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 Item Nos. 1-3 and 6-9, a copy of which is attached as Appendix 1 to these Minutes

·  Oral statements by members of the public etc on Item Nos. 1-10, 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.

Item 1 Parcel 3567, Stitchings Shord Lane, Bishop Sutton – Outline planning application for a residential development of up to 32 dwellings and associated infrastructure – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to authorise the Development Manager of Planning and Transport Development to grant permission subject to (A) the Planning and Environmental Law Manager to enter into a S106 Agreement to secure various issues relating to Transport, Affordable Housing, Open Space and Recreational Facilities, and Education; and (B) subject to the prior completion of the above Agreement, authorise the Development Manager to grant permission subject to conditions (and such additional ecology conditions as she may determine).

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the proposals. The Ward Councillor Vic Pritchard made a statement expressing concerns about the proposals.

Councillor Les Kew opened the debate and referred to the cumulative effect of developments in the village. He felt that a site visit should be made on this important development proposal and moved that consideration be deferred accordingly. This was seconded by Councillor Martin Veal.

After a short debate, the motion was put to the vote and was carried, 11 voting in favour and 0 against with 2 abstentions.

Item 2 Milford Head, Stitchings Shord Lane, Bishop Sutton – Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide 9 dwellings (Outline with all matters reserved except access)(Resubmission of 12/05599/OUT) – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to authorise the Development Manager of Planning and Transport Development to grant permission subject to (A) the applicant entering into a legal agreement to secure various issues relating to Education, Open Space and Recreational Facilities, Transport, and Protection of Boundary Hedgerows; and (B) subject to the prior completion of the above Agreement, authorise the Development Manager to grant permission subject to conditions (or such conditions as he may determine).

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the proposal. This was followed by statements by the adjoining Ward Councillor Tim Warren and the Ward Councillor Vic Pritchard expressing concerns about the development.

Councillor Les Kew opened the debate. He felt that this proposal warranted a site visit and moved that consideration be deferred accordingly. The motion was seconded by Councillor Martin Veal. After a short discussion about the benefits of a site visit, the motion was put to the vote. Voting: 10 in favour and 0 against with 3 abstentions. Motion carried.

Item 3 Parcel 3300, Temple Inn Lane, Temple Cloud – Development of the site for residential purposes (approximately 70 dwellings) with associated public open space, landscaping and parking, primary vehicular access from temple Inn Lane to be determined (internal access, layout, scale, appearance and landscaping reserved for subsequent approval) – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to authorise the Development Manager of Planning and Transport Development to grant permission subject to (A) the Planning and Environmental Law Manager being authorised to enter into a S106 Agreement to secure various issues relating to Transport and Accessibility, Affordable Housing, Education and Community Facilities; and (B) subject to the prior completion of the above Agreement, authorise the Development Manager to grant permission subject to conditions. He stated that item 4 of the S106 Agreement wording would need to be amended. The Update Report gave further representations received from Highways Development Control.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the proposals. The Ward Councillor Tim Warren made a statement who referred to various issues and felt that a site visit was needed.

After advice from the Senior Legal Adviser, Councillor Les Kew declared an interest in the application as traffic may use this road leading to his property a little distance away but this was not prejudicial. He considered that this was a dangerous road junction and that Members should visit the site to assess this with regard to this new development. The motion was seconded by Councillor Martin Veal.

Members debated the motion. It was generally felt that a site visit would be useful in view of the highway safety issues

The motion was put to the vote which was carried 11 in favour and 0 against with 1 abstention

(Notes: (1) Councillor Liz Hardman was not present for consideration of this application in view of her interest declared earlier in the meeting; (2) there then followed an adjournment for 10 minutes until 3.43pm; and (3) Councillor Martin Veal left the meeting after this item).

Items 4&5 Temple Inn, Main Road, Temple Cloud – Mixed use development comprising a 10 bed letting rooms building, 9 residential dwellings and renovation of the existing public house (Ref Nos. 13/04456/FUL and 13/04457/LBA) – The Case Officer reported on these applications and her recommendations to (1) authorise the Development Manager of Planning and Transport Development to grant permission subject to (A) the Planning and Environmental Law Manager being authorised to enter into a S106 Agreement to secure various issues relating to Education, Open Space and Recreational Facilities, Transport, and Affordable Housing; and (B) subject to the prior completion of the above Agreement, authorise the Development Manager to grant permission subject to conditions; and (2) grant consent subject to conditions. She referred to some changes required to conditions in the Recommendation and that the requirements of Condition 6 of application Ref No. 13/04456/FUL would now be part of the S106 Agreement.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the proposal which was followed by a statement by the Ward Councillor Tim Warren who supported the principle of the development but felt that a site visit would be useful.

