Agenda and minutes

Cllr Ian Halsall proposed that Cllr Duncan Hounsell be elected Chair.  This was seconded by Cllr Hal MacFie and on being put to the vote it was CARRIED (9 in favour 0 against – unanimous)

RESOLVED that Cllr Duncan Hounsell be elected Chair of the Planning Committee.

To elect a Vice-Chair for the municipal year 2023-2024.

Cllr Duncan Hounsell proposed that Cllr Ian Halsall be elected Vice-Chair.  This was seconded by Cllr Hal MacFie and on being put to the vote it was CARRIED (9 in favour 0 against – unanimous)

RESOLVED that Cllr Ian Halsall be elected Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee.

The Democratic Services Officer will draw attention to the emergency evacuation procedure.

The Democratic Services Officer read out the emergency evacuation procedure.

Cllr Paul Crossley and Cllr Ruth Malloy were in attendance.  Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Eleanor Jackson.

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 the Constitution, 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 outlined the procedure for public speakers addressing the committee.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 26 April 2023 as a correct record for signing by the Chair.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 26 April 2023 be confirmed as a correct record for signing by the Chair.

There are no sites inspection applications for consideration.

There were no site visit applications for consideration.

The following items are for consideration:

1.  22/02622/FUL  2 Fairfield Terrace, Peasedown St John, Bath

2.  23/00419/LBA  1 Cambridge Place, Widcombe Hill, Widcombe

The Committee considered:

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

(1)  22/02622/FUL 2 Fairfield Terrace, Peasedown St John, Bath

The Case Officer introduced her report which considered an application for the erection of a new separate two storey dwelling including formation of new vehicular access and double car parking area for existing house and a new pedestrian access for new dwelling. 

She confirmed her recommendation that permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.

The following public representations were received:

1.  Cllr Conor Ogilvie-Davidson, Peasedown Parish Council objecting to the application.

2.  Kevin Matthews, local resident, objecting to the application.

3.  Will Drewett, agent, speaking in support of the application.

Cllrs Gavin Heathcote and Karen Walker were unable to attend the meeting as local ward Councillors and a statement was read on their behalf which raised safety concerns about the proposed new pedestrian and vehicular accesses as well as concerns that the development was not in keeping with the character of the area and would change the street scene.

It was In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed:

1.  The report did summarise all the objections raised, although there was an error in relation to the number reported as received in the report.

2.  The use of the existing access had been explored but there were highway safety concerns due to the access being restricted and the new access was the preferred option.  It was the view of highway officers that visibility would not be obscured. 

3.  At the time the application was submitted there were no double yellow lines, but these were now in place. 

4.  The siting of the proposed development was considered acceptable, it was located near other built form such as garages. 

5.  Officers were confident that the addition of solar panels would meet the net zero target, but the exact figure would be confirmed once details were received (as required by condition).

6.  There was no traffic data as this was a relatively small application for one dwelling.

7.  Only part of the hedge would be removed for the new pedestrian access, the rest would be retained.

Cllr Ian Halsall expressed the view that the principle of development was acceptable, the impact on highways negligible and that his only concerns were the design of the rear and the siting of the development. 

Cllr Tim Warren stated that the application was in accordance with Council policy, and he proposed the officers’ recommendation that permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.  This was seconded by Cllr Toby Simon.

Cllr Shaun Hughes expressed concern that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The Committee is asked to note the report.

In response to questioning about the Frome House applications, the Deputy Head of Planning confirmed that as there were two applications for the same site the applicants could implement either scheme.  She undertook to bring back a report with further details on the costs with analysis from officers.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.