Agenda and minutes

The Democratic Services Officer will draw attention to the emergency evacuation procedure.

The Democratic Services Officer read out the emergency evacuation procedure.

Cllr Sarah Evans was substituting for Cllr Tim Warren who had submitted his apologies.

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 4.4 Appendix 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.

Cllr Lucy Hodge stated that she was the Ward Member for application 24/01160/FUL - 11 Richmond Road, Bath but confirmed that she did not have an interest to declare in relation to the item.

There was no urgent business.

To note that, regarding planning applications to be considered, members of the public who have given the requisite notice to Democratic Services will be able to make a statement to the Committee immediately before their respective applications are considered. There will be a time limit of 3 minutes for each proposal, i.e., 3 minutes for the Parish and Town Councils, 3 minutes for the objectors to the proposal and 3 minutes for the applicant, agent and supporters. This allows a maximum of 9 minutes per proposal.

The Democratic Services Officer informed the meeting of the process for public speakers to address the Committee.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 25 September 2024 as a correct record for signing by the Chair.

It was moved by Cllr Toby Simon, seconded by Cllr Eleanor Jackson and:

RESOLVED  that the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 25 September 2024 be confirmed as a correct record for signing by the Chair.

The following items will be considered at 11am:

1.  24/01160/FUL - 11 Richmond Road, Bath

The Committee considered:

1.  A report by the Head of Planning on the applications under the site visit applications list.

2.  Oral statements by members of the public and representatives.  A copy of the speakers’ list is attached as Appendix 1 to these minutes.

RESOLVED that in accordance with the delegated powers, the applications be determined as set out in the main applications decisions list attached as Appendix 2 to these minutes.

1.  24/01160/FUL - 11 Richmond Road, Bath

The Planning Officer introduced the report which considered an application for the erection of a 3-bed dwelling. 

He confirmed the officers’ recommendation that the application be permitted subject to the conditions set out in the report. 

The following public representations were received:

1.  Dr Millicent Stone local resident, objecting to the application.

2.  Chris Melbourne, applicant supporting the application.

Cllr Mark Elliott was unable to attend as ward member and a statement was read on his behalf summarised as below:

1.  There would be an impact on residential amenity for the residents of Maple House in terms of overlooking.

2.  The proposed building was different in design and conception to the surrounding buildings and could be seen as contrary to the area’s character.

He asked the Committee to consider not supporting the officers’ recommendation.

In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed:

1.  There was a car port and not a garage as part of the proposed development.

2.  In terms of whether the trees would damage the roots of the proposed development in the long term, the Tree Officer had made an estimation about the future impact and did not raise an objection.

3.  Any noise impact from the balcony/terrace was not considered to be adverse.

4.  One of the trees included in the tree preservation order was an Ash and it was possible it would be removed if it had Ash Dieback disease.

5.  The officer assessment had concluded that the proposal did not represent and overdevelopment of the site. 

6.  The application site was considered to be sustainable due to its location in the urban area of Bath.

7.  The size of the proposed glazed area of windows to the upper floor at the rear was approximately 10m square.

Cllr Lucy Hodge opened the debate as local member and stated that the application site was on the edge of the conservation area and asked the Committee to consider whether the requirements of the policy D7 relating to infill and backland developments had been met in terms of residential amenity and design. 

Cllr Shaun Hughes raised concerns that the design did not fit with the setting due to the flat roof and the large extent of glazing.  He expressed further concern that the proposed first floor windows would result in a significant loss of amenity to Maple House due to overlooking which would not be sufficiently screened by the boundary trees throughout the year.  He moved that the application be refused for these reasons.  The motion was seconded by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

There are no main plan applications for consideration.

There were no main applications for consideration.

The Committee is asked to note the report.

Cllr Eleanor Jackson advised that she and Cllr Shaun Hughes would be giving evidence in the upcoming appeal in relation to planning application 24/00662/FUL - 26 - 28 Orchard Vale, Midsomer Norton which had previously been refused by the Planning Committee.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

The Committee is asked to note the report.

In response Members’ questions, it was confirmed:

1.  There was no specific reason for the slight dip in the number of planning applications being determined within the recommended timescale, but it may be partly due to a delay in ecology consultation responses due to high demands on the service. 

2.  There had been a slight drop in the number of planning applications received during the previous quarter, but this was in line with fluctuations throughout the year and there needed to be an analysis of a longer period to identify whether this was a continuing trend.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.