Agenda and minutes

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

The Democratic Services Officer read out the emergency evacuation procedure.

To elect a Vice Chair for 2022-2023

Cllr Brian Simmons proposed that Cllr Sally Davies be elected as Vice-Chair for the 2022-2023 municipal year. 

This was seconded by Cllr Paul Crossley and on being put to the vote it was;

RESOLVED that Cllr Sally Davis be elected Vice-Chair for the 2022-2023 municipal year.

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 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 Paul Crossley confirmed that he had already stated his objection to the planning application 21/00677/FUL, Lansdown View, Twerton, Bath (item 2 under the main applications list) and therefore would not participate in the debate or vote, but he would address the Committee as local ward member.

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 the Democratic Services Officer 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, ie 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 4 May 2022.

Cllr Jackson proposed that the minutes be confirmed as a correct record subject to a correction to the spelling of Cllr Shelley Bromley’s name. 

This was seconded by Cllr Bromley and;

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 4 May 2022 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair, subject to a correction to the spelling of Cllr Shelley Bromley’s name.

There are no site visit applications for determination.

There were no site visit applications for the committee to determine.

The following 3 applications will be considered in the morning session starting at 11am:

1.  21/04590/FUL Homewood Park Hotel Homewood Hinton Charterhouse Bath

2.  21/00677/FUL Proposed Development Site Lansdown View Twerton Bath

3.  21/05622/FUL 36 Naishes Avenue Peasedown St. John

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 3 to these minutes. 

Item No. 1

Application No: 21/04590/FUL

Site Location: Homewood Park Hotel, Homewood, Hinton Charterhouse, Bath.

The Case Officer introduced the report and gave a verbal update of amendments since the publication of the report and update report following a review by legal officers:

1.  The greenbelt section of report had incorrectly included building K store 2 within the volume and area of the buildings to be demolished and replaced under exception D of paragraph 149 of NPPF. 

2.  This building was in existence in previous pre application plans but since the writing of the report, it had been clarified that it was not in existence and had not been included in the submitted application and therefore should not have been included in the assessment of the volume and footprint of the current development.

3.  As a result, the greenbelt calculations had changed in terms of floor area and volume, but this did not alter the officer conclusion. The existing footprint was 412m² rather than 422m² and existing volume was 1295m³.

4.  In terms of assessing whether the proposal was materially larger under exception D, the existing was 367m² and proposed was 382m² which was an increase of 15m² (4%) which was still not considered by officers to be materially larger.

5.  In terms of volume, there was an increase from 1295m³ to 1504m³ which could be considered to be materially larger, however officers did not consider this to be the case taking into account spatial and visual aspects.

6.  In relation to the volume of spa and extensions, the increase would be 34.5% which was approximately 1/3 and therefore acceptable in terms of greenbelt policy. 

7.  With regard to the openness test, if the proposal fell under exceptions C and D, then the development was considered appropriate, and a separate assessment was not required.  The committee was therefore requested not to take the separate assessment into account.

8.  In relation to the assessment of car park, the committee was requested to disregard the paragraph “Additional Car Parking” and replace as follows:

“The proposal sees the addition of further car parking spaces within the site which will beconstructed of Grasscrete and located along the existing entrance track. It is considered that these car parking spaces fall in exception B of paragraph 150 of the NPPF which provides engineering operations are appropriate development provided they preserve the openness of the greenbelt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. The Grasscrete itself is not considered to have  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The Committee is asked to note the report.

The Committee considered the appeals report.  Members thanked officers for their work in supporting the appeals.

Cllr Duncan Hounsell stated the need to reflect on appeal decisions and the importance of Planning Committee members maintaining objectivity.  

RESOLVED that the report be noted.