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. 16/06140/FUL

Site Location: 30 Flatwoods Road, Claverton Down, Bath, BA2 7AQ – Erection of 2 dwellings, internal access drive and landscaping at rear of existing dwelling

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to permit.  She informed the Committee that the applicant had submitted revised plans which reduced the height of the dwellings by 0.95m.  A further objection had also been received relating to the availability of broadband in the area.

The registered speakers spoke for and against the application.

Cllr Cherry Beath, local ward member, spoke against the application.  A statement against the application submitted by Cllr Bob Goodman, local ward member, was also read out at the meeting.

Councillor Pritchard asked a question regarding the access to the site.  The Highways Case Officer explained that both dwellings would include double garages and that the access to the dwellings complied with the required width specified by the Department of Transport.

Councillor Romero stated that the plot appeared small for the proposed development.

Councillor Hardman stated that while she had sympathy with the neighbours there was already a precedent for back garden development in the area.  She also noted that the Bath Skyline footpath route would be screened,

Councillor Organ moved that permission be granted subject to conditions.  This was seconded by Councillor Matthew Davies.

The motion was then put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 6 votes for, 2 votes against and 1 abstention to PERMIT the application subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Item No. 2

Application No. 17/01411/FUL

Site Location: 10 Stonehouse Lane, Combe Down, Bath, BA2 5DW – Three storey side extension and garage to include demolition of existing single storey side extension, partial demolition of existing garage, minor changes to rear ground floor fenestration of existing main house and front landscaping

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to refuse.  Since the publication of the report there had been one further objection relating to the overbearing impact of the development, overlooking, parking and not being in keeping with the character of the area received from a direct neighbour.

The registered speakers spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Cherry Beath, local ward member, spoke against the application.  A statement in favour of the application submitted by Cllr Bob Goodman, local ward member, was also read out at the meeting.

In response to a question the Case Officer explained that the extant planning permission would still remain in place if the current application were refused.

Councillor Becker felt that the design was good and noted that there were other tall buildings in the area.

Councillor Organ moved that permission be refused for the reasons set out in the report.  He felt that the extension was too dominant.  This was seconded by Councillor Roberts.

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

Item No. 3

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)

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to refuse.  In response to a question it was confirmed that the height of the wall would be between 2.2 and 2.4m. 

Councillor Roberts moved that the Committee delegate to permit the application subject to conditions.  She felt that the proposal would not be disproportionate and would therefore comply with greenbelt policy.  This was seconded by Councillor Hardman.

Councillor Pritchard noted that there had been no local dissent regarding the application and felt that it would improve the appearance of the area.

The motion was then put to the vote and it was RESOLVED unanimously to DELEGATE TO PERMIT the application subject to conditions.