Agenda and draft minutes

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

The Democratic Services Officer read out the emergency evacuation procedure.

Apologies for absence had been received from Cllr Toby Simon.  Cllr Ruth Malloy was in attendance as 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 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.

It was noted that Cllr Fiona Gourley would withdraw from the Committee for consideration of items (4) 24/00196/LBA - 31 James Street West, City Centre, Bath and (5) 22/02169/EOUT – Parcel 4234, Combe Hay Lane, Combe Hay, Bath and address the Committee during consideration of item (5) as ward Councillor.

Cllr Hal MacFie declared an interest in item (4) 24/00196/LBA - 31 James Street West, City Centre, Bath and withdrew from the meeting during consideration of this item.

Cllr Paul Crossley declared an interest in item (5) 22/02169/EOUT – Parcel 4234, Combe Hay Lane, Combe Hay, Bath as a Council representative on Cotswolds AONB Conservation Board.  He stated that he had reconsidered his position since the previous meeting where the application was discussed and decided that he should withdraw from the meeting during consideration of the item. 

Cllr Lucy Hodge stated that item (1) 23/03610/FUL - 9 Van Diemen's Lane, Lansdown, Bath was in her ward but did not declare an interest and participated in the debate on that item.

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.

In relation to the planning application 22/02169/EOUT – Parcel 4234, Combe Hay Lane, Combe Hay, Bath, the Chair has agreed to extend the time limit for speakers to reflect the number of planning issues involved.  In relation to this application, the time limit will be:

3 minutes for Combe Hay Parish Council

3 minutes for South Stoke Parish Council

6 minutes for objectors

6 minutes for supporters

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 Wednesday 13 March 2024 as a correct record for signing by the Chair.

It was moved by Cllr Eleanor Jackson seconded by Cllr Tim Warren and:

RESOLVED  that the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 13 March 2024 be confirmed as a correct record for signing by the Chair.

There are no site visit applications for consideration.

There were no site visit applications for consideration.

The following items will be considered at 11am:

1.  23/03610/FUL - 9 Van Diemen's Lane, Lansdown, Bath

2.  23/04499/FUL- 88 Whiteway Road, Whiteway, Bath

3.  23/03554/FUL - Greenways , Stoneage Lane, Tunley, Bath

4.  24/00196/LBA - 31 James Street West, City Centre, Bath

The following items will be considered at 2pm:

5.  22/02169/EOUT - Parcel 4234, Combe Hay Lane, Combe Hay, Bath

The Committee considered:

A report and update report by the Head of Planning on the applications under the main applications list.

RESOLVED that in accordance with the delegated powers, the applications be determined as set out in the main applications decisions list attached as Appendix 2 to these minutes.

(1)  23/03610/FUL - 9 Van Diemen's Lane, Lansdown, Bath

The Planning Case Officer introduced the report which considered an application for engineering and landscaping works to the rear garden of a 2-storey detached property to provide multiple levels, including the use of gabion retaining walls.

He gave a verbal update to confirm it was a retrospective application and the fifth paragraph under the title of “Residential Amenity” in the report had been included in error as the vegetation mentioned had been removed. 

He confirmed the officers’ recommendation that permission be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

The following public representations were received:

1.  Nick Ruxton objecting to the application.

2.  Richard Hayes, supporting the application.

Cllr Mark Elliott, local member, was unable to attend and asked for a statement to be read out in his absence summarised as follows:

1.  He supported the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.

2.  The garden was visible from the surrounding countryside and there would be an impact of the gabion wall on the green belt and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

3.  There would also be a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the residents of a neighbouring property.

In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed:

1.  A part of the garden was in the green belt and AONB.  There were no very exceptional circumstances put forward to justify development in the green belt.

2.  Officers were not aware of any problems relating to subsidence at the site.

3.  The plans showed that the height of the gabion wall would remain at the existing height. 

4.  The land beyond the gabion wall was not in the ownership of the applicant and therefore it would not be possible to add a landscaping condition in relation to this land.  Any planting would need to be in the boundary of the application site. 

5.  The retention of the hedgerow had been conditioned by a previous application but as it was outside the ownership of the applicant, this was not enforceable. 

6.  The garden level would be higher as a result of the development.  The site was particularly visible when compared with other nearby properties. 

Cllr Lucy Hodge opened the debate as Ward Councillor.  She stated that she agreed with the officer recommendation to refuse the application on the grounds of the impact on the AONB and green belt, but also suggested there were further reasons for refusal as the application would have a detrimental impact on the neighbouring property due to overlooking and a further impact on ecology as a result of the removal of the hedgerow.  The Case Officer advised that the ecological reason for refusal was not appropriate due  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

The Committee is asked to note the report.

The Committee considered the appeals report.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.