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 item no’s 1, 3 and 4 attached as Appendix 1 to these minutes.

·  Oral statements by members of the public and representatives on items 2, 3 and 4.  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. 16/05094/FUL

Site Location: Beechen Cliff School, Kipling Avenue, Bath, BA2 4RE – Extend bank southwards using existing on site spoil heap to create wider playing field

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

Councillor Becker, local ward member, stated that the main issue was the impact on the residents of 71 Greenway Lane.  He asked how close the playing fields would be to this property.  The Case Officer confirmed that the playing field would be approximately 8m from the boundary (at its base) at the nearest point and that the current distance was approximately 15m.  Councillor Becker then asked whether it would affect the use of the playing field if it was not extended in the corner of the plot.  The Case Officer explained that a run-off area for the pitch was required. 

Councillor Jackson asked whether anything could be done to mitigate any additional noise and to prevent rugby balls coming over onto the property.  The Case Officer explained that the proposal was unlikely to greatly increase the risk of this happening or to generate a significant level of additional noise.  The issue for the school was that the playing field did not currently meet the required standard. 

Councillor Kew stated that whilst he understood the concerns of residents no boundaries were being moved and the impact would be minimal.  He moved that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.  Councillor Appleyard seconded the motion and welcomed the development of the school as he felt, on balance, that the proposal was reasonable.

Councillor Jackson stated that she did not believe the proposal was contrary to planning law or policies.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 8 votes in favour and 2 votes against to PERMIT the application subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Item No. 2

Application No. 16/04499/FUL

Site Location: 17 Station Road, Welton, Midsomer Norton, BA2 2AZ – Erection of 6 new dwellings following demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings (resubmission) – revised plan

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

The registered speaker spoke against the application.

Councillor Michael Evans, local ward member, spoke against the application.

Councillor Jackson felt that the Committee should not ignore the views of the Town Council and local member.  She stated that the conservation policy statement for Midsomer Norton had been in place since 2004 and that this proposal would not enhance the conservation area.  She felt that the existing dwelling could be preserved and developed as part of the heritage of the area.  She also pointed out that the site was not sustainable as it was some distance from local bus services which did not run very frequently.  Councillor Jackson then moved that permission be refused due to the impact on the conservation area, overdevelopment of the site, loss of a heritage building and unsustainability of the site.  Councillor Crossley seconded the motion.

The Group Manager, Development Management, clarified the history of the site and explained that a previous application for 8 dwellings had been refused and dismissed on appeal due to overdevelopment of the site.  The planning inspector had not mentioned the sustainability of the site or the loss of the existing dwelling as a reason for dismissal and circumstances had not changed since then.

Councillor Appleyard stated that the High Street was accessible from the site and questioned whether the existing dwelling was really valuable and significant.  He felt that on balance this development would better utilise the area of the site.

The motion was then put to the vote and there were 2 votes for and 8 against.  The motion was therefore LOST.

Councillor Kew supported the provision of additional housing and moved that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.  This was seconded by Councillor Organ who felt that the site was suitable for development.

The motion was then put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 6 votes for, 2 votes against and 2 abstentions to PERMIT the application subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

Item No. 3

Application No. 16/05508/FUL

Site Location: 18 Upper Camden Place, Walcot, Bath, BA1 5HX – Installation of proposed mansard roof and associated dormer windows to front and rear elevations

Item No. 4

Application No. 16/05509/LBA

Site Location: 18 Upper Camden Place, Walcot, Bath, BA1 5HX – Internal and external alterations to install mansard roof and associated dormer windows to front and rear elevations

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to refuse planning permission and listed building consent.  It was noted that the application had been amended since the last meeting to allow the internal staircase and banister to remain unaltered.  No ecology impact had been identified.

The registered speakers spoke in favour of the application.

In response to a question the Case Officer confirmed that the chimney stack would be lost if permission were granted.

Councillor Jackson moved that planning permission and listed building consent be refused due to the adverse impact on the conservation area and listed building as set out in the officer report.  Councillor Organ seconded the motion pointing out that the only other raised roof in this location was some distance away.  He felt that the proposal was out of context for a world heritage city setting.

Councillor Crossley supported the motion and stated that the previous permissions granted in 1988 and 1993 were a considerable time ago and that impact and consideration had changed since then.  The harm to the roofscape was not outweighed by the additional room space for the applicant.

The motion was then put to the vote and it was RESOLVED:

·  By 9 votes for and 1 abstention to REFUSE the application for planning permission for the reasons set out in the report.

·  Unanimously to REFUSE listed building consent for the reasons set out in the report.