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) 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. 16/04250/FUL

Site Location: Land East of Alma Cottage, Charlcombe Lane, Charlcombe, Bath – Erection of one dwelling following the demolition of existing stables

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to grant planning permission.

The registered speakers spoke for and against the application.

The local ward members, Councillors Martin Veal and Geoff Ward spoke against the application.

In response to a question the Case Officer explained that conditions 10, 11 and 12, set out in the report, propose the removal of permitted development rights so the applicants would have to apply for planning permission if they wished in future to extend the dwelling.

Councillor Roberts then moved that planning permission be refused on the grounds that the development would be detrimental to the openness of the greenbelt as a result of external lighting, storage and domestic paraphernalia.  A further reason for refusal was highway safety due to the difficult access and egress to and from the property as visibility along this road was already substandard.  This was seconded by Councillor Kew.

The motion was then put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 7 votes for and 3 votes against to REFUSE the application for the reasons set out above.

Item No. 2

Application No. 16/04885/FUL

Site Location: The Grove, Langridge Lane, Swainswick, Bath – Demolition of existing garage and erection of a replacement building for use as an annex providing ancillary residential accommodation

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

The registered speakers spoke in favour of the application.

The local ward members, Councillors Martin Veal and Geoff Ward also spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Appleyard moved to delegate to permit planning permission subject to conditions.  He pointed out that the family aspect of this application meant that there were exceptional circumstances in this case.  The proposed annex would provide accommodation for the applicant’s mother and would enable the family to remain together in their existing property.  He had found the site visit very helpful and subsequently did not feel that the visual aspect of the site would be affected greatly by the development.

Councillor Jackson had concerns that the proposed development would consist of two storeys which was too intrusive.  She also pointed out that the needs of the family could change in the future and felt that there would be other options available to them.  She had concerns that the development was contrary to policy and felt that the human factors outlined could not be taken into account.

Councillor Roberts seconded the motion and stated that she did not feel the development would be too intrusive to the greenbelt.

Councillor Kew noted that the previous planning permission had not been acted on but accepted that circumstances can change.  He had concerns that the application was contrary to policy and would create a new house in the greenbelt.

Councillor Crossley felt that the development did not constitute a new property but simply an annex which was secondary to the main house.  He queried whether a condition could be added to ensure that the annex remained tied to the original property.  He noted that the family had lived in this area for a number of years and that a tie-in would provide the required security.  Any request to remove the tie-in would then have to be considered by planning officers or this committee.

The Team Manager (Development Management) explained that there could be a tie-in but that the harm associated with the development would be the same, irrespective of whether the building was tied or not.  If an application were made to remove the tie there would be considered no grounds to resist its removal, given that the new development was physically separate and functionally capable of being separate from the main property.  It was explained that, for these same reasons, the development was tantamount to a new dwelling in the green belt as opposed to an annexe and that it would be there beyond the current occupiers’ residence causing permanent harm.  A condition to tie the application to the existing property as an annexe would not meet the conditions test as it would not be reasonable.  Councillors advised officers that any tie-in should be specified as a condition rather than a legal agreement.

The motion was then put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 5 votes for, 4 votes against and 1 abstention to DELEGATE TO PERMIT the application subject to conditions.

Item No. 3

Application No. 16/03652/FUL

Site Location: Applegate Stables, Shockerwick Lane, Bathford, Bath, BA1 7LQ – Erection of additional livery stables and a rural workers’ accommodation unit

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

The registered speakers spoke in favour of the application.

The local ward member, Councillor Geoff Ward spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Jackson asked about the advantage of having a temporary permission rather than a permanent one.  Officers explained that a temporary permission would enable the business expansion plans to be tested before allowing a permanent permission.  However, the application before the Committee was for a permanent dwelling.

On balance Councillor Jackson felt that the economic benefits to the local area would outweigh any harm to the greenbelt in this area.

Councillor Appleyard noted that the business concerned was viable and that a need had been proven for 24 hour staff accommodation to allow breeding and round the clock care for the horses and foals on site.

The Team Manager (Development Management) informed the Committee that to date there had been no requirement for a 24 on-site presence and that this would possibly only be required if the breeding part of the business were to expand. 

Councillor Jackson stated that the business was made up of three parts namely, livery, teaching and breeding.  The rural economy should be encouraged and this development would not cause great harm to the greenbelt.  Councillor Jackson then moved to delegate to permit the application subject to conditions.  This was seconded by Councillor Matthew Davies who noted the need for this accommodation if the business were to expand.

Councillor Crossley also supported the application to encourage a sustainable rural economy and to provide employment.

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