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 2 attached as Appendix 1 to these minutes.

·  Oral statements by members of the public and representatives.  A copy of the speakers’ list is attached as Appendix 2 to these minutes.

RESOLVED that in accordance with the 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. 17/01466/FUL

Site Location: Waterloo Road Open Space, Waterloo Road, Radstock – Development of a new Healthy Living Centre (1,464sqm GIA) to provide new health centre and ancillary pharmacy, community kitchen, children’s centre and library

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to delegate to permit.  She explained that approval would be subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement and the expiry of the departure notice.

The registered speakers spoke for and against the application.

A statement by the local ward member, Cllr Chris Dando, was also read out.

The Highways Officer confirmed that the delivery and pick up area could also be used for drop off and pick up of patients when not occupied by delivery vehicles.  The Case Officer explained that the original plans had been amended to include more use of stone on the building.  She confirmed that the drainage engineers were satisfied with the plans.

Cllr Kew stated that this was a good scheme and that the facilities provided would be positive for the area.  However, he had concerns regarding the design, in particular the use of timber cladding, and felt that this could be improved.  He believed that the use of white lias would be more suitable for this location.

Cllr Kew then moved that consideration of the application be deferred for one month for further discussions and negotiation regarding the design of the building.  Cllr Organ seconded the motion and stated that although he was in favour of the overall project he believed that the design could be better as it was out of character with the area.

Cllr Hardman stated that there was a balance to be struck between improving the resources in the area and the retention of green space.  It was important to provide a building fit for Radstock which was pleasing and fitted in with the landscape.

Cllr Sandry noted that the building would be large but concluded that the provision of all the proposed services on site would be excellent.  He also expressed some concern about the loss of green space.

Cllr Roberts was concerned at the loss of open space and also the size and poor design of the building.

Cllr Pritchard supported the proposal to co-locate the services in one building.  He queried how much could be achieved in one month if the application were deferred.  He noted that the timber materials were part of the design concept and felt that this should not be diluted.

Cllr Anketell-Jones supported the motion to defer the application stating that if green space were to be lost then the building replacing it should be of good design.  He felt that the current design was too utilitarian and industrial and would favour more use of stone rather than timber.

Cllr Veale did not support the current design of the building and felt that it was too large.

The Team Manager, Development Management, explained that officers had already been in negotiations with the applicant for a number of weeks and that more natural stone had been added to the design.  The building had to be provided within the finance available and the variety of changes suggested by members could also lead to a substantial redesign, which may require further consultation.  However, the Team Manager acknowledged that it was clear that the majority of concerns raised related to the limited use of natural local stone within the scheme.  The building also had to be large enough to accommodate all the services in one location.

The motion was then put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 6 votes for and 4 votes against to DEFER consideration of the application pending further discussion and negotiation regarding amendments to the design.

Item No. 2

Application No.16/04870/FUL

Site Location: Bidwell Metals Ltd, Chapel Road, Clandown, Radstock – erection of 28 dwellings, public open space, a community building and ancillary works following the demolition of 2 buildings (Revised description)

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to delegate to permit.  She explained that following consultation with highways it was now proposed to secure traffic management by means of condition rather than a Section 106 agreement.

In response to a question the Highways Officer explained that 66 parking spaces would be provided including garage space.  The Case Officer confirmed that, if required, a condition could be added regarding the retaining walls.

The registered speakers spoke for and against the application.

Cllrs Veale and Kew both expressed concern regarding the safety and security of the retaining walls and suggested that a condition should be included to deal with these.

Cllr Organ moved to delegate to permit the application subject to the conditions set out in the report and an additional condition regarding the retaining walls.  This was seconded by Cllr Sandry.  He stated that this was a thoughtful redevelopment and felt that the parking and access seemed sufficient.  He felt that the development would improve the site.

Cllr Hardman stated that it would be beneficial to develop this brownfield site, although she had some reservations about the parking provision.

Cllr Anketell-Jones noted that Chapel Road needed some highway improvements.

The motion was then put to the vote and it was RESOLVED unanimously to DELEGATE TO PERMIT the application subject to the conditions set out in the report and an additional condition relating to the retaining walls.

Item No. 3

Application No. 17/02364/FUL

Site Location: Sawyers Mill, Hunstrete, Marksbury, BS39 4NT – Demolition of existing commercial buildings, subdivision of land and erection of three new dwellings with associated access and garden

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

The registered speaker spoke in favour of the application.

Cllr Kew stated that this was appropriate development within the greenbelt as set out in the officer report.  He then moved that permission be granted.  This was seconded by Cllr Hardman.

