Agenda item

The Committee considered

·  A report by the Development Manager on applications for planning permission etc

·  An Update Report by the Development Manager on Items 1-4, which Report is attached as Appendix 1 to these Minutes

·  Oral statements by members of the public etc on Items 1-4, the Speakers List being attached as Appendix 2 to these Minutes

RESOLVED that, in accordance with their delegated powers, the applications be determined as set out in the Decisions List attached as Appendix 3 to these Minutes

Items 1&2 Former GWR Railway Line, Frome Road, Radstock – (1) Demolition and redevelopment of former railway lands to provide mixed use development including up to 210 residential units of varying sizes, up to 695 sq m of retail business floor space (Use Classes A1 – A5 and B1); up to 325 sq m of Use Class B1 floor space or for community uses (Use Class D1); conversion of the Brunel rail shed for Use Class B1 or D; car parking and new bus stops; works to various existing roads within the town and establishment of new roads to service the development including new bridge structures; new public realm works, ground remediation; alterations to ground levels; works to trees and existing habitat areas; upgrading of below ground utilities; establishment of a new Sustrans route and diversion of existing public right of way (Ref 13/02436/EOUT); and (2) demolition of bridges/underpass, former forge/wagon works, railway platforms and wall in connection with the development of the former GWR railway land (Ref 13/02534/CA)

The Case Officer reported on these applications and her recommendation (1) to (A) authorise the Planning and Environmental Law Manager to enter into a S106 Agreement to secure/cover various issues, and (B) upon completion of the Agreement, authorise the Development Manager to grant permission subject to conditions; and (2) to delegate to Officers to grant consent subject to conditions. She informed the meeting of the receipt of further objections and of the total number of representations received including objections and letters of support. The Update Report commented on representations received which did not alter her recommendation on Item 2 but would make minor amendments to the Heads of Terms of the S106 Agreement on Item 1. The Transportation Planning Manager reported on the highways issues.

The public speakers made their statements on these applications. Councillor Paul Crossley made a statement in support of the proposals. Councillor Eleanor Jackson then made a statement against the scheme and then left the meeting in view of her declaration of interest.

Members asked questions for clarification to which Officers responded. Councillor Bryan Organ considered that all appropriate issues had been covered by this proposed development. He had been in contact with Rail Network and they confirmed that any proposal to reopen the railway line was not in their 10 year plan. He therefore moved the Officer’s recommendations. Councillor Les Kew seconded the motion He considered that the town needed regenerating and would help to create jobs and homes for the local community. The proposal was supported by the Town Council and a Ward Councillor. Some of the issues of contention would be covered in the S106 Agreement. Car parking was a problem and an overall parking plan for the town was required. A rail link was unlikely. This was a good scheme which should be supported.

Members debated the motion. Councillor Vic Pritchard had a number of concerns about the proposals and felt that the town was not ready for this scale of development. A good infrastructure was required first. It was not necessary to split the town with the proposed road scheme. After voicing other concerns, he stated that he would not be supporting the motion. Councillor Liz Hardman also had some concerns but felt on balance that she could support the proposals; however, the Town Council’s views should be heeded.

The Chair stated that there would be numerous gains from the development and that this would be the start of regenerating the town. Most of the issues had been covered in the development although car parking was an issue on which work was still required. He would support the proposals. He then put the motions to the vote separately. Voting: 10 in favour and 2 against. Motions carried.

Items 3&4 Former GWR Railway Line, Frome Road, Radstock – (1) Demolition of existing structures and redevelopment of former railway land to provide mixed use development including up to 70 residential units; up to 282 sq m of retail floor space (Use Classes A1 – A5); up to 84 sq m of community uses (Use Class D1); public car park, associated highways works, ground remediation, alterations to ground levels, works to trees and existing habitat areas; and upgrading of below ground utilities (Ref 13/03786/EFUL); and (2) demolition of existing structures (Ref 13/03787/CA)

The Case Officer reported on these applications and her recommendations (1) to (A) authorise the Planning and Environmental Law Manager to enter into a S106 Agreement to secure/cover various issues; and (B) upon completion of the Agreement, authorise the Development Manager to grant permission subject to conditions to be confirmed; and (2) delegate to Officers to grant consent subject to conditions. She advised that conditions would need to be added to the planning application as regards ecology issues.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the applications. Councillor Paul Crossley made a statement in support of the proposals. Councillor Eleanor Jackson then made a statement expressing concerns about the development. In view of her interest declared earlier, she then left the meeting for their consideration.

Members asked questions for clarification to which Officers responded.

Members discussed various issues including design, materials, use of the road system by HGVs, affordable housing, information provided by Housing Services. The Officers responded to the issues raised.

Councillor Bryan Organ considered that more affordable housing was required. However, this was a good scheme and he therefore moved the Officer’s recommendations. The motion was seconded by Councillor Les Kew who considered that the material of white lias should be course laid and that a sample panel should be agreed by Officers.

Members debated the motions. The issues of sustainability and loss of parking were raised. The Case Officer responded that the existing car park was currently on the applicants’ land.

The Chair considered this to be an acceptable scheme and would support the motions. He therefore put the motions to the vote separately. Voting: 11 in favour and 0 against with 1 abstention. Motions carried.