Agenda item

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 Item 1 attached as Appendix 1 to these minutes.

·  Oral statements by members of the public and representatives on items 1 and 2.  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: 15/03485/FUL

Site Location: Kingswood Preparatory School, College Road, Lansdown, Bath – Erection of new school building to accommodate prep school accommodation, new pre-prep and nursery and multi-use games area and associated infrastructure and landscaping

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to grant planning permission.

The registered speakers made statements for and against the application.

Councillor Anthony Clarke, the local ward member, spoke regarding the application and stressed the importance of preserving the trees on the site.

Councillors asked questions for clarification to which the Case Officer responded.  Officers confirmed that planning conditions should be sufficient to ensure that the protected trees are retained and not adversely affected by the development proposals. 

Councillor Jackson expressed some concerns about staff parking arrangements and stated that the school travel plan needed to be sufficiently robust to prevent parking problems in the area.  She also commented on the 1 in 30 year flood event figure set out in the report and queried whether this would be problematic.

Councillor Kew stated that the Committee site visit had been held during the morning rush hour and that the pattern of traffic appeared to be similar to most schools at this time.  He felt that the concerns regarding the preservation of trees on the site were addressed by the planning conditions proposed.  On balance he believed that the benefits of the application outweighed the loss of green space.

Councillor Crossley stated that he had found the site visit very useful.  He believed that the realignment of the building was very helpful as the school needs to move to a full campus provision.  Traffic congestion was an issue for all schools in the area.

Councillor Kew moved that the planning application be permitted subject to the conditions set out in the officer report.  This was seconded by Councillor Organ.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED unanimously to PERMIT the application.

Item No. 2

Application No: 16/00991/FUL

Site Location: Land opposite Rowan House, High Street, Freshford, Bath – Creation of new access opening and construction of parking area for two cars

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to refuse planning permission.

The registered speaker made a statement for the application.

Councillor Neil Butters, the local ward member, spoke in favour of the application pointing out that it was supported by local residents, the Parish Council and that there were no highway objections.

Councillor Jackson was sympathetic to the needs of the occupant but noted that this was not a material consideration which could be given much weight.  She expressed concern that if this part of the stone boundary wall was removed then it could set a precedent and that any subsequent loss of the wall would affect the vista of the village.

Councillor Roberts queried whether if this section of the wall was removed it would lead to further similar requests.  Officers confirmed that any such requests would require planning permission.

Councillor Goodman queried whether the loss of wall had to be 7m.  Officers stated that the gap did not have to be 7m but that this was the length specified in the planning application.

Councillor Kew stated that the stone boundary wall was located within a conservation area and was mentioned within the village plan.

Councillor Jackson moved that the planning application be refused for the reasons set out in the officer report.  This was seconded by Councillor Organ.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED to REFUSE the application by 8 votes for, 1 vote against and 1 abstention.