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.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Tim Warren.

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.

In relation to item 3.25/04242/FUL - The Coach House, Midford Road, Midford, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, Cllr Crossley stated that he was the Council’s representative on the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Beauty Board but as the Board had not been consulted on the application he did not consider he had an interest and would be participating in the debate and vote.

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 21 January 2026 as a correct record for signing by the Chair.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meetings of 21 January 2026 be confirmed as a correct record for signing by the Chair.

1.  25/04124/FUL - 26 Wedgwood Road, Whiteway, Bath,

Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1NX

2.  25/04650/FUL - 16 Alderley Road, Southdown, Bath,

Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1LB

3.  25/04242/FUL - The Coach House, Midford Road, Midford, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset

The Committee considered:

1.  A report and update report by the Head of Planning on the applications under the main 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.  25/04124/FUL - 26 Wedgwood Road, Whiteway, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1NX

The Planning Officer introduced the report which considered an application for the change of use from a single dwelling (C3) to 7-bedroom house in multiple occupation (HMO) (Sui Generis).

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

Cllr Sarah Moore was in attendance as ward councillor and raised the following points:

1.  She questioned whether figures were accurate in relation to the calculation of the number of residential properties and number of HMOs.

2.  She was concerned that there were non-registered HMOs which had not been taking into consideration and would put the percentage over the threshold of 10% in the 100m radius.

3.  The plans were of concern; the smallest bedroom and bathrooms were too small and there were no detailed plans for the kitchen.

4.  The cycle store at the back was only accessible through the communal area of the house and this was not ideal for tenants.

5.  Although the property was served by bus services, these were subsidised and could not be guaranteed to continue in the long term.

6.  There was a lack of on-street parking in the area and this would be exacerbated if the tenants had cars.

7.  She asked the Committee to refuse the application.

In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed:

1.  This application would not result in sandwiching of a residential property.

2.  There were no residents parking zones in operation in the area.

3.  In terms of whether the heating system needed to be upgraded, the property was Grade C rated which was the requirement for HMOs and so there was no planning requirement to upgrade.

4.  The figures for residential properties/HMOs were calculated using the Council’s mapping service and officers had no reason to believe these were inaccurate.  If anyone was aware of HMOs operating without planning permission, this should be referred to the enforcement team for investigation.  If the Committee required a further investigation of the figures, then a deferral was recommended.

5.  In terms of the party wall and impact on the neighbouring property, building regulations would control construction.

6.  The tenants would need to bring their bicycles through the communal area in the house to access the cycle store as the house was terraced and there was no separate access to the garden.  It was considered that the rear garden was the safest location for the cycle store.

Cllr MacFie moved that the application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.

The Tree Officer introduced the report which considered a Tree Preservation Order which had been the subject of two objections.  She drew attention to the update report which confirmed that one objection had since been withdrawn.

She advised that the officers’ recommendation was that the Tree Preservation Order be confirmed without modification.

The following public representations were received:

1.  Craig Harding, landowner, objecting to the Tree Preservation Order.

2.  Neil Wood, local resident, supporting the Tree Preservation Order.

Cllr Dine Romero was in attendance as ward councillor and read a statement summarised as below:

1.  She had received representations from local residents who had expressed concern about the loss of the trees which had been felled on the site and were concerned about the loss of further trees.

2.  The woodland formed part of an amenity that residents had a right to.

3.  The site was an area of woodland and had an important role in supporting the stability of the hill as well as providing a habitat for wildlife.

4.  She asked the Committee to approve the TPO to protect the remaining trees.

In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed:

1.  The landowner could not be instructed to replant trees, but woodland designation would cover the regeneration and regrowth of tree stumps.

2.  The TPO would control any future felling and if more than 5 cubic metres were to be felled in one calendar month then a felling license would be required.  The Council would be consulted in this situation.

Cllr Crossley opened the debate as ward councillor and stated that there were few trees in the area and therefore the impact of losing trees was great.  He moved the officers’ recommendation to approve the TPO.  This was seconded by Cllr Jackson. 

Cllr Hughes spoke in support of the motion and referred to the Council’s declaration of an ecological emergency.

On voting for the motion, it was CARRIED (9 in favour and 0 against - UNANIMOUS).

RESOLVED that the Tree Preservation Order be approved.

The Committee is asked to note the report.

The Committee considered the appeals report.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

The Committee is asked to note the report.

The Committee considered the appeals report.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.