Agenda item

The Chair announced that Item 3 (Land Adjacent to White Hill Cottages, White Hill, Shoscombe) had been withdrawn from the agenda.

The Committee considered:

• The report of the Group Manager – Development Management on various applications
• An Update Report by the Group Manager on items 1, 3, 4 and 5; a copy is attached to these Minutes
• Oral statements by members of the public etc. on items

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 - Bath Spa University, Herman Miller UK, Locksbrook Road, Newbridge, Bath – Change of use from furniture production (Use Class B2) to an academic space comprising technical workshops, studio space, teaching space and office accommodation (Use Class D1) – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to permit.

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

Members asked questions for clarification which the case officer responded.

Councillor Kew said that the site visit had been helpful and moved the officer’s recommendation to permit the application with the conditions listed in the report. This was seconded by Councillor Crossley, who said that Bath Spa University had done a lot of work to address the Committee’s concerns about the change of use. He felt that the new use fitted in very well with the trend in Bath away from manufacturing to ideas-based economic activity. The architect, Sir Nicholas Grimshaw, deserved credit for the foresight of his design and the new use preserved the integrity of this recently-listed building. The application met the needs of the young people who would be trained there and of local residents, who had been very supportive.

Councillor Jackson said that it was a lovely building, which should be preserved as close as possible to how it is now. This application offered the best way of doing that. Dividing it into smaller units would spoil the interior.

Councillor Organ said that he had been surprised when the building was listed, but felt that it would be best preserved as a single unit as it is now. He could see no reason to refuse the application.

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

Item 2 – 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 this application and her recommendation to permit and also updated Members of a few issues which have arisen since her report was written.

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

Councillor Kew read out a statement by Ward Councillor, Councillor Patrick Anketell-Jones, urging that a decision be deferred pending a site visit by the Committee.

Councillor Jackson asked about access over College Road and Hamilton Road, which are private roads.

Councillor Kew said that it was difficult to make a decision based on the information so far received and moved that the application should be deferred for a site visit. This was seconded by Councillor Organ, who said that more information was required about access over the private roads.

Councillor Jackson said that if a site visit was agreed, it should include a view of the side of the school not visible from the Wellsway.

Members agreed that the site visit should take place in term time, and that therefore it should be deferred to 25^th April 2016.

RESOLVED by 8 votes in favour and 1 abstention to defer the application to allow a site visit on 25^th April 2016 and to reconsider the application at the Committee Meeting on 4^th May 2016.

Item 3 – Land adjacent to White Hill Cottages, White Hill, Shoscombe, Bath – demolition of existing masonry Blacksmith’s Shop and adjacent corrugated iron garage; replace with three attached residential garages/stores. This application had been withdrawn from the agenda.

Item 4 – 23 Royal Crescent, City Centre, Bath – Replace existing flat roof with lead proof slated pitch roof to summer house with alterations to parapet (Revised partially retrospective proposal)

Item 5 23 Royal Crescent, City Centre, Bath – Replace existing flat roof with lead proof slated pitch roof to summer house with alterations to parapet (Revised partially retrospective proposal)

The Case Officer reported on these two applications and her recommendation to refuse.

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

Councillor Christopher Pearce, a Ward Councillor for Kingsmead, made a statement in support of the applications.

Councillor Crossley read out a statement from Councillor Andrew Furse, a Ward Councillor for Kingsmead.

The Team Manager Development Manager advised the Committee that they should not be influenced by the fact that most of the work had already been carried out. Members should base their decisions on the applications before them, not on how the present situation had been reached.

Councillor Jackson said that building that was described as an ‘orangery’ or ‘summer house’ did not appear to her to warrant these terms. It appeared to her to be a domestic building, an impression she found reinforced by the insertion of the window. She therefore moved the Case Officer’s recommendation to refuse both applications.

Councillor Crossley seconded the motion to refuse. There had been a major change of form and the work was not being done in accordance with permissions. When the building had a dome, it looked like a genuine orangery, but it now looked like a house at the end of the garden. This was a Grade I listed building, of which there were not many, and located in a crescent of major architectural importance.

Cllr Kew said that he agreed with Councillor Jackson. He felt that the Committee had a duty to preserve the character of Royal Crescent and that the applications should be refused.

Cllr Hassett said that there were only minor changes to the building, including a slight change to the pitch of the roof, and he believed that the applications should be permitted.

The motions were put to the vote, and it was RESOLVED to refuse Item 4 by 6 votes in favour and 3 against AND to refuse Item 5 by 6 votes in favour and 3 against.

Item 6 – Willow Farm, Flatts Lane, Farmborough – change of use of land to residential curtilage (Retrospective). The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to permit.

The public speaker spoke against the application.

The Chair said that as Ward Councillor she shared the Parish Council’s confusion and frustration about the history of this site. Enforcement action, if justified, would clarify what was and what was not permitted at the site.

Councillor Kew said that to permit this application with the conditions proposed would move things forward and regularise the situation. He therefore moved to accept the officer’s recommendation to permit. This was seconded by Councillor Organ. Councillor Jackson said that she was persuaded by the arguments based on the NPPF given on agenda page 87, and that she would support the motion.

The motion was put and it was RESOLVED by 7 votes in favour with 2 abstentions.