The motion was then put to the vote and it was RESOLVED unanimously to PERMIT the application subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Item No. 4

Application No. 17/01775/FUL

Site Location: Stanton Drew Village Hall, Sandy Lane, Stanton Drew – Creation of enlarged access with new wall and increased car parking area

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

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

Cllr Kew stated that he felt this application should be approved.  The site had been used as an “unofficial” car park for a number of years and did not appear to have an adverse impact on the village.  The village hall provided an excellent facility for the area and was important for the viability of village life.  He moved to delegate to permit the application subject to conditions for the following reasons:

·  There was a need for a village hall facility in the area

·  There would be no visual harm to the openness of the greenbelt

·  To protect the viability of village life

·  It relates to a leisure facility

The motion was seconded by Cllr Pritchard who noted that the current car park was very small and the access was difficult to negotiate.  The hall provided an important meeting point for the village and it was important to maintain this vital facility.

Cllr Sandry expressed concern regarding the proposed materials and the encroachment by cars on the greenbelt.

Cllr Hardman also expressed concern regarding detriment to the openness of the greenbelt and noted that the car park was outside the housing development boundary.

Cllr Roberts noted that parking was an issue within the village and queried whether more suitable materials could be used to minimise the impact on the green space.

Cllr Anketell-Jones stated that he did not feel the proposal would compromise the openness of the greenbelt and noted that country life depended on car usage.  On balance he supported the application which would benefit local residents.

Cllr Organ felt that the application should be approved to support the viability of the hall and the village.

The Team Manager, Development Management, pointed out that policies were in place to protect the greenbelt from inappropriate and harmful development.  The provision of a car park would be a significant encroachment into the countryside and, although it had been used as a car park in the past, this was not used on an intensive basis and did not have the benefit of planning permission.  Officers did not consider that the applicant had provided adequate justification on the plans put forward.  However, if the Committee were minded to approve the application then conditions could be put in place regarding landscaping, planting and the surface treatment of the proposed car park.

The Highways Officer also requested conditions to provide 5m of tarmac from the edge of the car park and to ensure that parking spaces were kept clear of obstruction and used only for that purpose.  NB: It should be noted that, as the entrance to the proposed car park is across an existing hard surfaced area the condition requiring 5ms of tarmac is not required.

The motion was then put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 8 votes for and 2 abstentions to DELEGATE TO PERMIT the application subject to conditions.

Items No. 5 and 6

Application Nos: 16/05548/MINW and 17/00329/FUL

Site Location: Upper Lawn Quarry, St Winifred’s Drive, Combe Down, Bath – Extension to quarry and change of use of an area of paddock land for use as allotments

The Case Officer reported on the application and his recommendation to delegate to permit.  He explained that since the report was circulated comments had been received from the Landscape Officer regarding the planting scheme and the relevant condition could be updated to reflect these comments.

The registered speakers spoke in favour of the application.

Statements from the local ward members, Cllrs Bob Goodman and Cherry Beath were read out.

In response to a question the Case Officer confirmed that condition 4 could be amended to allow a sufficient time period for the allotment relocation.

Cllr Kew stated that he found the report and issues raised by speakers confusing.  It appeared that there were still matters that needed to be resolved before a decision could be made on the application.

Councillor Pritchard agreed that there were outstanding issues which needed to be addressed and moved that consideration of the applications be deferred for further clarification.  This was seconded by Cllr Kew.

Cllr Sandry queried the plans for a restoration scheme on the site and stressed the need for any plans to be discussed between the applicant, the community and planning officers.  The Case Officer explained that there was a restoration plan in place for the wider site. 

The motion was then put to the vote and it was RESOLVED unanimously to DEFER consideration of the applications pending clarification of the various issues raised including the restoration plans for the site.

Item No. 7

Application No. 17/00378/FUL

Site Location: Land at Rear of 69 Haycombe Drive, Whiteway Road, Whiteway, Bath – Erection of one 3 bed dwelling with associated driveway and parking

The Case Officer reported on the application and his recommendation to permit.  He drew the Committee’s attention to the Planning Inspector’s decision regarding a previous application on this site.

A statement from the local ward member, Cllr Dine Romero, against the application was read out. 

Councillor Roberts moved that planning permission be refused on highway safety grounds and to prevent a precedent being set with regard to other properties in the street.  This motion was not seconded and therefore was not put to the vote.

Cllr Hardman pointed out that the Planning Inspector had concluded that the principle of residential development was acceptable and so it would be difficult to refuse the application.

Cllr Pritchard moved that permission be granted subject to conditions.  This was seconded by Cllr Organ.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 8 for, 1 against and 1 abstention to PERMIT the application subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Item No. 8

Application No. 17/02485/FUL

Site Location: Honey Gaston, Featherbed Lane, Clutton – New barn to replace the original barn which was destroyed by fire.  Remedial arboricultural works to fire-damaged trees

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

The registered speaker spoke in favour of the application.

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

The Team Manager, Development Management, explained that comments from the Ecology Officer were still awaited and that any suggested conditions subsequently received could be included by the Case Officer if appropriate.

Cllr Kew moved to delegate to permit the application subject to conditions.  This was seconded by Cllr Hardman.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED unanimously to DELEGATE TO PERMIT the application subject to conditions.