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.

The Committee noted that Cllr Brian Simmons had replaced Cllr Vic Clarke as the permanent member of the Committee and Cllr Vic Clarke would be a permanent substitute.

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 item 1 of the site visit list Durley Grange, Durley Lane, Keynsham as a member of Keynsham Town Council which had already determined the application.  He confirmed that he would 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 1 of the site visit list Durley Grange, Durley Lane, Keynsham in that they were acquainted with the applicant but that this would have no impact on their consideration of the application.

Cllr Eleanor Jackson declared a minor non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 2 of the main application list, former Radstock County Infant School, Bath Old Road, Radstock as she was acquainted with some of the local residents as the former ward councillor for the area but confirmed this would have no impact on her consideration of the application.

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 6 April 2022.

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

1.  22/00294/FUL - Durley Grange, Durley Lane, Keynsham, Bristol

The Committee considered:

1. A report by the Head of Planning on the planning application.
   
   
2. Oral statements by members of the public and representatives on the item.  (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 application be determined as set out in the Site Visit decision list attached as Appendix 3 to these minutes.

Item No. 1

Application No. 22/00294/FUL

Site Location: Durley Grange, Durley Lane, Keynsham, Bristol

The Case Officer introduced the report and confirmed the officer’s recommendation that the application should be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

The following public representations were received:

1. The applicant, Dr Peter Roberts spoke in support of the application.

In response to members’ questions, it was confirmed:

1. The whole of the site was in the ownership of the applicant. 
2. If the applicant was applying for an extension to his house instead of a separate building, the usual principle would be to approve extensions up to a third of the size of the existing property, however each application had to be considered on its merits.
3. The officers did not have details in relation to the solar panels and heat pump.
4. The green belt boundary was last reviewed at the time of the Local Plan adoption.
5. Future travel plans associated with another planning application and the potential to reduce traffic on the bypass were not a material consideration in relation to this application.
6. Access to the public right of way was a consideration, but the officer view was that the application would not have an impact on the public right of way.
7. Approving the application would not set a precedent for other green belt sites near main roads as each application would be considered on its merits.

Cllr Shelley Bromley noted that the report stated the level of harm was considered acceptable when the bypass was constructed but questioned whether this was still the case.  She stated that from visiting the site, she considered the new construction would provide shielding from the bypass.

Cllr Duncan Hounsell expressed the view that in the case of this specific site, there were very special circumstances to allow development due to the fact that the openness of the green belt had already been damaged by the construction of both the Keynsham bypass and the nearby modern office building.  He commented that the application would improve the visual amenity of residents by screening the bypass and agreed with the comments raised by Keynsham Town Council in support of the application.

Cllr Hal MacFie agreed that any harm to the green belt was not significant in view of the nearby office building and expressed the view that the proposal would reduce noise from the bypass.  He also referred to the sustainable elements of the application including the proposed solar panels and a heat pump to charge electric cars.

Cllr Sally Davis stated that she did not consider that there was evidence of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 126.

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

1.  20/02673/OUT Land Parcel 0005 Bath Road Keynsham Bath and North East Somerset

2.  20/02253/FUL Former Radstock County Infant School Bath Old Road Radstock Bath and North East Somerset

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

3.  22/00630/FUL10 Highbury Place Walcot Bath, Bath and North East Somerset BA1 6DU

4.  22/00631/LBA 10 Highbury Place Walcot Bath, Bath and North East Somerset BA1 6DU

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. 20/02673/OUT

Site Location: Land Parcel 0005, Bath Road, Keynsham, Bath And North East Somerset

The Case Officer introduced the report and advised that although the application was contrary to the current development plan, officers were recommending approval for the following reasons:

1.  Local authorities were required to have a five-year supply of land for housing and there was a predicted shortfall.

2.  The Local Plan partial update (LPPU) would look to address the housing trajectory shortfall by identifying this and other sites for development. 

3.  The site was in a highly sustainable location which was broadly consistent with the district wide spatial strategy.

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

5.  There would be a provision of sustainable transport measures which were broadly in line with the Sustainable Transport Strategy for Keynsham and which would create the headroom to avoid a severe impact upon the highway network.

6.  There would be a significant package of Section 106 obligations and contributions.

The following public representations were received:

1.  Tom Rocke, agent for the applicant spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Andy Wait, in attendance as local ward member, spoke against the application and raised the following points:

1.  The current Local Plan stated there should be no more housing in this area until there was an improvement in the transport network. 

2.  The LPPU which would allow development of this site had not yet been approved and so the committee would be agreeing development on land which was currently safeguarded.

3.  The development would result in additional traffic on the A4.

4.  The proposals to improve the cycle network were not adequate.

He urged the committee to reject the application.

In response to members’ questions, it was confirmed:

1.  The work involved in potentially defending a decision on appeal was not a material consideration, however the benefits offered by the developer in relation to the application and the risk of not securing these benefits if the application was refused by committee was a material consideration.

2.  The determination of the planning application and the LPPU examination in public were 2 separate processes and the representations of the developer in relation to the LPPU process was not relevant to consideration of this application.

3.  In response to the comments raised about the application being premature in advance of the LPPU process, the planning authority did not have control over the timing of applications being submitted and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 127.

The Committee is asked to note the quarterly performance report from January to March 2022.

The Committee considered the Quarterly Performance Report 1.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

The Committee is asked to note the report.

The Committee considered the appeals report.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.