Agenda and minutes

The Democratic Services Officer read out the emergency evacuation procedure.

On motion by Councillor Jackson, seconded by Councillor Crossley it was:

RESOLVED: To elect Councillor Kew as Vice Chairman for this meeting.

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 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.

The Chairman, Councillor Sally Davis, declared a non-pecuniary interest in application number 16/04284/FUL, Farmborough Memorial Hall, Little Lane, Farmborough.  The land belongs to Farmborough Parish Council and Councillor Davis is a member of the Parish Council.  She stated that she would leave the meeting while this application was considered.

The Chairman informed members that planning application number 16/03652/FUL, relating to Applegate Stables, Shockerwick Lane, Bathford, Bath, BA1 7LQ had been withdrawn from the agenda.

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.

There were no items from Councillors or Co-Opted Members.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 19 October 2016.

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 October 2016 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

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 item no 1 attached as Appendix 1 to these minutes.

·  Oral statements by members of the public and representatives on items 1 and 2.  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. 16/00792/FUL

Site Location: 8 Warminster Road, Bathampton, Bath, BA2 6SH – Erection of two-storey rear extension with first floor rear balcony

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to permit the application.

The registered speakers spoke for and against the application.

In response to a question the Case Officer confirmed that the proposed wall would be the full height of the veranda of the neighbouring property.

Councillor Roberts moved that planning permission be refused due to the proposed extension being overbearing, loss of light to the adjoining property and the resulting detrimental impact on the amenity.  This was seconded by Councillor Crossley.

Councillor Kew noted that there would be some impact on the neighbouring property but questioned whether this would be unreasonable.  He felt that the extension would not be too overbearing.

Councillor Jackson noted that the applicant wished to provide disabled access to the garden, officers confirmed that this was a consideration but usually relevant to planning in a specific exceptional situation and normally covered by building regulations.  Councillor Jackson also pointed out that there would be some loss of light to the neighbours’ kitchen.

The motion was then put to the vote and there were 4 votes in favour, 5 votes against and 1 abstention.  The motion was therefore LOST.

Councillor Kew then moved that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.  This was seconded by Councillor Organ.

The motion was then put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 6 votes in favour and 4 votes against to PERMIT planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Item No. 2

Application No. 16/03069/FUL

Site Location: Workshop, 239A London Road East, Batheaston, Bath, BA1 7RL – Conversion and extension of existing industrial building to create a Live Work Unit

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to permit the application.

The registered speaker spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Kew moved that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.  He stated that the development would enhance the area and was not overbearing.  The motion was seconded by Councillor Jackson who felt that the development would be a vast improvement.  She then asked whether a condition could be included to remove permitted development rights to prevent further extension of the property.  The Team Manager, Development Management confirmed that this could be included and Councillor Kew agreed to include this in his motion.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

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 item 7 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. 16/03114/ERES

Site Location: Proposed Development Site, Roseberry Road, Twerton, Bath – Approval of Reserved Matters in relation to outline application 15/01932/EOUT (Phase 1 of the development comprising 171 flats, local needs shopping unit and associated development)

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to approve the application.

The registered speaker spoke in favour of the application.

In response to a question the Case Officer confirmed that the Section 106 agreement included a requirement for a marketing strategy and plan and also that the provision of a cycle strategy had been agreed at the outline stage.  She explained that the retail unit would cater for local needs and that 40 parking spaces would be provided.  The Section 106 Agreement also set out the requirements for affordable housing.

Councillor Jackson had some reservations about the height of the buildings and felt these could be overbearing.  The Case Officer confirmed that the height did not exceed that of the buildings at the Western Riverside development.  Councillor Jackson then moved that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.  This was seconded by Councillor Organ.

Councillor Crossley stated that this was a very good application which contained roofscape, variation, a number of balconies, underground car parking and a mix of units.  He welcomed the fact that it would provide a mixed community which included affordable housing.  There was a need for this type of housing in Bath and he welcomed the imaginative and diverse design.

Councillor Becker felt that the application should be rejected and a request made for a more aesthetically pleasing design.  He stated that this proposal did not follow the design principles required for Bath as a world heritage city.  The Placemaking Plan had not been followed and the proposal undermined and contradicted Palladian architecture.  He felt that the design could easily be improved to address these concerns at this key site and that the proposal as it stands was currently featureless and monotonous. 

Councillor Kew stated that he agreed with the comments made by Councillor Crossley.  He pointed out that the site was not within a conservation area and that the development would address the need for this type of housing in the area.  There were many good features within the design and the modern materials were acceptable.

Councillor Organ stated that this was a good use of a derelict site.

Councillor Appleyard stated that this was a good proposal and that he would support it.

The motion  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

The Committee considered a report by the Group Manager (Development Management) on various enforcement matters.

Item No. 1

Reference: 09/00168/UNAUTH

Site Location: Rough Ground and Buildings, Queen Charlton Lane, Queen Charlton – Without planning permission the unauthorised use of the land for residential purposes.  The use of the land is in breach of planning control.

The Case Officer reported on the matter and his recommendation to continue with injunction proceedings.  The report set out the changes to the personal circumstances of the applicants since the decision of the Development Management Committee on 21 October 2015 to authorise the issue of injunction proceedings.  He explained that the Council works with organisations to provide educational support and to assist with making short term arrangements for education provision as necessary.  The Parish Council were in favour of continuing to pursue enforcement action.

The registered speakers spoke in favour of allowing the use of the land to continue and against injunction proceedings.

Councillor Crossley moved that the Council take no action until March 2017 pending the Court decision on this injunction.  This was seconded by Councillor Appleyard.

The Senior Legal Advisor explained that due to injunction proceedings having been started by the Council, and with that a court timetable to comply with, the Committee should decide either to continue with the injunction or to discontinue the action.  A suspension of action would not work in the current situation.  It was noted that a Public Inquiry in relation to refused planning application 14/01379/FUL had been held in October 2016 and a decision from the Planning Inspectorate was due by 5 December 2016.  If the planning appeal was successful and planning permission granted by the Planning Inspector then the injunction proceedings were very likely to halt.

Councillor Jackson felt that proceedings should be stopped due to the right of the applicant to a stable family life.  This would be difficult if the family were forced to live on the roadside.  She stated that enforcement action was at the discretion of the Council and that human rights considerations should be taken into account.

Councillor Crossley then withdrew his original motion with the consent of his seconder and moved that the injunction proceedings be discontinued.  This was seconded by Councillor Jackson.

Councillor Kew stated that it had taken many years to reach this point and that the injunction proceedings should go ahead due to the unauthorised use of the land and unlawful occupation of a greenfield site.  Although this was a difficult case it was important to follow Council policy.

The motion was then put to the vote and there were 4 votes in favour and 6 votes against.  The motion was therefore LOST.

Councillor Kew then moved that the Council proceed with injunction proceedings for the reasons set out in the officer recommendation.  This was seconded by Councillor Organ.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 6 votes in favour and 4 votes against to continue to pursue the injunction as previously  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

The Committee is asked to note the report.

The Committee considered the quarterly performance report for July to September 2016.  Officers agreed to check the 41% figure for “invalid” applications received.

RESOLVED to NOTE the report.

The Committee is asked to note the report.

The Committee considered the appeals report and noted that there was a 100% success rate.

RESOLVED to NOTE the report.