Agenda item

Main Plans 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.

 

·  Oral statements by members of the public and representatives.  A copy of the speakers’ list is attached as Appendix 1 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 2 to these minutes.

 

Item No. 1

Application No. 17/03341/FUL

Site Location: St John’s Ambulance Hall, North Road, Timsbury, Bath – Conversion of former hall to two dwellings

 

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to permit.  She updated the Committee on further comments received from the highways officer who had concluded that the application was policy compliant.

 

A statement from Timsbury Parish Council was read out.

 

The registered speaker spoke in favour of the application.

 

The Case Officer explained that the plans on the presentation were not the most recent version.  Paper copies of the revised plans were circulated to members prior to any debate on the application.  Members confirmed that they were clear on the changes and the plans that they were being asked to consider. 

 

The Case Officer then responded to questions as follows:

 

·  The Somer Valley Transport Strategy was currently undergoing consultation so was of limited weight to the decision.

·  The site was considered to be sustainable for the provision of two dwellings.  (The Team Manager, Development Management, added that whether a site is sustainable or not relates to a wider range of factors than bus service provision).

·  Although the planning application had no parking provision associated with it there was unrestricted on street parking available.  The parking standards required for the current use is 4-8 spaces which is higher than for the proposed use.

·  The windows above the current lean-to part of the building would be reinstated.

 

Councillor Organ stated that the building should be restored and brought back into use.  He moved the officer recommendation to permit the application.  Councillor Crossley seconded the motion.

 

Councillor Jackson spoke against the motion, in particular, noting the objections of the Parish Council.  She felt that the proposal represented overdevelopment of the site.

 

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

 

Item No. 2

Application No. 17/04236/FUL

Site Location: 30 Woodcroft, Bishop Sutton, BS39 5XN – Erection of first floor side extension to form bedroom with en-suite

 

The Case Officer reported on the application and his recommendation to refuse.

 

The registered speaker spoke in favour of the application.

 

The Case Officer then answered questions relating to the street scene and location of neighbouring properties.  The Team Manager, Development Management, explained that, although the property was adjacent to the greenbelt, officers did not consider that the proposed development would harm the openness. The application was not being recommended for refusal on that basis but it was considered to be overdevelopment due to its size.

 

Cllr Crossley felt that the extension was bold and would improve the street scene by adding character.  He moved that the application be permitted as it did not represent overdevelopment and would enhance the street scene.  Cllr Matthew Davies seconded the motion stating that he felt this plot was large enough to accommodate the extension.

 

Cllr Organ noted that the houses opposite the site were some distance away and that the property was not within a greenbelt or AONB location.

 

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

 

Item No. 3

Application No. 17/04541/FUL

Site Location: 104 High Street, Bathford, Bath, BA1 7TH – Erection of single and double storey rear extension

 

Item No. 4

Application No. 17/04542/LBA

Site Location:  104 High Street, Bathford, Bath, BA1 7TH – Internal and external alterations for the erection of single and double storey rear extension

 

The Case Officer reported on the applications and her recommendation to refuse.  She clarified that the roof consisted of slate and not clay tiles as stated in the report.

 

The registered speaker spoke in favour of the applications.

 

In response to a question the Case Officer confirmed that the main concern was the loss of some of the historic fabric of the building such as the removal of two casement windows.  She confirmed that the extension would consist of Bath stone.  There was no mention of any eco-improvements to the building.

 

Cllr Crossley felt that this was an imaginative attempt to improve the property and to make additional space.  He moved that permission be granted but asked that some further dialogue take place between the applicant and Case Officer to resolve specific features.  He did not feel that the historic fabric of the building would be damaged.

 

Cllr Organ seconded the motion stating that the street scene would be unaffected and no major harm would be caused to the property. 

 

Cllr Jackson suggested that the motion should be to “delegate to permit” the application to enable the Case Officer to further discuss and negotiate any outstanding details.  This suggestion was agreed by Cllrs Crossley and Organ as mover and seconder of the original motion.  Cllr Jackson also expressed some concern regarding permitted development rights on this property.

 

Cllr Anketell-Jones noted that the front elevation to the property would not be affected by this development and he therefore felt that there would be no harm to the character of the property.

 

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED unanimously to DELEGATE TO PERMIT planning permission and to DELEGATE TO GRANT listed building consent subject to conditions to enable further discussions and negotiation to take place between the Case Officer and the applicant to secure some of the special features of the building.

Supporting documents: