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 1 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. 16/06124/FUL

Site Location: 14 Audley Grove, Lower Weston, Bath, BA1 3BS – Erection of 1 dwelling, car parking and associated landscaping in rear garden of existing dwelling

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to permit.  She informed the Committee that some further objections had been received but that no new material planning issues had been raised.

The registered speakers spoke for and against the application.

Councillor Chris Pearce, local ward member, spoke against the application.

In response to a question the Case Officer explained that the Ecologist had not felt that an ecology report was required for this application.

Councillor Jackson noted that there had already been infill development in the area and felt that this was a good design.  She then moved that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.  This was seconded by Councillor Appleyard.

Councillor Kew supported the proposal and pointed out that the location was already a built up area.

Councillor Roberts felt that the house and design were acceptable but that the development would change the nature of the street.  This could set a precedent and could lead to more houses being built in the area.  Officers explained that each application had to be considered on its own merits.

The motion was then put to the vote and there were 4 votes in favour, 5 votes against and 1 abstention.  The motion was therefore LOST.

Councillor Roberts then moved that the application be refused due to the detrimental effect on the amenities of the neighbouring properties (overlooking and loss of light), increased activity representing a nuisance, overdevelopment of the site and inadequate vehicular access.  This was seconded by Councillor Organ.

The Group Manager, Development Management, explained that it would be difficult to defend a precedent or density reason for refusal if the applicant went to appeal and that there was no objection from the highway authority to the development on grounds of highway safety.

The motion was then put to the vote and there were 3 votes in favour, 6 votes against and 1 abstention.  The motion was therefore LOST.

The Senior Lawyer explained that it was open to Members to put forward further motions until a positive decision was reached on a motion as the 2 motions at this point had failed.

Councillor Appleyard then moved that, having reflected on the advice provided by officers, the Committee delegate to permit the application subject to conditions and the rear fence-line being moved back.  This was seconded by Councillor Kew.

The motion was then put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 6 votes in favour, 3 against and 1 abstention to DELEGATE TO PERMIT the application subject to the conditions set out in the report and the rear fence-line being moved.

Item No. 2

Application No. 16/05888/FUL

Site Location: 3 Streamside, Chew Magna, BS40 8QZ – Erection of front and side extension to create house access from road level, rear single storey extension and associated works

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

The registered speaker spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Liz Richardson spoke in favour of the application.

In response to a question the Case Officer explained that the external steps had not been included in the volume calculation but that the internal stairs had been taken into account.

The Group Manager explained that the test was whether the development was disproportionate.  Officers had no objection to the design or positioning but had concluded that the volume increase exceeded the guidelines for a greenbelt location.  The development would not be in accordance with the B&NES Development Plan or national policy. 

Councillor Organ moved that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in the report.  This was seconded by Councillor Kew who agreed that the proposal was against greenbelt policy.  However, he felt that it would be appropriate now to review the Council’s Supplementary Planning Documents and greenbelt policy.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 8 votes in favour and 2 against to REFUSE the application for the reasons set out in the report.