Agenda and minutes

There were no 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 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.

The following declarations of interest were made:

·  19/04772/FUL – Additional Development Area, Holburne Park, Bathwick, Bath.  Cllr Manda Rigby stated that she had attended the exhibitions relating to these developments along with the Planning Case Officer.

·  Cllrs Hal MacFie, Matt McCabe and Manda Rigby declared interests in planning application nos. 20/01690/VAR and 20/01689/VAR – Liberal Democrats, 31 James Street West, Bath.  The interests related to their work for the Liberal Democrat Party.  The Councillors stated that they would leave the meeting while this item was discussed and would not speak or vote.

·  Cllr Duncan Hounsell declared an interest in planning application no. 20/01119/FUL – 31 Torridge Road, Keynsham.  Cllr Hounsell used to live in Walden Road.  He stated that he would leave the meeting while this item was discussed and would not speak or vote.

·  Cllr Sue Craig declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in application no. 20/00006/LBA – 21 Victoria Buildings, Bath as she was the applicant and it concerned her property.  Cllr Craig stated that she would leave the meeting while this item was discussed and would not speak or vote.

·  With regard to planning application no. 20/01249/FUL – The Coach House, College Road, Lansdown, Bath - Cllr Hodge stated that she would make a statement as local ward member and would not speak or vote.

The Chair asked officers for an update regarding the enforcement action at Land Rear of 18-25 Queenwood Avenue, Bath which had been agreed at the last meeting.  Officers agreed to provide a written update via email.

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 3 June 2020.

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 June 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 the Committee’s 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. 19/04772/FUL

Site Location: Additional Development Area, Holburne Park, Bathwick, Bath – Proposed erection of eight additional dwellings, landscaping, car parking and associated works on land adjacent to Holburne Park, Warminster Road, Bath

The Case Officer reported on the application and his recommendation to permit.  He explained that the officer recommendation had now been changed to refusal.  Following the refusal of application 19/03838/FUL no viability appraisal for this application has been provided and therefore the failure to provide the required level of affordable housing has not been justified.

A representative from the Bath Preservation Trust spoke against the application.

The Agent spoke in favour of the application.

Cllr Rigby, local ward member on the Committee stated that she welcomed the proposal to provide a masterplan for the whole site rather than considering individual applications for this area.  She was concerned about the lack of affordable housing and noted that only 31% affordable housing would be provided if this application were agreed.  She felt that the application represented overdevelopment and that the drop in ground levels would result in overlooking.  She also stated that the proposal does not enhance either the Conservation Area or the World Heritage Site.  It also did not comply with the affordable housing policy.

Cllr McCabe felt that the access to the public highway should not be removed but should remain open to cyclists.

Cllr Jackson felt that the required level of affordable housing should be provided and moved the officer recommendation to refuse.  She noted that no evidence had been submitted regarding viability.  She also felt that the proposed design was unacceptable and would dominate the hillside on this highly visible site.

Cllr Davis seconded the motion.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED unanimously to REFUSE the application for the reasons set out in the report.

The Committee considered:

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

·  An update report by the Head of Planning on items 3, 4, 5 and 6 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 3 to these minutes.

Item No. 1

Application No. 20/00861/FUL

Site Location: 231 Wellsway, Bath, BA2 4RZ – Change of use from residential dwelling (Use Class C3) to HMO (Use Class C4)

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

A local resident spoke against the application.

The applicant spoke in favour of the application.

Cllr Winston Duguid spoke against the application.  He raised concerns regarding an increase in noise due to higher density and loss of a bungalow to student accommodation.  He queried the need for more student accommodation in Bath at a time when student numbers are not likely to increase.

Officers then responded to questions as follows:

·  The Case Officer confirmed that the residents of the HMO would not necessarily be students.  The Use Class C4 related to three or more unrelated individuals.  A further application would be required if the applicant wished to increase the number of occupants to seven or more.

·  Whilst the B&NES policy does not specify space standards, this application does meet national space standards.

·  The area is outside of the saturated area for HMO properties and meets Tests 1 and 2 of the Supplementary Planning Document relating to HMOs.

Cllr Davis stated noted that the applicants had reduced the number of bedrooms requested from 7 to 4.  She also noted that the access to the bungalow was very steep and not particularly suitable for older people.  She moved the officer recommendation to permit.  This was seconded by Cllr Clarke.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 6 votes in favour, 2 votes against and 2 abstentions to PERMIT the application subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Item No. 2

Application No. 20/00257/FUL

Site Location: Land between Three Gables and Payson’s Croft, Church Lane, Bishop Sutton – Erection of dwelling

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

A local resident spoke against the application.

Cllr Vic Pritchard, local ward member, spoke against the application.  He felt that the application was in conflict with the local Neighbourhood Plan.  He stated that there were a number of sensitive issues and inconsistencies within the proposal and asked the Committee to refuse the application.

The Case Officer then responded to questions as follows:

·  The area is of a mixed character with an altering building line.  The property is slightly set back.

·  The site is considered to be within the definition of infill development.

Cllr Davis noted that a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

The Committee is asked to note the report.

The Committee considered the appeals report.

RESOLVED to NOTEthe report.