Agenda item

The Committee considered

• A report by the Group Manager – Development Management on various applications for planning permission etc.
• Oral statements by members of the public etc. on Item Nos. 1 - 9, the Speakers List being attached as Appendix 1 to these Minutes
• An Update Report on Item Nos. 1 – 3 and 8, the Report being attached as Appendix 3 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 4 to these Minutes

Item 1 Hope House, Royal High School, Lansdown Road, Lansdown, Bath – Residential development of 58 dwellings, including the conversion of Hope House and associated infrastructure and parking following demolition of existing school buildings – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to (A) authorise the Group Manager, in consultation with the Planning and Environmental Law Manager, to enter into a S106 Agreement to provide/agree various provisos; and (B) on completion of an acceptable S106 Agreement, grant permission subject to various conditions. She referred to various typographical errors regarding the dates of consultation responses in the report and advised members that a revised vehicle tracking plan had been received and was considered acceptable. The Update Report provided further information on the scheme and slightly amended the recommendation.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the proposals. The Ward Councillor Anthony Clarke made a statement on the matter.

Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones, as Ward Member on the Committee, opened the debate. He commented on the application and referred to the large number of objections received and increased number of houses proposed for the site. He considered that Block C was 30% bigger and could be reduced by a floor. The quality of the design on the lower part of the site was poor and did not contribute to the setting of the World Heritage site and the Conservation Area. He acknowledged that there were some good aspects of the application.

Members asked questions to which the Case Officer responded. There was some discussion about the affordable housing aspect of the development. It was queried whether the application could be split into two so that some of the application could be approved and the other part refused. The Team Manager – Development Management stated that the application could not be split into two and would need to be considered as submitted. The Senior Legal Adviser supported this view. Councillor Les Kew moved that the Officer recommendation be overturned and that permission be refused on the basis that the design of houses on the lower section of the site was not acceptable and adversely affected the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The motion was seconded by Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones.

Members debated the motion. Some Members considered that the total scheme had merit and could be approved.

The Chair summed up the debate and put the motion to the vote. Voting: 7 in favour and 5 against with 1 abstention. Motion carried.

(Note: After this decision at 4.15pm, there was a short adjournment for a natural break)

Item 2 St Saviour’s Junior School, Brookleaze Place, Avondale Buildings, Larkhall, Bath – Demolition of existing temporary classrooms and kitchen, extensions to existing school building comprising of a new classroom block and new kitchen to be located off the main hall – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to grant permission subject to conditions. The Update Report provided further information on the proposal and recommended that a further condition be added.

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

Councillor Dave Laming, as Ward Member on the Committee, expressed concern about various aspects of the proposal and considered that the application should be refused.

It was queried whether the application could be split into two as regards the temporary buildings and the permanent buildings. The Team Manager – Development Management stated that, in this particular instance, it could as the temporary classrooms were already on site and in use and were not dependent on the use of the proposed permanent buildings. Councillor Rob Appleyard felt that there was an issue about consultation but this was an opportunity to move forward and the existing permanent classrooms were in poor condition which affected the learning experience. He therefore moved the Officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Sally Davies.

Members debated the motion. It was felt that the proposed development fitted into the area well. The existing conditions were cramped and Members needed to listen to the needs of the users. However, it was also considered that the temporary and permanent buildings could be dealt with separately so as to permit the temporary buildings and re-examine the need for the permanent buildings. It was also considered that this was an application that was just trying to cover the anticipated bulge class issue over the next 5 years and could be redesigned.

The Chair commented on the proposals and put the motion to the vote which was carried, 7 voting in favour and 4 against with 2 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 (internal access, layout, scale, appearance and landscaping reserved for subsequent approval) – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to (A) authorise the Planning and Environmental Law Manager to enter into a S106 Agreement to secure various provisos relating to Transport and accessibility; Affordable housing, Education, and Community facilities; and (B) subject to the prior completion of the S106 Agreement, authorise the Group Manager to grant permission subject to various conditions (or such conditions as may be determined). He reported on the various changes to the earlier application considered back in March this year. The Update Report referred to various corrections to the report and the Case Officer circulated a further Update Note to Members clarifying matters relating to the provision of a public footpath link

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the development. Councillor Tim Warren as Ward Councillor commented on the proposal.

Members discussed the RA1 status of the village in the Core Strategy and the number of houses that had already been developed or granted permission. It was a different situation to that when the earlier application was considered. It was queried whether this application was reopening the previous application. The Team Manager – Development Management replied that the resolution of the Committee to grant  permission  had not yet been issued and circumstances had changed in the interim as  the Core Strategy had now been adopted by the Council. The adopted Core Strategy now sought a different level of provision of affordable housing and the proposals had been amended to comply with the Core Strategy. He clarified what was being said in the Update Report and Note and further commented that a footpath link to the adjoining estate could be secured in the terms of the S106 Agreement. There was some discussion about the amount of affordable housing that was being provided.

Councillor Bryan Organ moved the Officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Dave Laming.

Members briefly debated the motion. The Chair summed up the debate and put the motion to the vote. Voting: 5 in favour and 7 against with 1 abstention. Motion lost.

Councillor Manda Rigby moved that the application be refused permission on the grounds that it was outside the housing development boundary, there was an excessive number of houses being proposed which exceeded the requirements of the RA1 status of the village, and the highway junction was unacceptable for this number of houses with no prospect of improvement. The motion was seconded by Councillor Rob Appleyard.