Councillor Bryan Organ felt that this was a good development but that the highway safety issues need to be assessed. He therefore moved that consideration of these applications be deferred for a site visit which was seconded by Councillor Les Kew. After a short debate about whether a site visit was needed, the motion was put to the vote. Voting: 8 in favour and 1 against with 3 abstentions. Motion carried

Item 6 Empty Radco Furniture Warehouse, Waterloo Road, Radstock – Demolition of former Co-op Homemaker store to facilitate the erection of 13 dwellings with associated works – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to authorise the Development Manager of Planning and Transport Development to grant permission subject to (A) the Planning and Environmental Law Manager being authorised to enter into a S106 Agreement to secure the provision on-site of 100% affordable housing, the housing mix to be agreed in writing with the Council; and (B) subject to the prior completion of the above Agreement, authorise the Development Manager to grant permission subject to conditions. He referred to an amendment required to the wording of Condition 6 in the Recommendation. The Officer reported the receipt of a late objection and referred to the Update Report which comprised further representations and an amendment to Condition 17.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the proposal. Councillor Eleanor Jackson made a statement against the proposal and then left the meeting for its consideration in view of her interest declared earlier in the meeting.

Members asked questions about the application to which the Case Officer responded. Councillor Bryan Organ moved the Officer’s recommendation as he felt that this was a good scheme and there would not be a significant loss to the heritage of the area from demolition of the Old Bakery building. The motion was seconded by Councillor Malcolm Lees.

Members debated the motion. Some Members considered that the Old Bakery building should be preserved as it was an important part of the town’s heritage. There was dismay expressed regarding the absence of financial contributions under a S106 Agreement as this was a 100% affordable housing development by a social housing landlord and the additional costs would allegedly make the scheme unviable. A private developer would not provide as much affordable housing and would need to make some contributions to community benefits. There was discussion on materials and it was felt that a good quality reconstructed stone should be used to a standard of that of the adjoining terrace. After advice by the Team Leader – Development Management, the mover and seconder agreed that a further condition be added regarding the submission of external materials for approval by Officers. Discussion continued on the loss of the building and lack of financial contributions. Some Members still supported the proposal as it was considered that it would enhance the character and appearance of the area and the benefits of the scheme outweighed the lack of contributions and the loss of the Old Bakery building.

The Chair gave his reasons why he would be supporting the proposal. He then put the revised motion to the vote. Voting: 5 in favour and 5 against with 1 abstention. The Chair then used his second and casting vote in favour of the motion which was therefore carried, 6 voting in favour and 5 against.

(Notes: (1) After this item at 5pm, there was an adjournment until 5.07pm; and (2) Councillor Eleanor Jackson returned to the meeting)

Item 7 Empty Co-op Premises, High Street, High Littleton – Erection of 9 residential units together with associated car parking, highway works and landscaping following demolition of former Co-op store building – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to authorise the Development Manager of Planning and Transport Development to grant permission subject to (A) the Planning and Environmental Law Manager entering into a S106 Agreement to secure the provision on-site of 100% affordable housing, the housing mix to be agreed in writing and the Council; and (B) subject to the prior completion of the above Agreement, grant permission subject to conditions. He referred to an amendment to the wording of Condition 3 in the Recommendation and to the Update Report which amended the wording of Condition 11 and added a further Condition regarding an Arboricultural Method Statement.

The public speaker made his statement in support of the application.

Councillor Les Kew opened the debate as Ward Member on the Committee. He was delighted that a scheme had come forward for this site in the centre of the village but felt that there were a number of deficiencies such as the lack of a rear access and a bus lay by and financial contributions to education. More work was required to this application. Councillor Bryan Organ moved the Officer’s recommendation as he considered that this was a good scheme although he felt that some discussions should take place between leading Members and Officers regarding financial contributions by the applicant. The motion was seconded by Councillor Malcolm Lees.

Members debated the motion. The issue of a lack of financial contributions was raised as well as adoption of the road by the Council, the provision of a bus lay by and the pedestrian crossing that would need to be relocated. The Case Officer responded to some of these matters. Some Members felt that the scheme could still be supported despite these drawbacks.

