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 were made:

(a)  Cllr Vic Clarke stated that he is a member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

(b)  Cllr Sally Davis stated that she has been involved in one of the cases listed in the appeals report and that she would leave the meeting if this was discussed.

(c)  Cllrs Hal MacFie, Matt McCabe and Manda Rigby declared interests in planning application nos. 20/02389/FUL and 20/02390/LBA – Liberal Democrats, 31 James Street West, Bath.  This was due to their work for the Liberal Democrat Party.  They stated that they would leave the meeting when this item was discussed and would not speak or vote.

(d)  Cllr Manda Rigby declared an interest in planning application no. 20/01893/LBA – Cleveland Bridge, Bathwick, Bath.  Cllr Rigby stated that she would speak on this item as ward councillor and would then take no part in the debate and would not vote.

There was no urgent business.

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 29 July 2020.

The minutes of the meeting held on 29 July 2020 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

The Committee considered:

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

·  Update reports by the Head of Planning on items 1, 2, 5, 7 and 8 attached as Appendices 1, 2 and 3 to these minutes.

·  Oral statements by members of the public and representatives.  A copy of the speakers’ list is attached as Appendix 4 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 5 to these minutes.

Item No. 1

Application No. 18/01516/REG04

Site Location: Land to the rear of 89 – 123 Englishcombe Lane, Bath – Development of 37 residential dwellings (Use Class C3, including affordable housing), vehicular and pedestrian access, open space, landscaping, drainage, related infrastructure and engineering works.

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to permit.  She provided clarification that the biodiversity net gain figure in the report should read 64.9% rather than 130%.  This was due to an error in the net gain metric spreadsheet.

Four local residents spoke against the application.

The Agent and the Head of Housing for B&NES Council spoke in favour of the application.

Cllr Jess David, local ward member, spoke against the application.  She pointed out that this is a designated site of nature conservation interest. She did not feel that the application adequately addressed the issues and challenges of the site.  Fundamentally it had not met requirements to mitigate harm to onsite ecology, and, in an effort to deal with its ecological features, has resulted in a proposed development that makes too many compromises for existing and future residents.  The net gain forecast only refers to grassland and not wetland habitat.  The design is not appropriate for the area.  There could be a risk of flooding in the future.  Pedestrian access was also a concern along with additional traffic and parking in the area.

Officers then responded to questions as follows:

·  The Case Officer confirmed that the tufa flush was not included in the net gain figure for biodiversity.

·  The net gain figure is a different consideration from the compensation strategy and covers all biodiversity.  A strategy is in place to replace the tufa flushes.  DEFRA sets the net gain calculation.  The ecologist is comfortable with the net gain figure quoted.

·  There would be a single pedestrian access to the site due to the need to provide more landscaping.

·  The Highways Officer confirmed that the revised access is now more suitable and contains a vehicle crossover, which is the highway authority’s preferred option.  This gives priority to pedestrians and is considered to be safe.  Large vehicles and cars can also pass each other and the 1.5m distance is sufficient for wheelchair users.

·  A geological specialist at Bath University is satisfied that the tufa flush can be established on the Pennyquick site.  However, it is not possible to be 100% certain that this can be completely replicated as there is no precedent. A clear strategy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

The Committee is asked to note the written update as requested at the previous meeting.

The Committee considered an update regarding enforcement action at Parcel 2300/Roberts Yard, Marsh Lane, Clutton.  The Team Manager, Development Management, explained that the necessary court procedures are being followed.

The Team Manager also provided an update regarding the enforcement action at Queenwood Avenue, Bath.  He explained that once a decision has been made by the Planning Committee to take enforcement action officers then have to contact the landowner giving them a final opportunity to comply with the enforcement notice.  A timescale has been set with the landowner to comply by 30 September.  If he has not complied by this date then the Council’s contractors will go ahead and clear the site.  It was noted that if a landowner simply clears the site by moving the rubble to a different location then it may be necessary to serve a further enforcement notice for the new land.  Members will be kept informed of progress relating to this enforcement action.

It was noted that an enforcement notice was tied to the land it would remain in force even if the ownership of the land changed.  If residents had concerns, then they should contact the Planning Enforcement Team who will then log their complaints and take any necessary action.

Cllr Clarke felt that landowners should be charged for officer time when enforcement action was required.  The Team Manager explained that time spent on injunction proceedings is recorded but that this is not the case for day to day functions.  He agreed to investigate which costs can be recovered from landowners.

RESOLVED:

(1)   To note the written update.

(2)  To request that an update report be brought to the next meeting regarding the enforcement action at 8 Wells Square, Westfield.

To consider any policy development issues.

There were no policy development items for consideration at this meeting.

The Committee is asked to note the report.

The Committee considered the appeals report.  It was agreed that a copy of the Planning Inspector’s report relating to the Police Station, Bath Hill, Keynsham be sent to all members of the Committee to gain a better understanding of why the appeal was upheld.  It was also noted that a virtual training session for members would be held on 22 September 2020.

RESOLVED to NOTE the report.