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 Items 1 and 5, attached as Appendix 1 to these minutes.

·  Oral statements by members of the public and representatives. on Items 1-5, 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: 16/01310/FUL

Site Location: Street Record, Abbey Church Yard, City Centre, Bath -

Temporary change of use of the site as a temporary Christmas Market for 25 days from 24 November 2016 to 18 December 2016 inclusive, including 173 retail chalets, 6 catering units and 4 mobile catering units

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 Peter Turner, the local ward member, spoke against the application.

Councillors asked questions for clarification to which the Case Officer responded.  In response to a question from Councillor Roberts officers confirmed that if the application was permitted, this would be for one year only and the applicants would have to submit a further application next year.

Councillor Appleyard stated that he supported the Christmas Market in principle but had some concerns as it created a block in the middle of the city centre.  He felt that the market should be aimed more at families and hoped that the organisers would review arrangements to include more facilities for younger people.  He hoped that local traders would be able to work with the market organisers to address their concerns about the effect of the market on independent traders.

Councillor Kew felt that he was unable to support the extension to the market.  The time extension would lead to the market continuing until very close to Christmas and could adversely affect local traders.  It would not necessarily lead to an increase in visitor numbers.

Councillor Jackson expressed concerns regarding the proposed 10am start time on a Sunday.  This could be an issue for people attending church services and an 11am start would be preferable.

Councillor Pritchard stated that an extension of the market may dilute its effect and could be intrusive to local residents.

Councillor Organ supported the market but did not support the request for an extra week.  He felt that the 18 December date was too close to Christmas.

Councillor Crossley supported the application.  He stated that the market was very successful and was good for the city.  The market secured business and trade although there were some knock-on effects and the organisers should be asked to address these.  Councillor Crossley moved the officer’s recommendation to permit planning permission.  This was seconded by Councillor Roberts.

The motion was put to the vote and was LOST by 2 votes for and 8 votes against.

Councillor Pritchard then moved that the application be refused for the following reasons:

·  The proposed development, due to the length of the change of use proposed, is considered to have a detrimental impact upon the residential amenity of the surrounding occupiers by virtue of increased noise and disturbance.

·  The proposed development, due to the length of the change of use proposed and the scale and type of operation, is considered to have an unacceptable impact upon some local businesses.

This was seconded by Councillor Appleyard.

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.

Item No. 2

Application No: 16/00898/FUL

Site Location: Somersby Orchard, The Gug, High Littleton, Bristol – Erection of a new dwelling following demolition of an existing dwelling within residential curtilage

The case officer reported on the application and her recommendation to refuse planning permission.

The registered speakers made statements for the application.

Councillor Karen Warrington, the local ward member, spoke in favour of the application.

Councillors asked questions for clarification to which the Case Officer responded.  The Case Officer confirmed that the applicant could extend the existing dwelling using permitted development rights.

Councillor Kew stated that he believed there were very special circumstances to justify the proposed development.  The original house was not environmentally friendly; the proposed new dwelling would be in line with the Clutton Neighbourhood Plan and would be a more sustainable property.  No objections to the application had been received and the property was located in a well screened site.  It would be an improved use of the land and built on the existing footprint.

Councillor Kew moved that authority be delegated to officers to permit the application subject to conditions.  This was seconded by Councillor Crossley.

Councillor Crossley stated that it would be preferable to create a higher quality, modern building than to extend the existing dwelling.  The new building would only be an 8% volume increase over and above the existing permitted development rights.  It was noted that the applicant had restored an orchard on this land which had provided work in the area.

Councillor Jackson queried whether the demolition and rebuild of the dwelling in this greenbelt area would lead to a precedent being created.

The Team Manager, Development Management, explained that if the application was permitted it would be possible to add a condition to remove the permitted development rights on the new dwelling.  This would mean that planning permission would have to be sought for any further extension or enlargement of the dwelling.  Councillor Kew and Councillor Crossley agreed that this should be included in the motion.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED unanimously to delegate authority to officers to PERMIT the application subject to conditions to include the removal of permitted development rights for the new dwelling.

Item No. 3

Application No: 15/04971/FUL

Site Location: Parcel 3515, Charmydown Lane, Swainswick, Bath - Construction of new and replacement track to serve dwellings, farms and farmland along the upper section of Charmydown Lane, Upper Swainswick, Bath, BA1 8AB

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 Crossley moved that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the officer’s report.  He stated that the proposal offered an imaginative solution to access the farm building.  This was seconded by Councillor Organ.

Councillor Jackson supported the application on road safety grounds and felt that the concerns expressed by the Parish Council should be addressed by planning conditions.

Officers confirmed that a condition would be included to require that no fences, gates or any other means of enclosure shall be constructed within or adjacent to the track unless a further planning permission has been granted.

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

Item No. 4

Application No: 16/01359/FUL

153 Newbridge Hill, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3PX - Provision of additional 9 parking spaces at the rear of 153/155 Newbridge Hill, Bath (Resubmission of 15/01226/FUL)

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

The registered speaker made a statement for the application.

Councillor Donal Hassett, the local ward member, spoke in favour of the application.

Members asked questions for clarification to which the Case Officer responded.  It was confirmed that this application requested four extra spaces in addition to the five spaces that had already been approved.

Councillor Roberts, also a local ward member, was in favour of the application although had some concerns that approval may lead to more requests for parking spaces which could encroach onto the green areas in the ward. 

Councillor Jackson moved that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in the officer report and that the proposed development would be contrary to policy T20.  This was seconded by Councillor Appleyard.  Officers suggested including an additional reason for refusal that the proposed development would result in increased disturbance to public transport links and with no adequate demonstration of need is contrary to saved policy T20 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan. 

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED to REFUSE planning permission by 5 votes for, 3 votes against and 2 abstentions.

Item No. 5

Application No: 16/00991/FUL

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.

The registered speaker spoke in favour of the application.

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

Councillor Jackson moved that consideration of this application be deferred pending a site visit.  This was seconded by Councillor Appleyard.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED to DEFER consideration of this application pending a site visit to allow the Committee to understand the context of the site, by 6 votes for, 3 votes against and 1 abstention.