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 Bryan Organ – substitute Councillor Brian Simmons

Councillor Caroline Roberts – substitute Councillor Tim Ball

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.

There were no declarations of interest.

There was no urgent business.

The Chairman informed members that the following items had been withdrawn from the agenda:

·  Item No. 2 – Land between Homelands and 10 Camerton Hill

·  Item No. 3 – Units 1-2, Fourth Avenue, Westfield

·  Item Nos 4 and 5 – 14 Union Street, Bath

·  Item No. 9 – Stonedge Cottage, Stoneage Lane, Tunley

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.

A written question was received from Mr John Branston regarding the use of “no-car” clauses in relation to tenants of purpose built student accommodation.  The Chairman read out a response to this question and a copy of both the question and response are attached as Appendix 1 to these minutes.

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

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 5 April 2017.

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 April 2017 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 members of the public and representatives on item 1.  A copy of the speakers’ list is attached as Appendix 3 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 4 to these minutes.

Item No. 1

Application No. 16/05772/FUL

Site Location: 40 Bloomfield Park, Bloomfield, Bath, BA2 2BX – Erection of eight apartments with associated parking and landscaping following demolition of existing detached house and garage (Resubmission)

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

The registered speakers spoke for and against the application.

Councillor Mark Shelford, local ward member, spoke against the application.

Councillor Jackson asked a question regarding the layout of the flats in relation to neighbouring properties.  The Case Officer showed layout plans and explained that no windows directly faced either 39 or 41 Bloomfield Park.  The windows looked out on either the front or rear of the properties and not to the side.

Councillor Kew noted the large number of letters and objections that had been received regarding this application.  He felt that the design was now more in keeping with the area and noted that the building had been moved back by 3m.towards the rear of the site.  He did not feel that the proposal demonstrated overdevelopment of the site or that it would cause significant harm to neighbouring properties.  It would give a mix of properties in the area and provide much needed accommodation.  He then moved that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.  This was seconded by Councillor Matthew Davies.

Councillor Jackson asked whether there would be a condition regarding grounds maintenance.  The Case Officer explained that there would not usually be such a condition for a development of this size.  Condition 9 would require replacement of trees or plants if required within the first 5 years of completion.

Councillor Jackson also expressed concern that only 8 parking spaces would be provided.  The Case Officer explained that there had been no objection from the Highways Team and that this was considered to be a sustainable location.

The Case Officer also explained that the difference between this application and the previous one was the repositioning of the development 3m to the rear of the site to protect the trees.  The building was still the same size with a slightly smaller lower ground parking area.

The Team Manager, Development Management, stated that the Planning Inspector had found the development acceptable other than the potential harm to the trees which had now been addressed.

Councillor Crossley felt that the development was too large and imposing for the site and would be detrimental to neighbouring properties.  He felt that the change to move the development back by 3m was not significant and stated that the building was now bigger, taller and wider.

Councillor Veale agreed that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 143.

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 1 attached as Appendix 2 to these minutes.

·  Oral statements by members of the public and representatives.  A copy of the speakers’ list is attached as Appendix 3 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 5 to these minutes.

Item No. 1

Application No. 16/05504/OUT

Site Location: 34-35 Lower Bristol Road, Westmoreland, Bath, BA2 3AZ – Erection of two buildings to provide residential accommodation for students (up to 204 bedrooms) with ancillary accommodation and facilities and external courtyards, alterations to existing pedestrian and vehicular access and associated infrastructure following demolition of existing building

The Case Officer reported on the application and his recommendation to delegate to permit.  He advised the Committee that there were some amendments to the report as follows:

·  The site was not within the central area.

·  The standard reserved matters condition would be added.

·  Condition 7 should read “40 mcg”.

He also explained that the building was approximately 5m taller than the current building but that this was lower than some other buildings in the vicinity and was in line with the Building Height Strategy.

The registered speakers spoke for and against the application.

Councillor Ian Gilchrist, local ward member, spoke against the application.

Councillor Becker, local ward member on the Committee, noted that the Economic Development Team had raised an objection and would prefer industrial use for the site.  There was already a great deal of student accommodation in Bath.  He felt that the proposed design was ugly and too large.  On the whole he would prefer employment opportunities to be provided in this central location but if student accommodation were to be developed he would prefer this on a smaller scale and with an improved design.

The Case Officer responded to questions from members stating that the development would have to comply with the energy efficiency requirements of building regulations.  He also explained that although this was an outline application only, landscaping details were reserved matters, which would come back to the Committee for decision.

Councillor Kew stated that the proposed building was a poor design.  The Case Office pointed out that additional conditions could be added regarding materials if required.

Councillor Appleyard felt that the visual aspect was gloomy and dark and stated that the design could be improved.  He moved that the application be refused for the following reasons:

·  The application was overbearing and of poor design due to its mass and bulk.  This would have an adverse effect on the appearance of the area and would be damaging to the World Heritage Site.

·  The application would be contrary to policy and there were strong economic reasons for refusal as stated by the Council’s Economic Development Team.

Councillor Jackson stated that the building was depressing, gloomy and overbearing.  She  ...  view the full minutes text for item 144.

To note the Annual Performance Report for 2016/17.

The Committee considered the Annual Performance Report for 2017.

RESOLVED to NOTE the report.

To note the quarterly performance report.

The Committee considered the Quarterly Performance Report for January to March 2017.

Councillor Jackson stated that the Council should consider ways to improve communication with members of the public regarding planning matters, pointing out that website access was sometimes difficult.

RESOLVED to NOTE the report.

The Committee considered the appeals report.  The Team Manager, Development Management, pointed out that the Old Colliery Tip, Woodborough Hill, Peasedown St John appeal had been allowed subject to conditions.

RESOLVED to NOTE the report.