The motion was put to the vote and was carried, 7 voting in favour and 5 against with 1 abstention.

Item 4 Land adjacent to Tree Tops, Firgrove Lane, Peasedown – Erection of straw bale, timber frame living/work unit (Retrospective) –The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to refuse permission. He commented on further representations received in support of the proposal.

The applicant made a statement in favour of the proposal which was followed by a statement by the Ward Councillor Nathan Hartley in support of the application.

Councillor Rob Appleyard considered that this was a lifestyle choice and that the site needed to be viewed on the ground to consider the impact on its surroundings. On that basis, he moved that the application be deferred for a Site Visit which was seconded by Councillor Les Kew.

The motion was put to the vote and was carried, 10 voting in favour and 1 against with 2 abstentions.

Item 5 Rentokil Tropical Plants, Pipehouse Nursery, Pipehouse, Freshford – Erection of 10 dwellings including access road, car parking and hard standing, landscaping and associated works and services following demolition of existing buildings and structures – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to (A) authorise the Planning and Environmental Law Manager to enter into a S106 Agreement to secure various provisos relating to Transport and accessibility, Affordable housing, Open space and recreational facilities, Education, and Protection of boundary hedgerows; and (B) subject to the prior completion of the S106 Agreement, authorise the Group Manager to grant permission subject to various conditions (or such conditions as may be appropriate).

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

Councillor Neil Butters, as Ward Member on the Committee, opened the debate. He referred to the historic nature of the site and moved that the application be deferred for a Site Visit to view the site in the context of its surroundings, highway access and turning space. The motion was seconded by Councillor Les Kew.

The Chair put the motion to the vote which was carried, 10 voting in favour and 0 against with 3 abstentions. Motion carried.

(Note: After this decision at 6.45pm, the meeting adjourned for a Tea break and resumed at 7.15pm).

Item 6 Land opposite Tunley Farmhouse, Wood Lane, Priston – Erection of 2 live/work buildings and re-alignment of highway (Outline) – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to refuse permission. She reported the comments of Camerton and Dunkerton Parish Councils on the proposal.

The applicants’ agent made a statement in favour of the application.

Councillor David Veale (Ward Member on the Committee) had the same view on this application as previously. A Bond could be taken out to build the footpath to the village but he felt that the developer should make a contribution to the cost of the works rather than the total cost.

Councillor Les Kew considered that this development was only 2 live/work units and didn’t warrant the full cost of the footpath being met by the developer. He therefore moved that the Officer recommendation be overturned and that Officers be authorised to grant permission subject to the previous terms of the S106 Agreement with a contribution to a maximum of £10k by the developer to the cost of the footpath, and appropriate conditions. The motion was seconded by Councillor Malcolm Lees.

Members debated the motion. It was considered that a lesser amount would be more appropriate. Councillor Kew on reconsideration amended his motion to a specific amount of £5k. This was considered to be more acceptable to Members.

The Chair put the motion to the vote which was carried unanimously.

Item 7 No 72 High Street, Twerton, Bath – Change of use from single dwelling (C3) to house in multiple occupation (C4) – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to grant permission subject to conditions.

The public speaker made a statement against the application.

The Chair, as Ward Member on the Committee, considered that there were special circumstances regarding this part of the High Street particularly with regard to the location of the Foyer building, pubs and shops. It was acknowledged that students can bring diversity to a community and present different issues although residents could see them as detrimental to their amenity. Councillor Vic Pritchard felt that this was not a good location for an HMO and this was only a 3 bed end of terrace family dwelling. He therefore moved that the Officer recommendation be overturned and permission be refused on the basis of the cumulative impact on the community and adverse impact on residential amenity. The motion was seconded by Councillor Les Kew.

After a brief debate, the Chair put the motion to the vote. Voting: 7 in favour and 1 against with 5 abstentions. Motion carried.

Item 8 Land between cycle path and roundabout, London Road East, Bath – Change of use of existing building to residential including external alterations – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to grant permission subject to conditions. She commented on a further letter of objection.

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

Councillor Sally Davis read a statement on behalf of the Ward Councillor Geoff Ward who supported the objections to the application. She also referred to comments by the other Ward Councillor Martin Veal as regards the  history of the site. Councillor Les Kew considered that this was a dangerous location and moved that the Officer recommendation be overturned and that permission be refused on the grounds that a substantial reconstruction of the building would be required to change it to residential use.The motion was seconded by Councillor Malcolm Lees.

Members debated the motion. The Team Manager – Development Management pointed out that this was not intended to be a holiday let as mentioned in the debate but a residential use.

The Chair put the motion to the vote. Voting: 12 in favour and 1 against. Motion carried.

Item 9 Trinity C of E Primary School, Woodborough Lane, Radstock – Erection of detached timber framed building to provide break out space on school site – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to grant permission subject to conditions.

Councillor Deborah Porter, on behalf of Radstock Town Council, made a statement against the proposal. Councillor Eleanor Jackson, as Ward Councillor, made a statement against the application.

Members discussed the proposal. Councillor Vic Pritchard stated that this was an award winning school and the proposal was of a cheap standard not befitting to the school. He therefore moved that the Officer recommendation be overturned and permission be refused on the grounds of poor design. The motion was seconded by Councillor Malcolm Lees.

Members briefly debated the motion which was generally supported.

The Chair put the motion to the vote which was carried, 9 voting in favour and 3 against with 1 abstention. Motion carried.