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 Duncan Hounsell was substituting for Cllr Deborah Collins who had submitted apologies for absence.

Cllr Colin Blackburn was substituting for Cllr Tim Warren who had submitted 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 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.

There were no declarations of interest.

Cllr Ian Halsall announced that this would be his last meeting as Chair of the Planning Committee and thanked the Committee and officers for their support. 

The Committee thanked Cllr Halsall for chairing the Planning Committee during the 2024-25 municipal year.

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 9 April 2025 as a correct record for signing by the Chair.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 9 April 2025 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The following application will be considered at 11am:

1.  24/01135/FUL - Kennet Lodge, Kennet Park, Bathampton, Bath

The Case Officer introduced the report which considered an application for the reconfiguration and alteration of an existing dwelling, including a single storey extension to the north of the property, and an additional storey of first floor bedroom accommodation to replace existing pitched roof of a chalet bungalow.  The application had been deferred from the previous meeting pending a visit to the site.

The Case Officer 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.  Graeme Robinson, on behalf of local residents, objecting to the application.

2.  Sasha Berezina, agent, supporting the application.

In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed:

1.  There was no specific definition of over-development, but a judgement was made on the amount of space, proximity to neighbours and amenity space.  It was the officer’s view that this application did not constitute over-development. 

2.  The increase in ridge height was 0.7m and officers considered this to be acceptable.

3.  The volume increase had not been calculated as the application was not in the green belt.

4.  There would not be any windows on the single storey extension facing the neighbouring property, Willow House to the north of the site.  There would be new dormer windows as part of the development, but it was not considered that these would result in overlooking due to the distances from other properties. 

5.  The application was considered to be a sensitive design and not out of keeping with the surrounding area.

6.  Officers did not consider screening was necessary, but the Committee could take a different view and agree to include an additional condition.

7.  There was no Neighbourhood Plan for this area.

Cllr Toby Simon opened the debate, he confirmed that the site visit had been helpful and concluded that the development would sit well in the plot.  He moved the officers’ recommendation to permit the application.  This was seconded by Cllr Duncan Hounsell. 

Following comments raised by other members, Cllr Toby Simon agreed to amend his motion to delegate officers to permit the application, subject to giving consideration to including a condition requiring the screening of the development.  Cllr Duncan Hounsell confirmed that he would support this change as seconder of the motion. 

Cllr Paul Crossley spoke against the motion due to the loss of green space and impact on wildlife and expressed the view that the application was an over development of the site. 

Cllr Shaun Hughes concurred with these views and agreed with the concerns raised by the Parish Council.

Cllr Colin Blackburn also expressed concerns about the impact on residential amenity and increase in ridge height. 

On voting for the motion, it was CARRIED (7 in favour and 3 against).

RESOLVED that officers be delegated to permit the development subject to the conditions set out in the report and consideration of whether it would be appropriate to include an additional condition relating to screening of the site to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 120.

The following items will be considered at 11am:

1.  24/03831/FUL - Pines Way, Westmoreland, Bath

The following items will be considered at 2pm:

2.  24/03894/FUL - Parcel 2882, Water Lane, Paulton, Bristol

3.  24/02841/FUL - Little Horse Croft Farm, Ford Road, Wellow

4.  24/04465/FUL - Charlton Road, Keynsham, Bath And North East Somerset

1.  24/03831/FUL - Pines Way, Westmoreland, Bath

The Case Officer introduced the report which considered an application for the redevelopment of the site to provide residential dwellings (Class C3), shared living (Sui Generis), flexible commercial floorspace (Use Class E), amenity space, car and cycle parking provision, with pedestrian and vehicular access, servicing arrangements, public realm works, landscaping and associated works.

She confirmed the officers’ recommendation that officers be delegated to permit the application subject to:

(1)  Authorising the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to enter into a Section 106 Agreement to cover the following:

1.  Affordable Housing/Commuted Sum of £1,000,000 commuted sum.

2.  Contribution towards Fire Hydrants.

3.  Contribution of £33,275 towards Targeted Training and Recruitment.

4.  Travel Plan bond of £37,100 over 5 years plus the monitoring fee of £4,775.

5.  Reasonable but commercially prudent endeavours to secure a cycle route access via Crest Nicholson Land to the west of the site.

6.  Contribution of £897,837 towards Parks and Recreation.

7.  Contribution of £367,245 towards the Council's carbon offsetting fund.

8.  Monitoring fees contribution £486 per obligation.

(2)  the conditions set out in the report,or such conditions as may be appropriate.

The following public representations were received:

1.  Victoria Manston, applicant, speaking in support of the application.

In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed:

1.  The previous planning application and subsequent appeal decision, although no longer extant, was a material consideration as the Inspector had set out parameters for developing the site including building heights, massing and materials. 

2.  The previous application would not be a fallback position as it was no longer extant.

3.  The Committee also needed to take tilted balance into account as the Council no longer had a 5-year land supply for housing.

4.  There were wheelchair accessible flats included as part of the development.  In addition, the developer had consulted a charity to advise on site accessibility for visually impaired people. 

5.  Historic England had not formally submitted the application to UNESCO.  Minor amendments had been made to the roofscape to address original comments.  The latest consultation response from Historic England was that the proposed development would be at the lower end of the scale of less than significant harm. 

6.  In relation to the weight given to the comments of Bath Preservation Trust, officers had concluded that there was less than substantial heritage harm and this was outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme which would provide housing on a brownfield site allocated for housing. 

7.  There were mitigations in place to prevent south facing bedrooms from getting too hot including Passivhaus design measures and solar controlled glass.

8.  It was not considered appropriate to include further safeguards to prevent students living in the accommodation.  The development was not purpose-built student accommodation but students could choose to live in any build to rent scheme.  Marketing would not be directed at students.  If there was a high level of students living in the development, this would result in a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 121.

The Committee is asked to note the report.

Cllr Toby Simon requested further information in relation to the appeal 20/00001/HHEDGE.  Cllr Duncan Hounsell expressed concern about the length of time taken to make a decision due to the impact on neighbouring properties, but advised that the height of the leylandii would now be reduced at the instruction of the Inspector.

Cllr Lucy Hodge noted that the Planning Inspector had dismissed the appeal in relation to 23/03610/FUL which had been refused by Planning Committee.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

The Committee is asked to note the report.

In response to questioning about up-to-date information in relation to the Council’s lack of a 5-year land supply for housing, the Team Manager – Development Management confirmed that an interim statement was being prepared and would be published on the Council’s website.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.