Agenda and minutes

The Democratic Services Officer read out the emergency evacuation procedure.

A Vice Chairman was not required on this occasion.

Apologies for absence were received from:

Councillor Paul Crossley (substitute Councillor Will Sandry)

Councillor Eleanor Jackson (substitute Councillor Liz Hardman)

Councillor Bryan Organ (substitute Councillor Martin Veal)

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 an 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 Matthew Davies made a declaration in relation to item number 9 of the applications for planning permission report (63 Purlewent Drive, Upper Weston, Bath).  He stated that he had objected to this application and would therefore speak in his capacity as a Ward Member and then withdraw from the meeting when the item was discussed.

Councillor Rob Appleyard made a declaration in relation to item number 1 of the applications for planning permission report (Former GWR Railway Line, Frome Road, Radstock).  Councillor Appleyard stated that he is a non-executive director of the Curo Board and although Curo did not have any connection to this particular phase of the development he would not vote on the application.

There was no urgent business.

The Democratic Services Officer informed the meeting that there were a number of people wishing to make statements on planning applications and that they would be able to do so when these items were discussed.

The Chairman informed members that item 10 of the planning applications report (Church Farm Derelict Property, Church Hill, High Littleton) had been withdrawn from the agenda.

She also asked members to note that the annual tour of completed development sites would take place on 7 October 2016.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 24 August 2016.

The minutes of the meeting held on 24 August 2016 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

The Committee considered:

·  A report by the Group Manager (Development Management) on various planning applications.

·  Oral statements by local ward councillors.  A copy of the speakers’ list is attached as Appendix 2 to these minutes.

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

Item No. 1

Application No. 16/02530/FUL

Site Location: 23 Lymore Avenue, Twerton, Bath – Demolition of existing single storey rear extension and erection of side and rear single storey extension

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to grant planning permission.

Councillors June Player and Colin Blackburn, local ward members, spoke against the application.

Officers clarified that no precedent would be set by a decision on this item as each planning application should be considered on its own merits. 

Councillor Roberts moved that the application be refused due to the adverse impact on the neighbouring amenity and street scene.  She stated that there were a large number of extensions and loft conversions in this area and gardens were becoming smaller.  If this continued it could lead to more HMOs in the area.  The motion was seconded by Councillor Matthew Davies.

Councillor Kew understood the concerns of the local members and residents; however, he felt that there was little difference between this house and others in the area.  He could not support refusal and agreed with the officer recommendation to grant planning permission.

Councillor Sandry felt that if this were an application to create a new HMO then it would now be refused.  The materials to be used were not very thoughtful and the extension appeared quite large.

Officers pointed out that the extension was flat roof only and so should not greatly affect the street scene and that natural stone was proposed for the walling.  The Group Manager also advised that the degree of projection beyond the rear of the neighbouring property was not significant enough to result in significant harm to neighbouring amenity.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 6 votes for and 4 votes against to REFUSE the application due to the adverse impact on the neighbouring amenity and street scene.

The Committee considered:

·  A report by the Group Manager (Development Management) on various planning applications.

·  An update report by the Group Manager (Development Management) on items 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9 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 decisions list attached as Appendix 4 to these minutes.

Item No. 1

Application No. 16/1016/RES

Site Location: Former GWR Railway Line, Frome Road, Radstock – Approval of reserved matters in relation to outline application 13/02436/EOUT for access, appearance, layout, scale and landscaping for area 1 (phase 3 of the development)

The Case Officer reported on the application and his recommendation to grant planning permission.  He confirmed that amended plans had now been received showing that natural stone will be used on primary elevations and the chimneys.  He explained that the exact area of the public square was currently unclear but that this should not affect consideration of the application.

The registered speakers spoke for and against the application.

In response to questions regarding parking for the development the Case Officer confirmed that some of the car parks shown on the plan were not public car parks.  However, the car parks that could most easily be used by residents were the Waterloo Road car park and the car park near the library.  These were both large car parks which normally have availability.  There was a shortfall of 10 spaces for the development in terms of each dwelling having a parking space, it is in a town centre location and is a highly sustainable development with excellent access to public transport.  The Case Officer gave full details of all car parks in the vicinity and the number of spaces in each including disabled parking.  He explained that there was no scope to undertake further studies regarding parking.  He stated that there were a substantial amount of car parking spaces in the area and that the development would not have a severe impact on parking in this location as there was adequate capacity.

In response to a question regarding land ownership for the public open space the Case Officer stated that discussions between the developer and the Co-op who owned the land were ongoing.  However, this would not prevent the development from going ahead.

Councillor Sandry moved that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined in the officer report.  He felt that the parking was adequate and that the development would be positive for Radstock.

Councillor Kew seconded the motion stating that he felt traffic movement was good and that there would be ample parking space.

Councillor Hardman stated that she still believed parking was an issue and that there was a shortfall of 95 spaces.  An appropriate level of car parking should be provided before permitting the application.  She pointed out  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

The Committee considered the appeals report.

RESOLVED to NOTE the report.