Agenda item

The Committee considered:

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

·  Oral statements by members of the public and representatives on item 1.  A copy of the speakers’ list is attached as Appendix 3 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 4 to these minutes.

Item No. 1

Application No. 16/05772/FUL

Site Location: 40 Bloomfield Park, Bloomfield, Bath, BA2 2BX – Erection of eight 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.

The registered speakers spoke for and against the application.

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

Councillor Jackson asked a question regarding the layout of the flats in relation to neighbouring properties.  The Case Officer showed layout plans and explained that no windows directly faced either 39 or 41 Bloomfield Park.  The windows looked out on either the front or rear of the properties and not to the side.

Councillor Kew noted the large number of letters and objections that had been received regarding this application.  He felt that the design was now more in keeping with the area and noted that the building had been moved back by 3m.towards the rear of the site.  He did not feel that the proposal demonstrated overdevelopment of the site or that it would cause significant harm to neighbouring properties.  It would give a mix of properties in the area and provide much needed accommodation.  He then moved that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.  This was seconded by Councillor Matthew Davies.

Councillor Jackson asked whether there would be a condition regarding grounds maintenance.  The Case Officer explained that there would not usually be such a condition for a development of this size.  Condition 9 would require replacement of trees or plants if required within the first 5 years of completion.

Councillor Jackson also expressed concern that only 8 parking spaces would be provided.  The Case Officer explained that there had been no objection from the Highways Team and that this was considered to be a sustainable location.

The Case Officer also explained that the difference between this application and the previous one was the repositioning of the development 3m to the rear of the site to protect the trees.  The building was still the same size with a slightly smaller lower ground parking area.

The Team Manager, Development Management, stated that the Planning Inspector had found the development acceptable other than the potential harm to the trees which had now been addressed.

Councillor Crossley felt that the development was too large and imposing for the site and would be detrimental to neighbouring properties.  He felt that the change to move the development back by 3m was not significant and stated that the building was now bigger, taller and wider.

Councillor Veale agreed that the building was too large and too tall.  The development would also generate more traffic and noise which would be detrimental to neighbours.

The Team Manager, Development Management, re-iterated that the development was not any larger than before and that officers felt all issues raised by the Planning Inspector had now been addressed.

The motion was then put to the vote and there were 4 votes in favour and 6 votes against.  The motion was therefore LOST.

Councillor Crossley then moved that the application be refused for the following reasons:

·  The development was too imposing due to its scale, mass and bulk which would be detrimental to the amenities of the neighbouring properties.  This represented overdevelopment of the site.

·  The development would exacerbate highway and parking issues in an already congested location.

·  The development would have an adverse effect on the Conservation Area.

This was seconded by Councillor Appleyard.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 6 votes for and 4 votes against to REFUSE the application for the reasons set out above.