Agenda and minutes

The Democratic Services Officer read out the emergency evacuation procedure.

A Vice Chairman was not required on this occasion.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Paul Crossley – substitute Councillor Ian Gilchrist.

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.

(a)  Councillor Kew asked that it be recorded that he had considered whether he had an interest in item number 17/00955/FUL – Wansdyke Business Centre - due to owning an industrial estate in Temple Cloud. He had taken advice and considered this did not constitute an interest.  He would therefore take part in the debate and decision making on this item.

(b)  Councillor Veale stated that he had an “other” interest in item number 17/00299/OUT as he was a Camerton school governor.  However, as he did not consider this interest was significant to prejudice his judgment he would take part in the debate and decision making on this item.

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.

There were no items from Councillors or Co-Opted Members.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 3 May 2017.

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 May 2017 were confirmed and signed as a correct record subject to the following amendment:

Minute 144 – Item No. 3 – Add the words “Councillor Jackson requested a definition in due course of what actually constitutes a trading estate.”

The Committee considered:

·  A report by the Group Manager (Development Management) on various planning applications.

·  An update report by the Group Manager (Development Management) 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 Committee’s delegated powers, the applications be determined as set out in the decisions list attached as Appendix 3 to these minutes.

Item No. 1

Application No. 17/00568/FUL

Hartley Farm Cottage, Hartley Lane, Swainswick, Bath, BA1 8AF – Erection of side and rear extensions (Revised proposal)

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation for refusal.  She explained that the proposal would lead to a 130% volume increase to the original building.

The registered speakers spoke in favour of the application.

Councillors Veal and Ward, local ward members, spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Jackson asked a question regarding the rules relating to the extension of a rendered property in the greenbelt.  The Case Officer explained that it was not possible to extend a rendered building under permitted development rights in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  A planning application was therefore required.

The Group Manager, Development Management, explained that a recent application for a similar scheme had been refused under delegated powers, in part owing to the impact of the proposal on the Green Belt by reason of inappropriate development and the design of the proposal.

Councillor Kew moved that the Committee delegate to permit the application.  He stated that the site visit had been very helpful and that it had been useful to see the size and condition of the existing property which was very small.  He also noted the strong support for this application from the local Councillors and the Parish Council.  He stated that the special reasons for permitting the application were to keep the family (who had lived in the area all their lives) together and to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act.  He felt that there would be very little impact on the Green Belt. The motion was seconded by Councillor Matthew Davies.

Councillor Roberts felt that the proposal would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of the building.

Councillor Jackson noted that the Committee should not take the personal circumstances of the applicant into account when making decisions.  She felt that a revised design would be more appropriate and that this could be achieved within the existing footfall.

Councillor Appleyard felt that the personal circumstances did not carry enough weight to make a decision that was contrary to policy and also stated that the design could be improved.

The motion was then put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 7 votes for, 2 votes against and 1 abstention to DELEGATE TO PERMIT the application subject to conditions.

The Committee considered:

·  A report by the Group Manager (Development Management) on various planning applications.

·  An update report by the Group Manager (Development Management) 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 decisions list attached as Appendix 4 to these minutes.

Item No. 1

Application No. 17/00955/FUL

Site Location: Wansdyke Business Centre, Oldfield Lane, Oldfield Park, Bath – Demolition of the existing buildings and structures (partial retention of façade fronting/adjoining Monksdale Road) and mixed-use redevelopment to provide 126 student studios (Sui Generis), commercial units (B1, B8), fitness centre (D2), coffee shop (A3), with associated access, parking and servicing space, landscaping and associated works (Resubmission)

The Case Officer reported on the application and his recommendation to delegate to permit. 

The registered speakers spoke for and against the application.

The local ward members, Councillors Shaun Stephenson-McGall and Will Sandry spoke against the application.

(Note: At this point Councillor Bryan Organ left the meeting).

The Group Manager (Development Management) explained that the previous application for this site had been determined by officers under delegated powers and that this should be taken into account by the Committee when making its decision.

Councillor Kew felt that a decision should not be made at this meeting because he had not seen the site and given the large number of objections and the comments of local members it was important to do so.  He pointed out that 410 representations had been received, of which 408 were against the application.  He then moved that consideration of the application be deferred pending a site visit.  This was seconded by Councillor Veale.

Councillor Appleyard was concerned about car parking in the area and asked how successful the use of a Section 106 agreement to deliver a car-free environment would be.  Officers explained that the planning enforcement team would be required to undertake observation and log information which would then be raised with the University if students were bringing their cars to the area. Councillor Appleyard requested that a report be brought to a future meeting giving details of how effective the enforcement of student parking controls had been in the past.

The motion was then put to the vote and there were 4 votes in favour, 4 votes against and 1 abstention.  The Chair then used her casting vote against the motion which was therefore LOST.

Councillor Jackson stated that she felt the design was unsuitable, ugly and unsightly.  This was not the right location for this building as it should be an employment site.  She then moved that the application be refused for poor design reasons and due to the adverse impact the development would have on the Grade II* listed Church of Our Lady and St Alphege.

Councillor Roberts seconded the motion and stated that she believed the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The Committee considered the appeals report.  Councillor Jackson stated that Westfield Parish Council was very upset and disappointed with the outcome to allow the appeal relating to Parcel 5472, Cobblers Way, Westfield, Radstock.

RESOLVED to NOTE the report.