Agenda and minutes

The Democratic Services Officer explained that Councillor Simmons is no longer a member of the Committee.  The vacancy will be filled by Councillor Shaun Hughes who will attend the next meeting in July.

The Chair thanked Cllr Simmons for his service on the Planning Committee.

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.

Councillor Manda Rigby declared a non-pecuniary interest in planning application numbers 19/03838/FUL (Site of former Ministry of Defence offices, Warminster Road, Bath) and 19/04772/FUL (Additional Development Area, Holburne Park, Bathwick, Bath).  Cllr Rigby stated that she had attended the exhibitions relating to these developments along with the planning Case Officer.

The Chair had agreed one item of urgent business, which was to elect a Vice-Chair of the Committee.  The reason for urgency was that the term of office of the current Vice-Chair had expired and it was necessary to fill this position to enable decisions to be made regarding potential committee items.

Cllr Jackson moved that Cllr Sally Davis be appointed Vice-Chair for the ensuing Council year.  This was seconded by Cllr Hounsell.

RESOLVED: To elect Cllr Sally Davis as Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee for the ensuring Council year.

(1) At the time of publication, no items had been submitted.

(2) To note that, regarding planning applications to be considered, members of the public who have given the requisite notice to the Democratic Services Officer 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 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.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 6 May 2020.

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 May 2020 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

The Committee considered:

·  A report by the Head of Planning on various planning applications.

·  An update report by the Head of Planning 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 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. 19/04797/FUL

Site Location: 3 Scumbrum Lane, High Littleton, BS39 6JN – Erection of a single and two storey rear extension

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to permit.  She explained that the agent had confirmed that the legal right of way in common is not mentioned or specified in the applicant’s deeds.

A neighbour spoke against the application.

The applicant spoke in favour of the application.

Cllr Ryan Wills, local ward member, spoke against the application.  He expressed concern about the proposed changes to the access path which would cause harm to the amenity of the neighbouring properties.  Disabled access was also an issue.  The proposed development would lead to a “boxed-in” effect for number 1 Scumbrum Lane which would cause significant harm.

Officers then responded to questions as follows:

·  The Case Officer displayed the new line of the path that was proposed, along with the location of the gates and patio area.

·  She also confirmed the location of the boundary between the two properties.

·  The single storey element of the proposal could be built under permitted development rights.

Cllr Hodge thanked officers for organising the helpful virtual site visit and moved that the application be refused for the following reasons:

·  The proposal would have a harmful effect on the amenity of the neighbouring property and was not compliant with Policy D6. 

·  It would create a tunnel effect adversely affecting the amenity of the neighbouring property and the use of their patio area.

·  The neighbours would have to move their fence and change the access to their patio area as a result of the development.

Cllr Jackson seconded the motion stating that the development would be overbearing and cause harm to the outlook from the neighbouring property.

The Deputy Head of Planning stated that the proposed reason for refusal relating to loss of amenity was clear.  However, she advised that any actions neighbours may or may not take as the result of the development was not covered under the planning remit.  The private right of way is a civil matter outside the scope of planning and this issue could not be put forward as a reason for refusal.

Cllr Davis noted that the route of the path could be changed under permitted development rights in any case and the route is not defined in the deeds.  A ground floor extension could be built under existing permitted development rights.

Cllr Jackson was surprised that an application which inflicted so many changes on a neighbouring property  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The Committee considered:

·  A report by the Head of Planning on various planning applications.

·  An update report by the Head of Planning on items 1, 2 and 4 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. 19/03838/FUL

Site Location: Site of Former Ministry of Defence Offices, Warminster Road, Bathwick, Bath – Proposed construction of 42 new dwellings and 2 new blocks of apartments to provide a total of 70 new homes on part of the former MOD site at Warminster Road (revision to consented development).

The Case Officer reported on the application and his recommendation to delegate to permit.  He informed the Committee that the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contribution had been recalculated and is now £1,147,193.

The agent spoke in favour of the application.

Cllr Manda Rigby, local ward member on the Committee, stated that she was happy with the proposal to remove the overbearing blocks of flats and recognised that this would help the cashflow of the developers.  However, she was unhappy with the decrease in the provision of affordable housing.  The overall allocation should be 40% under current policies and under this proposal would result in only 15% for the site overall.  Building land is an issue in Bath and if the opportunity to build affordable housing on this site is lost then she queried where it would be built.  She was keen to see a mixed development on this site.  She also had concerns about the impact of the intrusive development on the world heritage site.  She also pointed out that the proposed allocation for visitor parking is less than required under the current policy.

Officers then responded to questions as follows:

·  This area of the site is closer to the city centre and the road becomes more rural as it leads out of the city.  There was a great deal of debate about the style of the buildings when the original consent was granted.  The development is now partly built in the proposed style.

·  The parking ratio would be 1.87 parking spaces per dwelling with 0.1 visitor spaces per dwelling.

·  The Legal Advisor confirmed that the Council’s discretion cannot be fettered by a Section 106 Agreement.

·  The Case Officer confirmed that the Council would prefer more affordable housing.  However, a commuted sum could be spent elsewhere on a site which offered more value for money.

·  An offer of 80% of open market value would not be an affordable product in Bath.  Phase 1 of the development delivered 61 dwellings, 29 of which were affordable.  This is higher than the 33% required and the developer has made contributions.

Councillor Rigby pointed out that if a number of high value properties were approved  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Case Officer presented his report and his recommendation to take enforcement action.  The matter which appeared to be a breach of planning control was, without planning permission, the change of use of land from garden land (Sui Generis) to open and covered storage (B8).  He informed the Committee that two further comments in support of enforcement action had been received regarding the appearance of the site and the impact of the breach. 

Councillor Richard Samuel, Local Ward member spoke in favour of enforcement action.  He stated that the breach of planning control was causing damage to the environment and having a detrimental effect on the amenity of local residents.  Chemicals have previously been left on the site and the dumping of building materials has created an eyesore.  The owner has consistently ignored the council’s requests to clear the land and therefore the only option available is to undertake the clearance works and charge the owner for the costs of doing so.

The Case Officer responded to questions as follows:

·  The cost of the enforcement action would be covered by a government grant provided for this purpose.

·  The majority of the houses in this area are 2 storey terraces and there are also two modern detached houses to the north of the site.

·  The person breaching planning control is the owner of the land.

·  Planning applications have been submitted for this land and have been refused in the past.

Councillor Rigby moved the officer recommendation as set out in the report.  This was seconded by Councillor Jackson.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED unanimously that, in light of the officer report, having considered the relevant enforcement options available, to delegate authority to the Team Manager – Planning Enforcement to:

(a)  Exercise the powers of the authority under s178 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to enter the land and take the steps required by the Notice; and

(b)  Exercise any powers of the authority to recover the expenses of doing so.

The Committee is asked to note the report.

The Committee considered the appeals report.

RESOLVED to NOTE the report.