Agenda item

Site Visit List - Applications for Planning Permission Etc for Determination by the Committee

Minutes:

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 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. 17/01208/FUL

Site Location: Avonlea House, Station Road, Freshford, Bath – Erection of single storey side extension

 

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

 

The registered speaker spoke against the application.

 

Cllr Butters noted that the Parish Council had objected to the application.  He then asked a question regarding building up to the boundary of the property and the Case Officer explained that this was permissible and that there was no encroachment onto the neighbouring property.

 

Officers explained that the issue of maintenance within the void area between the fence and the wall was not a planning consideration.

 

Cllr Roberts stated that the extension would be overbearing and would have an adverse effect on the neighbouring property.  She felt that a volume increase of 28% was too large.  She then moved that the application be refused due to the overbearing nature of the extension, the adverse impact on the neighbouring property and the adverse impact upon the character of the Conservation Area.  This was seconded by Cllr Butters.

 

Cllr Jackson supported the motion stating that the general layout including the courtyard garden should be preserved within the Conservation Area.  She also felt that a flat roof was out of keeping with the area.  There would be loss of amenity to the neighbouring property.

 

Cllr Kew did not feel that this application would have a great impact, particularly if the floor level was reduced so that the roof would not be higher than the existing.

 

Members discussed the floor level, suggesting that it would be better if it were lower, which would reduce the impact and suggested adding a condition to that effect. The Team Manager – Development Management explained that the Committee had to consider the application before it and that if members wished the floor level to be lowered then they should defer the application to enable officers to discuss this further with the applicant.

 

The motion was then put to the vote and it was   RESOLVED by 6 votes in favour and 4 votes against to REFUSE the application due to the overbearing nature of the extension, the adverse impact on the neighbouring property and the adverse impact upon the character of the Conservation Area.

 

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)

 

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

 

The registered speakers spoke for and against the application.

 

In response to a question from Cllr Jackson the Case Officer confirmed that the site was not within the green belt.  She also confirmed that the application was for one single storey dwelling.

 

Cllr Jackson queried whether this was a sustainable location as local bus services in the area had recently been substantially reduced.

 

Cllr Kew noted that there had been a great deal of correspondence from neighbours objecting to the proposal, however, he could see no planning reasons to refuse the application.  He noted that the speed limit had now been reduced on Camerton Hill.  He then moved that the application be approved subject to conditions.  This was seconded by Cllr Organ.

 

In response to a query from Cllr Butters regarding access to the site, the Legal Team Leader explained that any access disputes should be resolved outside of the planning process – the committee was advised to concentrate on the planning merits of the application.

 

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 7 votes for, 2 votes against and 1 abstention to APPROVE the application subject to the conditions set out in the report.

 

Item No. 3

Application No. 16/05845/FUL

Site Location: East Barn, Whitecross Farm, Bristol Road, West Harptree – Conversion of an existing barn to office accommodation (Use Class B1)

 

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

 

The registered speakers spoke for and against the application.  A statement from West Harptree Parish Council against the application was also read out.

 

In response to a question the Case Officer explained that 3 parking spaces would be provided at the front of the property. 

 

Cllr Jackson did not feel that the application would have a significant highways impact and noted that the highways officer had raised no objection.

 

Cllr Kew felt that this was a good building which fitted in well with the local environment.  The access road, although on a bend, was not too problematic for one building.  He then moved that the application be permitted.  This was seconded by Cllr Becker.

 

Cllr Organ was opposed to this application.  He felt that the access road was dangerous as it was located on a bend and there was inadequate turning space.  The site was also outside the village boundary and within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  He also stated that if the application were permitted then the hours of occupation should be specified.  He felt that a mixed occupation of business and residential property was not a good idea.

 

The Team Manager – Development Management confirmed that there were conditions proposed to specify the basis upon which permission was recommended to be granted.  She also confirmed that Condition 11 referred to specific site opening times.

 

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

Supporting documents: