Agenda and minutes

The Chairman will ask the Committee Administrator to draw attention to the emergency evacuation procedure.

The Democratic Services Officer read out the emergency evacuation procedure.

The Committee noted that Cllr Brian Simmons was substituting for Cllr Vic Clarke who had submitted his 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.

Cllr Brian Simmons declared an interest in agenda items 4 of the site visit list and 3 of the main applications list as a member of Keynsham Town Council which had already determined these applications.  He confirmed that he would speak on behalf of local residents/as local ward member and then withdraw from the meeting and take no part in the debate or decision.

Cllrs Duncan Hounsell and Hal MacFie declared a minor non pecuniary interest in agenda item 3 of the main applications list in that they were acquainted with the applicant but that this would have no impact on their consideration of the application.

Cllr Lucy Hodge declared an interest in agenda item 2 of the main application list as the parent of a student and the school and confirmed that she would withdraw from the meeting and take no part in the debate or decision.

The Committee noted that Cllr Lucy Hodge was the applicant in relation to agenda item 4 of the main application list which is why the case had been referred to Committee.  She confirmed she would withdraw from the meeting and take no part in the debate or decision on that item.

There was no urgent business.

The Democratic Services Officer confirmed that there were a number of people wishing to make statements on planning applications and that they would be called to do so when these items were discussed.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 9^th March 2022

It was moved by Cllr Sally Davis, seconded by Cllr Eleanor Jackson and:

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 9 March 2022 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The following applications will be considered in the morning session of the meeting (from 11am):

·  21/03965/FUL Manor House, Watery Lane, Burnett, Keynsham, Bristol

·  21/03966/LBA Manor House, Watery Lane, Burnett, Keynsham, Bristol

·  21/03682/FUL Church Farm, Church Lane, Priston, Bath

·  21/05364/FUL 16 Broadlands Avenue, Keynsham, Bristol

The Committee considered:

1. A report by the Head of Planning on various planning applications.
   
   
2. An update report by the Head of Planning (attached as Appendix 1 to these minutes).
   
   
3. Oral statements by members of the public and representatives on items.  (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 Site Visit decisions list attached as Appendix 3 to these minutes.

Items 1 and 2 were considered together.

Item No. 1

Application No. 21/03965/FUL

Site Location: Manor House, Watery Lane, Burnett, Keynsham, Bristol

Item No. 2

Application No. 21/03966/LBA

Site Location: Manor House, Watery Lane, Burnett, Keynsham, Bristol

The Case Officer introduced the report and confirmed the officer recommendation to permit the full application and grant consent for the listed building application.

The following public representations were received:

1. A representative of the Town Council spoke against the applications.
2. Two local residents spoke against the applications.
3. The applicant spoke in support of the applications.

The local ward member, Cllr Alastair Singleton, spoke in support of the applications.  He acknowledged that local opinion was divided on the applications and there were genuine concerns about the visual impact, but that Bath and North Somerset Council had declared a Climate Emergency in 2019 and the applicants had worked with officers to design an acceptable scheme that would provide renewable energy sources to their property. 

In response to members’ questions, it was confirmed:

1. There was not an adopted Neighbourhood Plan for the area.  There was a Village Community Plan, but this would not carry any weight in terms of planning law.
2. Whether the application complied with policy GB1 of the Council’s Placemaking Plan (protecting the visual amenities of the green belt) was a consideration and officers had concluded that the proposed development did comply with policy.
3. Roof mounted solar panels would be too steep and enclosed to provide sufficient energy output.  Officers were not in a position to consider whether a hybrid scheme was possible as they could only determine the application as submitted. 
4. In terms of community engagement requirements as set out in SCR3 of the Placemaking Plan, and concerns expressed by residents about the lack of consultation, officers could only confirm that the applicants had engaged in pre-application discussions with the Council and were unable to comment on whether the applicants had engaged with the community in advance of submitting the applications.
5. In relation to the definition of “protected landscape” referred to in SCR3, this was defined as areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONB) rather than green belt.
6. In terms of the definition of “minimising visual impact” in SCR3, this was site specific in that it must be the minimum feasible in that location.
7. The residents of Whitson Lodge would be able to see the rear view of the panels from bedroom windows.  There was a balance between the siting of the panels in terms of optimum location for energy generation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 117.

The following applications will be considered in the afternoon session of the meeting (from 2pm):

·  21/05683/FUL - Bromley Mount, Bromley Road, Stanton Drew, Bristol

·  22/00380/FUL – King Edwards School, North Road, Bathwick, Bath

·  22/00294/FUL - Durley Grange, Durley Lane, Keynsham, Bristol

·  22/00598/TCA - Audley House, Park Gardens, Lower Weston, Bath

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 delegated powers, the applications be determined as set out in the Main decisions list attached as Appendix 4 to these minutes. 

Item No. 1

Application No. 21/05683/FUL

Site Location: Bromley Mount, Bromley Road, Stanton Drew, Bristol

The Case Officer introduced the report and confirmed that the officer recommendation was to refuse the application as it constituted inappropriate development in the green belt. 

The following public representations were received:

1.  The applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Vic Pritchard, local ward member, spoke in support of the application.  He stated that current policy was inadequate and there were justifiable reasons for overriding policy as it would be more sustainable for the applicant to carry out all works at the same time rather than apply for an extension at a later date.

In response to questions from members, the Case Officer confirmed:

1.  The application related to the development in its entirety and the key issue was that it was materially larger than the original building (32%) which was contrary to green belt policy and the case would need to be made for “very special circumstances”.

2.  An application for an extension could not be considered at the same time as it could only been submitted once the current dwelling had been completed.

3.  There was no guarantee that an application for an extension in the future would be permitted as each case had to be judged on its merits.

Cllr Duncan Hounsell referred to comments raised about current policy being inadequate and stated that the role of the Committee was to check compliance against existing policy, and he did not consider that the application could be permitted. 

Cllr Shelley Bromley concurred that “very special circumstances” had not been proven to allow the development.

Cllr Eleanor Jackson moved the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.  This was seconded by Cllr Duncan Hounsell and on being put to the vote and it was CARRIED (unanimous 10 in favour, 0 against).

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the report.

Item No. 2

Application No. 22/00380/FUL

Site Location: King Edwards School, North Road, Bathwick, Bath

Cllr Lucy Hodge withdrew from the meeting and did not take part in the debate or vote on this item.

The Case Officer introduced the report and confirmed the officer’s recommendation to permit the application.

Cllr Duncan Hounsell moved the officer recommendation, this was seconded by Cllr Eleanor Jackson and on being put to the vote it was CARRIED (unanimous 9 in favour and 0 against).

RESOLVED that the application be PERMITTED subject to the conditions set out in the report.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 118.

The Committee is asked to note the report.

The Committee considered the appeals report.

In response to a question as to whether enforcement action would now be taken in relation to the appeal which had been withdrawn 17/00563/WASTE - Resourceful Earth Ltd Charlton Field Lane Queen Charlton, the Deputy Head of Planning undertook to update Members after the meeting.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.