Agenda item

Site Visit List - Applications for Planning Permission Etc for Determination by the Committee

Minutes:

The Committee considered:

 

·  A report by the Group Manager (Development Management) on various planning applications.

 

·  An update report by the Group Manager (Development Management) 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 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. 17/02591/FUL

Site Location: 143 Calton Road, Lyncombe, Bath, BA2 4PP – Erection of 2 townhouses following demolition of existing 2 bed apartment

 

The Case Officer reported on the application and the recommendation to permit.  He explained that an additional condition was now suggested as follows:

 

“Notwithstanding the approved plans, the lower half of the first floor and second floor windows on the rear elevation hereby approved shall be non-opening and obscurely glazed and retained as such in perpetuity.”

 

The registered speakers spoke for and against the application.

 

Councillor Ian Gilchrist, local Ward Member, spoke against the application.

 

Councillor Becker, local Ward Member on the Committee, noted that the proposal would have an adverse shadowing effect on the neighbours situated below the property.  He felt that further information was required, in particular, an impact study to ascertain the level of impact on neighbouring properties.  The Case Officer explained that an impact assessment had already been provided.  The Group Manager advised the Committee that there would be some impact on neighbours but it was for members to make a judgement “on balance” as to whether the application should be permitted or refused.

 

Councillor Jackson asked a question relating to the doorway on the front wall of the property.  The Case Officer confirmed that this doorway would be demolished if the development went ahead.  The Highways Officer confirmed that there was no allocated parking for the proposed development as it was in a sustainable location close to the city centre, train and bus stations.

 

Councillor Becker then moved that the application be refused for reasons of overdevelopment, shadowing and blocking of access.  This was seconded by Councillor Roberts.

 

Councillor Anketell-Jones noted that the hillside location was a part of living in the World Heritage city of Bath.  Infill development provided much needed housing and was a necessary intensification of use.  This proposed new build was in keeping with the Conservation Area and was subservient to its neighbour.  He did not see the reduction in lighting as significant.

 

Councillor Organ supported the officer recommendation and did not feel that the shadowing issue was significant.

 

Councillor Jackson felt that the current building did not enhance the Conservation Area and that the proposed development would be a marked improvement.

 

The motion was then put to the vote and there were 3 voted in favour, 6 votes against.  The motion was therefore LOST.

 

Councillor Jackson then moved the officer recommendation that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.  This was seconded by Councillor Organ.

 

The motion was then put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 6 votes in favour and 3 votes against to PERMIT the application subject to the conditions set out in the main report and update report.

 

Item No. 2

Application No. 17/01708/FUL

Site Location: 2 Manor Farm Cottages, Anchor Lane, Combe Hay, Bath – Interior and exterior alterations including a two-storey extension and creation of new vehicle access

 

Item No. 3

Application No. 17/01709/LBA

Site Location: 2 Manor Farm Cottages, Anchor Lane, Combe Hay, Bath – Interior and exterior alterations (part retrospective) including a two-storey extension and partial demolition of rear boundary wall to create a vehicle access

 

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

 

The registered speaker spoke for the application.

 

Cllr Jackson noted that the renovation work to the house was necessary but that the current proposal was unjustified given that the building was listed.  Many residents in the area do not park on their drives but in the street and there were no parking restrictions in the area.  The ditch around the property also provided a habitat for wildlife.  Cllr Jackson then moved the officer recommendation to refuse.

 

Cllr Organ seconded the motion and stated that the proposed driveway was too large for this Conservation Area.

 

Cllr Crossley stated that the long driveway was intrusive and domineering in this village location.

 

Cllr Anketell-Jones stated that he felt the application, if approved, would lead to “suburbanisation” in Combe Hay and that the village character should be maintained.

 

The Group Manager explained that the Committee could give weight to the reinstatement of the wall and the removal of cars from the highway.  This should then be balanced against any harm to the character of the village.

 

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED unanimously to REFUSE the planning application and listed building consent application for the reasons set out in the officer report.

Supporting documents: