. Councillor Rob Appleyard considered that this was a non-aggressive occupation and felt that the matter should be delayed until the outcome of the appeal. The Team Manager referred to the Update Report and the Government’s policy for traveller sites. He stated that this was inappropriate development in the Green Belt and emphasised that it needed to be protected, hence the Officer’s approach and recommended course of action.

The Chairman referred to the long history of the situation at this site and the duty to local residents and the Green Belt. He put the motion to the vote.

RESOLVED that, having considered the relevant enforcement options available, the Local Planning Authority should seek an Injunction from the Court under S187B of the 1990 Act to restrain the breach of planning control and that it is expedient to do so.

2. No 43 Upper Oldfield Park, Bath

The Committee considered

• The report of the Group Manager – Development Management (i) on the position regarding the extant Enforcement Notice in the light of the Committee’s decision at its last meeting to grant planning permission for a revised scheme; and (ii) which recommended that, after planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

The report was noted.