Agenda and minutes

The Democratic Services Officer will read out the emergency evacuation procedure.

The Democratic Services Officer read out the emergency evacuation procedure.

There were no apologies for absence or substitutions.

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.

There were no declarations of interest.

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 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 21 September 2022 as a correct record for signing by the Chair.

The minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 21 September 2022 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The following application will be considered:

1.  22/01753/FUL 24 The Tyning, Widcombe, Bath

The Committee considered:

1. A report by the Head of Planning on site visit applications.
   
   
2. Oral statements by members of the public and representatives on items.  (A copy of the speakers’ list is attached as Appendix 1 to these minutes).

RESOLVED that in accordance with the Committee’s delegated powers, the application be determined as set out in the site visit decision list attached as Appendix 2 to these minutes.

Item No. 1 Application No: 22/01753/FUL 24

Site Location: 24 The Tyning, Widcombe, Bath

The Case Officer introduced the report regarding the application for the erection of a single storey rear extension, a first-floor extension over garage, loft conversion and pitched read dormer, replacement of windows and doors and widening of existing driveway.

The Case Officer confirmed his recommendation that the application be permitted subject to the conditions set out in the report.

The following public representations were received:

1.  Tim Elson, applicant, speaking in support of the application (read out in his absence).

2.  Dr David Sweetnam, local resident, objecting to the application.

Cllr Alison Born and Cllr Winston Duguid, local ward members, were unable to attend but submitted a statement which was read out by the Democratic Services Officer as summarised below:

1.  The house was in a conservation area where the frontage of the 1930s houses in the road presented as matched pairs and the development would disrupt the homogeneity of the road and harm the character of the conservation area.

2.  The over-garage extension would impact on the light of properties in The Tyning and Tyning End.

3.  There were no other rear dormers on that side of The Tyning or in Tyning End.

4.  The side extension and rear dormer would overshadow the neighbouring property and affect some other neighbouring properties.

5.  The change in levels from the garage to the front door and the quality of the construction would not allow the application to be built as drawn.

6.  The application would result in the house being 5 bedroomed and necessitate a third parking space.

7.  Committee was requested to refuse the application.

In response to Members questions, it was confirmed:

1. Officers did not consider the dormer window to be oversized.
2. There would be 2 additional rooms as part of the proposal and even though one of the rooms was not practical to use as a bedroom due to its size, the property would need to be considered as a 5-bedroom house as the rooms could be realigned in the future without planning permission.  In terms of whether this would require an additional parking space, the parking standards were not the same as when considering new build, the test would be whether there would be any highway safety concerns as a result of additional on-street parking, and this was not considered to be an issue in this case as the property was in a parking permit area.
3. It would be possible to add a condition to ensure the surface of the parking area was constructed of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

The following applications will be considered:

1.  21/05471/OUT Parcel 5159, Minsmere Road, Keynsham

2.  22/02171/FUL Rose Lawn, The Street, Compton Martin

3.  22/03020/FUL Hillside Farm, Timsbury Road, Farmborough

The Committee considered: 

A report by the Head of Planning on various planning applications and update report in relation to item 1 under the main applications list.

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 decisions list attached as Appendix 2 to these minutes. 

Item No. 1 Application No: 21/05471/OUT

Site Location: Parcel 5159, Minsmere Road, Keynsham

The Case Officer introduced the report which was an application for 70 homes; new vehicular and pedestrian access on to Minsmere Road, public open space; tree planting and habitat creation; site drainage and associated infrastructure with all matters reserved apart from the access.  He gave an update to confirm that there was an omission on the plans list in the report which should have referred to an additional plan “site access SK01 revision D” and also that 6 further objections had been received and reviewed but these did not raise any issues that had not already been addressed in the report.

He advised the committee:

1.  The site had been removed from the green belt in 2014 as part of the core strategy and safeguarded for future development.

2.  The current development plan stated that the site should not be developed until the review of the Local Plan and so the application was technically contrary to policy.  However, as set out in the report, there were material considerations which outweighed this conflict:

a.  The site was proposed to be allocated for 70 homes in the emerging Local Plan Partial Update (LPPU) which had now been through examination and the initial letter from the Inspector stated that he was likely to find the plan sound subject to some modifications.

b.  The requirement for the Council to have a five-year supply of land for housing.

c.  The site was in a broadly sustainable location.

d.  There was an absence Green Belt protection compared to nearly all other undeveloped land in this locality.

e.  There would be a provision of sustainable transport measures (2 out of 6 measures which would be delivered as part of this development and the other 4 as part of the Withies Green development).

f.  A significant package of Section 106 obligations and contributions which would benefit the wider community

g.  An off-site Biodiversity Net Gain (BGN) at Somerdale.

3.  In relation to the proposed pedestrian access between Witham Road and the western boundary of the application site, this was third party land not owned by the applicant or the Council and so was afforded limited weight as a benefit as it could not be secured in perpetuity.

4.  A green space had been secured as a minimum buffer around the site and further landscape details would be part of the reserved matters application.

He confirmed the recommendation that officers be delegated to permit the application subject to:

a.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

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.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.