Agenda item

The Committee considered

• A report by the Group Manager – Development Management on applications for planning applications at No 43 Upper Oldfield Park, Bath, and No 8 Lime Grove Gardens, Bathwick, Bath
• Oral statements by members of the public etc. on these applications, the Speakers List being attached as Appendix 1 to these Minutes
• An Update Report by the Group Manager on No 43 Upper Oldfield Park, Bath, a copy of which is 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 No 43 Upper Oldfield Park, Bath – Erection of 14 residential apartments with parking and shared grounds (Revised proposal) (Retrospective) – The Principal Planning/Enforcement Officer reported on this application and the amended recommendation to (A) authorise the Planning and Environmental Law Manager to enter into a S106 Agreement to secure the provision of parking space for the local car share club and membership of the club for future residents on a lifetime basis at a ratio of 2 memberships per flat; (B) wait for the consultation period for advertisement as a departure from the Development Plan to expire; and (C) authorise the Group Manager to grant permission subject to conditions. He referred Members to the objection by the Junction Road and Environs Residents Group circulated to Members and some inaccuracies that were contained therein. A Petition signed by approximately 280 people had been received against the proposal. He stated that, if the recommendation was approved, some amendments would be required to the wording of Conditions 1, 10 and 13.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the development. These were followed by statements by the Widcombe Ward Councillor Ben Stevens and the Ward Councillors for Oldfield, Councillors Will Sandry and David Dixon, who all supported refusal of the application.

Councillor Ian Gilchrist stated he would consider the application on its own merits. It was now too big for its location, ugly and inappropriate for the area. He therefore moved that the recommendation be overturned and that permission be refused which was seconded by Councillor Martin Veal.

Members debated the motion. Councillor Rob Appleyard commented on the appearance of the building and referred to waste collection and the lack of affordable housing which was an issue for him. He would support the motion. The Group Manager responded to some of the comments by saying that the former application was for 14 flats when the threshold was 15 units for affordable housing to be sought. The Group Manager clarified that affordable housing was sought in this case in line with the Core Strategy policy. An independent review had however been undertaken of the applicant’s viability information and this review confirmed the applicant’s position that seeking affordable housing would make the scheme unviable. He also advised that the building was a departure from policy and this was a retrospective application. The building had already been erected on the site and therefore its appearance could not be disregarded in considering the acceptability of the drawings before the Committee which reflected the as built situation. Councillor Manda Rigby considered that the altered roofscape with its equipment for lifts and air conditioning was harmful to the appearance of this part of the Conservation Area. There was little public benefit from this scheme and social housing should be included.

Members continued to debate the motion. The Group Manager advised that a Temporary Stop Notice had been served to halt the development so that the situation on site could be thoroughly assessed. Discussions with the developers then took place and amendments to the drawings were sought which eventually led Officers to conclude that the scheme was acceptable. The provision of  affordable housing had been independently assessed and had been shown to be unviable; as such a refusal based on a lack of affordable housing couldn’t be defended on appeal. Regarding public benefit, the provision of housing on a brownfield site was such a benefit. Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones considered that the design was not good enough for the Conservation Area although some effort had been made to adapt to the Victorian architecture of adjoining buildings. It shouldn’t be rejected on modernist grounds.

Councillor Ian Gilchrist stated that his reason for moving refusal were that the design was harmful to the area and that the building’s increased bulk and height, its enlarged 4^th floor, flat roofed extensions and the paraphernalia on the roof had a detrimental effect on this part of the Conservation Area and the World Heritage Site. The Group Manager advised that the motion would need to be amended to authorise Officers to formulate the precise wording of the reasons for refusal.

The Chair summed up the debate and put the motion to the vote which was carried, 11 voting in favour and 0 against with 2 abstentions.

(Note: After this decision at 3.55pm, there was an adjournment for 10 minutes for a natural break)

Item 2 No 8 Lime Grove Gardens, Bathwick, Bath – Erection of a single storey extension providing kitchen and new second floor dormer – The Principal Planning/Enforcement Officer reported on this application and the recommendation to grant permission subject to conditions. He recommended amended wording to Conditions 2 and 4.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the application. The Ward Councillor David Martin made a statement raising various issues of concern.

Councillor Dave Laming considered that the scheme was acceptable and the installation of a dormer would increase the amount of accommodation. He therefore moved the Officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Bryan Organ.

Members debated the motion. Most Members expressed support for the scheme as it was at the rear of the terrace, barely visible from the canal and was only slightly above permitted development rights.

The Chair gave his views on the scheme and then put the motion to the vote. Voting: 12 in favour and 0 against with 1 abstention. Motion carried.