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 1 attached as Appendix 2 to these minutes.

·  Oral statements by members of the public and representatives.  A copy of the speakers’ list is attached as Appendix 3 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 5 to these minutes.

Item No. 1

Application No. 16/05504/OUT

Site Location: 34-35 Lower Bristol Road, Westmoreland, Bath, BA2 3AZ – Erection of two buildings to provide residential accommodation for students (up to 204 bedrooms) with ancillary accommodation and facilities and external courtyards, alterations to existing pedestrian and vehicular access and associated infrastructure following demolition of existing building

The Case Officer reported on the application and his recommendation to delegate to permit.  He advised the Committee that there were some amendments to the report as follows:

·  The site was not within the central area.

·  The standard reserved matters condition would be added.

·  Condition 7 should read “40 mcg”.

He also explained that the building was approximately 5m taller than the current building but that this was lower than some other buildings in the vicinity and was in line with the Building Height Strategy.

The registered speakers spoke for and against the application.

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

Councillor Becker, local ward member on the Committee, noted that the Economic Development Team had raised an objection and would prefer industrial use for the site.  There was already a great deal of student accommodation in Bath.  He felt that the proposed design was ugly and too large.  On the whole he would prefer employment opportunities to be provided in this central location but if student accommodation were to be developed he would prefer this on a smaller scale and with an improved design.

The Case Officer responded to questions from members stating that the development would have to comply with the energy efficiency requirements of building regulations.  He also explained that although this was an outline application only, landscaping details were reserved matters, which would come back to the Committee for decision.

Councillor Kew stated that the proposed building was a poor design.  The Case Office pointed out that additional conditions could be added regarding materials if required.

Councillor Appleyard felt that the visual aspect was gloomy and dark and stated that the design could be improved.  He moved that the application be refused for the following reasons:

·  The application was overbearing and of poor design due to its mass and bulk.  This would have an adverse effect on the appearance of the area and would be damaging to the World Heritage Site.

·  The application would be contrary to policy and there were strong economic reasons for refusal as stated by the Council’s Economic Development Team.

Councillor Jackson stated that the building was depressing, gloomy and overbearing.  She also had concerns for the safety of students due to the poor lighting at the rear.  This was an employment site and she felt that it would be better used for an industrial purpose.  She then seconded the motion.

Councillor Crossley did not agree that the design of the building was gloomy and noted that there was variation in the roofscape.  The design was industrial which was suitable for the area.  Two office block applications had recently been approved for this area which addressed the need for employment opportunities.

In response to a question the Case Officer explained that the proposed Section 106 Agreement would require the upgrade of the bus stop in this area. 

Councillor Jackson questioned why residential accommodation was proposed for an area which suffered from air pollution.  No reasons had been given as to why this site could not be marketed for industrial use.

Councillor Veale felt that the design was too bulky.

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

Item No. 2

Application No. 17/00299/OUT

Site Location: Land between Homelands and 10 Camerton Hill, Camerton, Bath – Outline planning application for the erection of 1 single storey dwelling (Resubmission)

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

Item No. 3

Application No. 17/00265/FUL

Site Location: Techniglaze Ltd, Units 1-2, Fourth Avenue, Westfield, BA3 4XE – Change of use from B1c to a children’s soft play area (D2) and cafe

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.  Councillor Jackson requested a definition in due course of what actually constitutes a trading estate.

Item No. 4

Application No. 17/00652/FUL

Site Location: 14 Union Street, Bath, BA1 1RR – Conversion of existing ancillary retail upper floors to form 4 flats, erection of a roof extension to form 1 flat, associated internal and external works including a new shop front to No. 14, replacement upper storey windows and new external door and railings to the Union Passage elevation (resubmission)

Item No. 5

Application No. 17/00651/FUL

Site Location: 14 Union Street, Bath, BA1 1RR – Conversion of existing ancillary retail upper floors to form 4 flats, erection of a roof extension to form 1 flat, associated internal and external works including a new shop front to No. 14, replacement upper storey windows and new external door and railings to the Union Passage elevation (resubmission)

These items were withdrawn from the agenda.

Item No. 6

Application No. 17/00568/FUL

Site Location: Hartley Farm Cottage, Hartley Lane, Swainswick, Bath, BA1 8AF – Erection of side and rear extensions (Revised proposal)

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to refuse.  She explained that the proposal would represent a 130% increase in volume beyond the original building.

The registered speakers spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Kew read out a statement from Councillor Geoff Ward, local ward member, in support of the application. 

In response to a question the Case Officer explained that there had been an agricultural tie to the dwelling in the past but that in dealing with this application she had not treated it as such.

Councillor Kew noted that the current dwelling was very small and that it needed to be extended to be habitable.  If the applicants moved into the dwelling then it would free up a family home in the area which would help to regenerate the rural economy.

Councillor Jackson stated that the proposed extension represented a large increase in the footprint of the building.

Councillor Veale moved that consideration of this application be deferred pending a site visit to view the location and to clarify dimensions.  This was seconded by Councillor Crossley.

The motion was then put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 8 votes in favour and 2 against to DEFER consideration of the application pending a site visit.

Item No. 7

Application No. 17/00944/FUL

Site Location: Lansdown Golf Club, Lansdown Road, Charlcombe, Bath – Erection of tarmac hardstanding and timber post and rail fencing with native hedge and tree planting to perimeter for parking and storage of golf buggies (Regularisation)

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

Councillor Kew moved that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.  This was seconded by Councillor Jackson.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED unanimously to PERMIT the application subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Item No. 8

Application No. 17/01029/LBA

Site Location: Ground Floor, 30 Grosvenor Place, Lambridge, Bath – Internal alterations to remove part of the modern timber partition walling between the kitchen and living room

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to grant listed building consent.

Councillor Crossley moved that listed building consent be granted subject to conditions.  This was seconded by Councillor Matthew Davies.

The motion was then put to the vote and it was RESOLVED unanimously to GRANT listed building consent subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Item No. 9

Application No. 17/00163/FUL

Site Location: Stonedge Cottage, Stoneage Lane, Tunley, Bath – Alterations to raise the wall to the same level as the neighbour’s wall including the existing panel fence (Resubmission)

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

Item No. 10

Application No. 17/01459/FUL

Site Location: 53 Milton Avenue, Bear Flat, Bath, BA2 4RA – Loft conversion with rear dormer, single storey rear extension and conversion of existing garage (Revision)

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

Councillor Appleyard moved that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.  This was seconded by Councillor Kew.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED unanimously to PERMIT the application subject to the conditions set out in the report.