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 delegated powers, the applications be determined as set out in the decisions list attached as Appendix 4 to these minutes.

Item No. 1

Application No: 16/04818/EREREG03

Site Location: Bath Quays South Development Site, Riverside Business Park, Westmoreland, Bath – Mixed-use development of land bounded by Lower Bristol Road, Riverside Court, River Avon and Maritime House with vehicular access via Riverside Road and Lower Bristol Road comprising:

(1)  Detailed Application for the erection of an office building (Use Class B1 – 5,017sqm GIA), change of use of and alterations to Newark Works and adjacent buildings to provide Creative Employment Workspace (Use Class B1, A1, A3, D1, D2, - 4,539sqm GIA, non-B1 uses not more than 10% of the total floor area).

(2)  Outline Application (Access, Layout and Scale to be approved) for the erection of building(s) to accommodate up to 5,027sqm of residential accommodation (up to 60 units, Use Class C3) and up to 193sqm GIA of retail space (Use Class A1, A2 or A3).

Associated development comprising demolition of existing buildings, provision of new public realm, landscaping and infrastructure works.

Item No. 2

Application No: 16/04819/REG13

Site Location: Bath Quays South Development Site, Riverside Business Park, Westmoreland, Bath – Internal and external alterations to Newark Works (including West Machine Shop and Smithy) and demolition of Foundry and Boiler House

The Case Officer reported on the applications and his recommendation to delegate to permit subject to amendments to the conditions.  He explained that the applications had been amended by the applicants as a result of some of the objections received.  The update report outlined the issues regarding the withdrawal of BMT (prospective occupiers of the new office building) from the scheme.

The registered speakers spoke in favour and against the application.

Councillor Becker spoke as local member.  He stated that while he had no objection to the development of the site he was not happy with the design.  He felt that it contradicted the Placemaking Plan Policies and that the traditional nature of Bath should be celebrated.  He felt that this development was not in the public interest and asked the Committee to reject this design and bring back an enhanced proposal.

In response to a query regarding the withdrawal of BMT the Case Officer stated that any potential harm to the development had been considered and the principle of the scheme remained acceptable.

Councillor Jackson asked why there was no affordable housing on this site.  The Case Officer explained that the application had been supported by a financial appraisal which advised that affordable housing would not be viable for the development.  A review mechanism would be proposed and the question of affordable housing would be considered for future developments on the site.

The Group Manager explained that the proposal was largely office space driven as the Council had a strategy to deliver more office space.  The more lucrative use would have been residential development and this had affected viability for affordable housing.  This had been confirmed by an independent appraisal.

Councillor Becker asked why the recommendations of the Council’s Conservation Officer and Urban Design Officer were not being taken into account.  The Case Officer explained that while Planning Officers had to consider these views, on balance it was felt that the proposals were acceptable.  Any potential harm was outweighed by the public benefit of the scheme.  Councillor Becker noted that a different design could still have the same benefits.

The Group Manager explained that the Committee has to consider the proposal put before it.  The Reserved Matters would be brought back to the Committee for consideration and this would include the outstanding detailed design matters.

Councillor Crossley stated that the city required a balance of development as a World Heritage Site still required some modern architecture.  Jobs were needed in Bath and employment property was being lost.  Bath had a growing technology and creative sector and the development would fill up quickly.  This would not affect the World Heritage status of the city.  On balance, Councillor Crossley considered that the benefits of the proposal outweighed the harm.

Councillor Crossley then moved that the Committee delegate to permit the planning application and grant listed building consent.  This was seconded by Councillor Kew who felt that this was a good contemporary design which would bring benefits to the city.

Councillor Jackson stated that good office space was required in Bath and this site was convenient and accessible.  However, she felt that the architecture and design was disappointing.

The motion was then put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 9 votes in favour and 1 against:

(1)  To DELEGATE TO PERMIT planning permission subject to conditions and a scheme viability review mechanism; and

(2)  To DELEGATE TO GRANT listed building consent subject to conditions.

