Agenda item

The Committee considered

• The report of the Group Manager – Development Management on various planning applications

• Oral statements by members of the public etc. on the applications at Parcel 8545, Upper Bristol Road, Clutton, 103 Hawthorn Grove, Combe Down, and Little Dene, Greyfield Road, High Littleton, 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 No: 01

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The Chair announced that this item had been withdrawn from the agenda. The Group Manager – Development Manager explained that this was because further evidence had been received the previous week which might impact on the report and the recommendation. Officers would need time to consider this further information. The application would be brought to a future meeting of the Committee.

Item No: 02

Application No: 15/05068/FUL

Site Location: Parcel 8545, Upper Bristol Road, Clutton, Bristol, Bath And North East - erection of single storey farmshop and cafe.

Councillor Veale left the meeting in accordance with his declaration of interest.

The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to refuse. She drew Members’ attention to the removal from the revised report of the reference to loss of agricultural land. The application, however, was contrary to policy ET8.

The registered speakers made statements for and against the application.

Members asked questions for clarification to which the Case Officer responded. The Case Officer clarified that the site was agricultural land.

Councillor Jackson moved the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application. She felt that the building was too large and in the wrong place and there was no direct relationship between the building and either of the two farms, other than that their produce might be sold from the proposed shop. The motion to refuse was seconded by Councillor Kew who said that while he was sympathetic to the aim of improving amenity for residents, the detail of what was proposed had to be considered. He believed that it would inappropriate development in the countryside because of the size and character of the building.

Councillor Crossley said that the proposal complied with the Clutton Neighbourhood Plan, which had been produced after considerable effort and local involvement. It therefore complied with the Core Strategy. He thought the proposal was quite an imaginative one. He did not think that there would be significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt, as the site was open, with fields all round. What was proposed was not a large rank of shops, but just a couple of isolated shops. The proposal would add to the amenity of local residents. He would therefore vote against the motion to refuse.

Councillor Appleyard agreed with Councillor Crossley. In his view it was the views of the local community that should tip the balance. He would therefore also vote against the motion to refuse.

Councillor Kew pointed out that the site was situated adjacent to the A37, which was a very dangerous road on which there had been five fatal accidents in the past five years. There was no shortage of meeting places in the village: there was the church, the church hall and pub, for example.

The Group Manager – Development Management advised the Committee on the weight to be attached to the various relevant plans and policies. In the view of officers there was no confusion between them. The Neighbourhood Plan was a relatively new high-level policy, but policies S9 and ET.8 and ET.9 gave detailed guidance on the location and size of shops. Officers felt that the scale and location of the proposed building was not appropriate and that the potential level of the activity at the site could also be inappropriate in a rural setting.

The motion was put and it was RESOLVED to refuse the application by 6 votes in favour and 3 against.

Item No: 03

Application No: 16/00686/FUL

Site Location: 103 Hawthorn Grove, Combe Down - change of use from 3 bed dwelling (use class C3) to 4 bed house of multiple occupation (HMO) (use class C4)

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to permit.

The registered speakers made statements for and against the application.

Members asked questions for clarification to which the Case Officer responded.

Councillor Jackson moved to permit the application, with an additional condition to keep the garage in use for car parking. She said that the site was a corner plot with quite a lot of ground around it.

Councillor Kew said that he was happy to second the motion to permit.

Councillor Crossley said that the World Heritage status of Bath was an overwhelming reason to refuse the application. He was also concerned about a potential fall in Council Tax receipts as more and more houses were subdivided into multiple units occupied by students.

Councillor Jackson responded that there were no historic buildings in the area where the application site was located.

Councillor Appleyard said that he agreed with Councillor Crossley and would vote against the motion.

The motion was put, and it was RESOLVED to permit the application with 7 votes in favour, 2 against and 1 abstention.

Item No: 04

Application No; 16/00078/FUL

285 Kelston Road, Newbridge, Bath - erection of single storey dwelling house on land formerly used as nursery (Resubmission)

Councillor Roberts withdrew from the meeting in accordance with her declaration of interest.

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

Members asked questions for clarification to which the Case Officer responded.

Councillor Jackson said that she was sure the site was brownfield, as there was concrete and rubble in the middle of it. The land had previously been occupied by a permanent structure. The Group Manager – Development Manager responded that it was the view of officers that it was a greenfield site. The definition of previously-developed land is land that is or was occupied by a permanent structure, but excludes land occupied by agricultural buildings and also excludes land previously occupied by permanent buildings where the remains of those buildings blend or merge into the landscape. His understanding was that a nursery building occupied the site and a nursery building is an agricultural building, so even if the building remained, it could not be considered a previously-developed site.

Councillor Organ moved the Officer’s recommendation to refuse. He said he would be prepared to refuse solely on the basis of the building’s design, which he described as “appalling”. Just across the road was a pleasant building, which was the original access to the previous house, which enhances the Green Belt.

The motion to refuse was seconded by Councillor Becker.

Councillor Crossley felt that the proposed development was infill and that the site was brownfield. The site was surrounded by trees, so the proposal would not detract from the openness of the Green Belt. He would therefore vote against the motion to refuse.

Councillor Kew said that he thought this was an ideal site for infill, but he was unable to accept the current design.

The Group Manager – Development said that in one sense this might be thought to be a previously-developed site, but in terms of national planning policy it was not. He advised Members to note that the site was in the Green Belt, so new-built housing was not permissible on the site. It was also outside the housing boundary.

The motion was put, and the application was refused by 5 votes in favour and 4 against.

Item No: 05

Application No: 16/00061/FUL

Site Location: Little Dene, Greyfield Road, High Littleton - erection of first floor extension of bungalow with attic accommodation and erection of a front porch (amended description)

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to permit.

The registered speakers spoke for and against the application.

Members asked questions for clarification to which the Case Officer responded.

Councillor Organ moved the officer’s recommendation to permit. He said that features of the design to which the Parish Council and Members had previously objected had been rectified. The dormer windows had been removed, the height of the garage had been reduced and the overall height of the building had not been greatly increased.

Councillor Appleyard seconded the motion to permit.

Councillor Crossley said this was a small bungalow. He did not think that the extra height would have a significant impact on the neighbours.

The motion was put, and it was RESOLVED to permit the application by 8 votes in favour, 1 vote against with 1 abstention.