The Chair stated his support for the proposal and put the motion to the vote. Voting: 6 in favour and 6 against. The Chair used his second and casting vote in support and therefore the motion was carried, 7 voting in favour and 6 against.

Items 8&9 Car Park, Sawclose, Bath – (1) Erection of hotel (C1), 2 restaurants (A3) and casino (Sui Generis), alteration works to listed buildings (Gala Bingo Club, Market and Bluecoat House boundary walls), and associated hard landscaping works following the demolition of unlisted buildings (former clinic, former weighbridge kiosk, Regency garage and Nos. 1-2 Bridewell Lane)(Ref 13/04234/EFUL); and (2) alterations to Gala Bingo Club comprising demolition of north and east extensions, removal of internal balcony/gallery, paybox, toilets and platform lift, internal structural alterations including construction of new concrete floors at first floor level supported on new columns, associated works. Alterations to the Market comprising removal of rear walls, lobby, bar and canopy, partition walls and staircases, structural alterations including new walls, timber floors at first and second floor, stairs and lift, fire protection works, associated works. Alterations to Bluecoat House boundary walls, comprising substantial removal of west and east walls and removal of north wall (Ref 13/04218/LBA) – The Case Officer reported on these applications and her recommendations to (1) authorise the Development Manager of Planning and Transport Development subject to (A) the Planning and Environmental Law Manager being authorised to enter into a S106 Agreement to secure works comprising the construction of a transition zone to the Sawclose boundary of the site and alterations to the footway abutting the site on Upper Borough Walls in accordance with details submitted with the planning application; and (B) subject to no new matters arising from outstanding consultations, grant permission subject to conditions; and (2) authorise the Development Manager of Planning and Transport Development to grant consent subject to (A) referral to the Secretary of State; and (B) subject to no new matters arising from outstanding consultations, grant consent subject to conditions. She reported the receipt of further representations and comments by the Bath Preservation Trust. She also referred to the Update Report and an amendment to the Recommendation on Item 8 to delete the referral to the Secretary of State in view of English Heritage not objecting to the application. There would also be revisions to the drawing numbers on both Items.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the proposals.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson considered that she should have declared an interest in this application as she was a shareholder of the Big Issue which occupied No 1 Bridewell Lane on this site but considered that this was not prejudicial to her consideration of the matter.

Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones made a statement expressing concerns about the design.

The Chair invited the Ward Members on the Committee to comment on the applications. Councillor Brian Webber, as one of the Ward Members on the Committee, stated that he had not received any comments from local residents on the scheme. He considered that the mix of styles of architecture was not out of character and the massing and shape of the buildings were appropriate. The scheme was very nearly acceptable but it was a bit sharp-edged. He therefore moved that consideration be deferred for 1 month for revisions to the design. Councillor Manda Rigby, the other Ward Member on the Committee, agreed that the scheme was nearly acceptable but that more time was required to make the scheme more iconic. She therefore seconded the motion.

Members debated the motion. The discussion centred on the design with Members expressing various comments and concerns. These included a more dramatic statement being required, overbearing and unsympathetic to the Theatre Royal, the scheme needed to be seen in the context of the whole of the Sawclose, too angular and needed to be softened with more detail on copings and windows, and a more balanced design and public realm scheme was needed. It was pointed out that disabled parking needed to be given some consideration.

After a full debate, the Chair stated that he was inclined to be in favour of the proposed use but felt that the casino should be more discreet, the design should have more interest and consideration should be given to not having a flat roof. He put the motion to the vote. Voting: 10 in favour and 1 against. Motion carried. The same motion was put to the vote for the application for listed building consent and was carried, 10 in favour and 1 against.

(Notes: (1) Councillor Liz Hardman left the meeting during consideration of this item; and (2) Councillor David Martin left the meeting after this item)

Item 10 No 22 Rotcombe Vale, High Littleton – Erection of a two storey 3 bedroom house in front garden – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to grant permission with conditions. A further condition would need to be added regarding removal of permitted development rights.

The public speaker made a statement against the proposal.

Councillor Les Kew as Ward Member opened the debate. He referred to the comments of the Parish Council who objected to the proposal and considered that there were various issues such as location and car parking that could only be assessed by holding a site visit. He moved that consideration be deferred accordingly which was seconded by Councillor Eleanor Jackson.

The motion was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.