Item No. 3

Application No. 16/05772/FUL

Site Location: 40 Bloomfield Park, Bloomfield, Bath, BA2 2BX – Erection of 8 apartments with associated parking and landscaping following demolition of existing detached house and garage (Resubmission)

The Case Officer reported on the application and his recommendation to permit.  He informed the Committee that two further letters of objection had been received and that suggested Condition 3 had been amended to include sample panels of roofing materials.

The registered speakers spoke in favour and against the application.

Councillor Mark Shelford, local ward member, spoke against the application.

Councillor Kew stated that he liked the design of the building and noted that the plot was large.  However, he noted the large numbers of objections received from local residents regarding the impact of the development.  For this reason he moved that consideration of the application be deferred pending a site visit.  This was seconded by Councillor Crossley.

The motion was then put to the vote and it was RESOLVED unanimously to DEFER consideration of the application pending a site visit.

Item No. 4

Application No. 16/04249/FUL

Site Location: Pinkers Farm, Middle Street, East Harptree – Demolition of agricultural buildings and erection of 8 dwellings

The Case Officer reported on the application and his recommendation to delegate to permit.  He explained that one two-bedroomed dwelling had been offered as an affordable housing unit and that this could be secured by a S106 Agreement.

The registered speakers spoke for and against the application. 

Councillor Tim Warren, local ward member, spoke against the application.

Councillor Jackson queried whether this was a sustainable development as she was not aware of a bus service to East Harptree.  The Group Manager explained that there were 28 off-street parking spaces provided for the development.  East Harptree had a level of facilities which meant that is was considered as sustainable in the Core Strategy.

Councillor Kew felt that this proposal complied with the relevant policies and was a reasonable proposal.  He moved that the Committee delegate to permit the application subject to conditions.  This was seconded by Councillor Roberts.

The motion was then put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 7 votes in favour and 3 against to DELEGATE TO PERMIT the application subject to conditions and a S106 Agreement to secure an affordable housing unit.

(The Committee adjourned for a short break from 4.40pm to 5pm)

Item No. 5

Application No. 17/00067/FUL

Site Location: Courtney House, 14 Van Diemen’s Lane, Lansdown, Bath BA1 5TW – Erection of detached dwelling with associated underground parking, drainage and hard and soft landscaping following demolition of existing dwelling

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

The registered speaker spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Appleyard noted that the main recommended reason for refusal was the depth of the building.  He felt that this was a subjective matter and noted that as there were already a variety of house designs in the road that it was in keeping with the area.  He moved that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.  This was seconded by Councillor Kew.

Councillor Jackson noted that the proposal was contrary to policy D2, the NPPF and the Placemaking Plan and therefore felt that permission should be refused.

Councillor Kew did not feel that the development was excessive and did not believe that it would cause significant harm.  He did not feel that it would be unacceptable to the visual impact and, on balance, felt that the proposal was reasonable.

The Group Manager explained that the deep plan form was the reason the application was being recommended for refusal.  The footprint was considered too large for the site.  The development would also affect the amenity of the neighbouring properties, in particular no. 13, as the wall would be very near to this property.

The motion was then put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 7 votes in favour and 3 against to DELEGATE TO PERMIT the application subject to conditions.

Item No. 6

Application No. 16/05632/FUL

Site Location: Cleveland Bath, Cleveland Row, Hampton Row, Bathwick, Bath – Restoration of historic open-air public swimming pool and associated facilities

Item No. 7

Application No. 16/05633/LBA

Site Location: Cleveland Bath, Cleveland Row, Hampton Row, Bathwick, Bath – Internal and external alterations for restoration of historic open–air public swimming pool and associated facilities

The Case Officer reported on the application and his recommendation to grant planning permission and listed building consent.  He explained that the pool had been unused for two decades and was the earliest surviving example of its kind in the country.

The registered speakers spoke for and against the application.

Councillor Fiona Darey spoke against the application stressing that further consultation was required with neighbours.

In response to a question the Case Officer explained that there was no car parking provision in the application.  Sustainable travel such as walking and cycling would be promoted by the travel plan. 

Councillor Jackson queried how realistic the figure of 36,000 users per annum was.  She also asked whether there was sufficient access for emergency vehicles to the site.  The Case Officer explained that there would be access from the street for emergency vehicles.

