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:

Cllr Rob Appleyard

Cllr Les Kew – substitute Cllr Patrick Anketell-Jones

Cllr David Veale – substitute Cllr Brian Simmons

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.

There were no declarations of interest.

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 20 September 2017.

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 September 2017 were confirmed and signed as a correct record subject to the following amendments:

Minute 54 – Item 1 – Application No. 17/01466/FUL – paragraph 5 – Add the words “Cllr Eleanor Jackson explained the viewpoint of Westfield residents.”

Minute 54 – Item 5 – Application No. 17/01542/FUL – paragraph 4, Delete the words “Cllr Crossley acknowledged the limited increase in jobs arising from the proposal” and replace with the words “Cllr Crossley acknowledged that no new jobs would be created by the proposal.”

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. 17/02591/FUL

Site Location: 143 Calton Road, Lyncombe, Bath, BA2 4PP – Erection of 2 townhouses following demolition of existing 2 bed apartment

The Case Officer reported on the application and the recommendation to permit.  He explained that an additional condition was now suggested as follows:

“Notwithstanding the approved plans, the lower half of the first floor and second floor windows on the rear elevation hereby approved shall be non-opening and obscurely glazed and retained as such in perpetuity.”

The registered speakers spoke for and against the application.

Councillor Ian Gilchrist, local Ward Member, spoke against the application.

Councillor Becker, local Ward Member on the Committee, noted that the proposal would have an adverse shadowing effect on the neighbours situated below the property.  He felt that further information was required, in particular, an impact study to ascertain the level of impact on neighbouring properties.  The Case Officer explained that an impact assessment had already been provided.  The Group Manager advised the Committee that there would be some impact on neighbours but it was for members to make a judgement “on balance” as to whether the application should be permitted or refused.

Councillor Jackson asked a question relating to the doorway on the front wall of the property.  The Case Officer confirmed that this doorway would be demolished if the development went ahead.  The Highways Officer confirmed that there was no allocated parking for the proposed development as it was in a sustainable location close to the city centre, train and bus stations.

Councillor Becker then moved that the application be refused for reasons of overdevelopment, shadowing and blocking of access.  This was seconded by Councillor Roberts.

Councillor Anketell-Jones noted that the hillside location was a part of living in the World Heritage city of Bath.  Infill development provided much needed housing and was a necessary intensification of use.  This proposed new build was in keeping with the Conservation Area and was subservient to its neighbour.  He did not see the reduction in lighting as significant.

Councillor Organ supported the officer recommendation and did not feel that the shadowing issue was significant.

Councillor Jackson felt that the current building did not enhance the Conservation Area and that the proposed development would be a marked improvement.

The motion was then put to the vote and there were 3 voted in favour, 6 votes against.  The motion was therefore LOST.

Councillor Jackson then moved the officer recommendation that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.  This was seconded  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

The Committee considered:

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

·  An update report by the Group Manager (Development Management) on items 4 and 5 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. 17/02607/FUL

Site Location: University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath – Works to refurbish existing waste compound with the erection of raised canopy to cover plant, erection of new welfare unit following demolition of existing, relocation of confidential waste shed and alterations to entrance roadway

The Case Officer reported on the application and his recommendation to permit.  He informed the Committee that an additional condition was proposed to ensure that the canopy building was constructed prior to the installation of any mechanical plant.

The registered speakers spoke for and against the application.

The local Ward Member, Cllr Matt Cochrane, spoke against the application.

In response to questions from members the Case Officer and Highways Officer clarified the following matters:

·  The proposal would result in fewer vehicle movements on the campus as the volume of waste would decrease.  There would be a reduction from 2 collections to 1 collection every 2-3 weeks.

·  If the level of noise generated exceeded the levels specified by the conditions then residents could report this to the Council and, if a breach had occurred, measures could be put in place to resolve the issue. 

·  If the required operating hours were exceeded then this could be dealt with by enforcement action.

·  No new types of waste would be dealt with at the site.

Cllr Crossley stated that the local residents had been surprised by this application and felt that the University should have discussed plans with their neighbours at an early stage.  He noted that there were alternative sites on the University campus that could be used for a waste compound.  He felt that the application now represented a change of use and intensification from storage to compacting waste which required further debate.  He moved that the application be refused for the following reasons:

·  Lack of consultation with local residents

·  Intensification of use of the site

·  Change of use of the site from waste storage to waste processing and removal

The motion was seconded by Cllr Roberts.

The Group Manager explained that the usual consultation process for planning applications had been carried out by the Council in this case.  The application did not fall into the category of a major waste application.  A waste facility was already sited in this location and the compacting facility would mean that fewer trucks would need to visit the site.

The motion was put to the vote and there were 3 votes in favour and 6 votes against.  The motion was therefore  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

The Committee considered the appeals report.

Members requested that details of costs awarded be included in future appeals reports.

RESOLVED to NOTE the report.