Councillor Kew stated that he would like to see the pool brought back into use but had some concerns about the access pointing out that not all people would walk to the pool.

Councillor Appleyard stated that on balance he supported the officer recommendation and noted that there was no issue from the Council’s highway consultation response on the applications.  He also noted that there appeared to have been a lack of consultation with the local residents.  He hoped that the Cleveland Pools Trust and the local residents would now have a dialogue to resolve any issues of concern.  He had faith in the Trust to drive the project forward and felt that the project would avoid the risk of losing a national asset.  Councillor Appleyard then moved that planning permission and listed building consent be granted subject to conditions.  This was seconded by Councillor Roberts.

Councillor Veale stated that he was not happy with the proposal or the lack of consultation with residents and felt that the applicants should be asked to reconsider.

The Group Manager clarified a number of planning points including the statutory consultation requirements.

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

(1)  by 6 votes in favour, 2 votes against and 2 abstentions to PERMIT the planning application subject to the conditions set out in the report; and

(2)  by 6 votes in favour and 4 abstentions to GRANT listed building consent subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Item No. 8

Application No. 16/06062/FUL

Site Location: Closed Public Toilets, Claverton Street, Widcombe, Bath – Erection of 2 storey office building following demolition of existing former WC block

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

The registered speakers spoke in favour and against the application.

Councillor Gilchrist, local ward member, spoke against the application.

Councillor Becker stated that he felt the toilet block should have been demolished some time ago and welcomed the site being brought back into practical use.

Councillor Jackson asked whether a bat survey had taken place.  Officers confirmed that a survey had shown negligible bat presence on the site.

Councillor Kew felt that it was not feasible to simply grass over the site and that it had to be brought back into use.  He moved that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.  This was seconded by Councillor Becker.

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

Item No. 9

Application No. 16/01365/FUL

Site Location: Hillside Garage, 243 Englishcombe Lane, Southdown, Bath – Erection of 3 new dwellings following demolition of 11 lock-up garages

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

The registered speakers spoke for and against the application.

Councillor Dine Romero, local ward member, spoke against the application.

Councillor Crossley stated that the area was very small and that the adjacent local Tesco store was very busy.  There were no clear pavement lines to the pathway.  He felt that the development would represent a loss of amenity to the local neighbourhood.  Councillor Crossley then moved that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

·  Loss of amenity to neighbouring properties (due to the overbearing nature of the development)

·  Highway safety reasons including conflict with pedestrian movements and the inability of large vehicles to access the site safely

·  Overdevelopment of the site

The motion was seconded by Councillor Jackson.

The motion was then put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 7 votes in favour, 1 vote against and 2 abstentions to REFUSE the application for the reasons set out above.

Item No. 10

Application No. 16/06234/FUL

Site Location: Eastwick Farm, Wick Lane, Stanton Wick, Bristol, BS39 4BX – Replacement Barn Dwelling (Retrospective)

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation for refusal.

The registered speaker spoke for the application.

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

The Group Manager explained that prior approval was given for the conversion of the existing barn within the site under Class Q (then Class MB) of the General Permitted Development Order.  However, the frame of the building had not been strong enough to sustain the conversion.  If officers had been aware that the building was not strong enough to sustain the conversion then approval would not have been granted.

Councillor Appleyard felt that this was a grey area as it appeared to be a genuine misunderstanding and prior approval had been given for conversion.

Councillor Kew stated that the circumstances were unfortunate and, although the applicant should have spoken to officers when the barn collapsed the end result would still be the same.

Councillor Kew then moved that the Committee delegate to permit the application subject to conditions on the basis that there were very special circumstances to make a decision contrary to greenbelt policy for the following reasons:

·  The unusual circumstances and planning history of the site.

·  The applicant was a retired farmer who had lived on the site for many years and would be homeless if the development could not go ahead.

This was seconded by Councillor Appleyard.

Councillor Jackson pointed out that there was no agricultural connection to the use of the property.  It therefore represented a new dwelling in the greenbelt which was against government policy.

The Group Manager explained that approval for development in the greenbelt required very special circumstances and without good reasons, there was a risk of challenge.  If the Committee was minded to approve the application then this would need to be advertised as a departure from the development plans.  Prior approval did not allow for reinforcement of buildings prior to an application being lodged.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 7 votes in favour and 3 against to DELEGATE TO PERMIT the application subject to conditions for the reasons set out above.

(Note: At this point Councillors Appleyard, Crossley and Kew left the meeting)

Item No. 11

Application No. 16/05505/FUL

Site Location: 10 Entry Hill, Combe Down, Bath, BA2 5LZ – Erection of 1 dwelling (Revised proposal)

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

The registered speakers spoke for and against the application.

Councillor Mark Shelford, local ward member, spoke against the application.

Councillor Roberts felt that the access to the site was substandard and moved that the application be refused as it would be detrimental to the amenities of the neighbouring properties and for highway safety reasons.  This was seconded by Councillor Jackson who agreed that the access was inappropriate.

Councillor Becker noted that the revised proposal provided two parking spaces and that the total living space was the same as the previous proposal.

Councillor Veale pointed out that planning permission had been granted for the previous application even though it provided no parking spaces.  Councillor Roberts explained that her concerns were linked to traffic movement in and out of the site.

The motion was put to the vote and there were 3 votes for and 4 votes against.  The motion was therefore LOST.

Councillor Matthew Davies then moved that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.  This was seconded by Councillor Becker.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 4 votes in favour and 3 votes against to PERMIT the application subject to the conditions set out in the report.

(Note: At this point Councillor Jackson left the meeting).

Item No. 12

Application No. 16/06196/FUL

Site Location: 100 North Road, Combe Down, Bath, BA2 5DJ – Erection of a single storey side extension to provide disabled facilities and access into the extension

Item No. 13

Application No. 16/06197/LBA

Site Location: 100 North Road, Combe Down, Bath, BA2 5DJ – Erection of a single storey side extension to provide disabled facilities and access into the extension

The Case Officer reported on the applications and her recommendation for refusal.

The registered speakers spoke in favour of the applications.

Councillor Cherry Beath, local ward member, spoke in favour of the applications.

In response to a question the Case Officer confirmed that the objection to the application was concerning the access and door.

Councillor Veale stated that the flat roof would provide protection to the building and that the door simply permitted access from one part of the building to the other.

Councillor Matthew Davies moved that the Committee delegate to permit the application and to grant listed building consent subject to conditions on the grounds that the door was not harmful to the character of the listed building.  This was seconded by Councillor Becker.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED unanimously to DELEGATE TO PERMIT the planning application and to GRANT listed building consent subject to conditions on the grounds that the door is not harmful to the character of the building.

(Note: At this point Councillor Jackson returned to the meeting).

Item No. 14

Application No. 17/00417/FUL

Site Location: Land and Buildings to rear of 1-7 High Street, Mill Hill, Wellow, Bath – Conversion of former farm buildings to form 1 dwelling with associated works.  (Resubmission with revisions of 14/01866/FUL)

Item No. 15

Application No. 17/00413/LBA

Site Location: Land and Buildings to rear of 1-7 High Street, Mill Hill, Wellow, Bath – Internal and external alterations to facilitate conversion of former barn buildings to 1 dwelling (Resubmission with revisions of 14/01867/LBA)

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to permit the application and to grant listed building consent.  She explained that there had been amendments to the following conditions:

·  Condition 4 - amended to read to “bespoke trigger”

·  Condition 8 – amended to read “pre-occupancy” rather than “pre-compliance”

·  Condition 13 (LBA) – amended to read “bespoke trigger”

She also explained that a bat survey had now been submitted and that an additional condition had been added regarding access.

The registered speakers spoke for and against the application.

Councillor Veale noted that this was a large site and proposed a site visit.  This was not seconded.

Councillor Jackson moved that planning permission and listed building consent be granted with conditions.  This was seconded by Councillor Matthew Davies.

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

(1)  To PERMIT planning permission and to GRANT listed building consent subject to conditions.