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 nos 1 and 3 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 Nos 1 and 2

Application Nos: 17/05621/FUL and 17/05622/LBA

Site Location: 9 Henrietta Villas, Bathwick, Bath, BA2 6LX – Erection of a rear single storey timber conservatory and replacement of the first floor door with a window.  Internal and external alterations for the erection of a rear single storey timber conservatory and replacement of the first floor door with a window

The Case Officer reported on the applications and her recommendation to permit.  She explained that the boundary wall would now be increased by 200mm for approximately 3.5m of wall rather than 150mm as originally proposed.

The registered speaker spoke against the applications.

Cllr Peter Turner, local ward member, spoke against the applications.

In response to questions the Case Officer explained that not all the features on this property were original.

Cllr Jackson moved the officer recommendation to permit the planning application and to grant listed building consent.  This was seconded by Cllr Appleyard who stated that the proposed conservatory would be a compact addition to the property.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED:

(1)  By 8 votes for and 2 abstentions to permit the application subject to the conditions set out in the report; and

(2)  By 9 votes for and 1 abstention to grant listed building consent subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Item No. 3

Application No. 17/06106/FUL

Site Location: Hinton House, Branch Road, Hinton Charterhouse, Bath – Installation of helipad

The Case Officer reported on the application and informed the Committee that her recommendation was to permit the application rather than to delegate to permit as set out in the report.  She explained that officers had considered the issues raised by objectors and had concluded that the helipad would be located within the curtilage of the dwelling house.  In addition, on the evidence submitted, the use of the land for the landing of the helicopter was a use incidental to the enjoyment of the private dwelling house.

She also explained that the applicant had agreed to restrict the use of the helipad to between 7am and 11pm.  She confirmed that a screening opinion had taken place which concluded that an Environmental Impact Assessment was not necessary.

The registered speakers spoke for and against the application.

Cllr Neil Butters, local ward member, spoke regarding the application.

The Case Officer then responded to questions as follows:

·  A flight path for the helicopter has been established and no safety issues relating to the trees on the site had been identified.

·  The flying of a helicopter does not require planning permission and if the planning application for the helipad were to be refused then the helicopter could continue to fly in and out of the site as it currently does.

·  If considered necessary the Committee could add a condition to restrict the use of the helipad to residential use only.  However, if in the future, the house was used for a purpose other than residential then this would require planning permission for change of use.

Councillor Organ moved that the Committee delegate to permit the application subject to the conditions set out in the report and an additional condition to restrict the use of the helipad to residential use. 

Councillor Jackson seconded the motion stating that she could see no reason to refuse the application and that the provision of a helipad would enable some level of control to be applied to its use.  She also noted that if residents had concerns about noise and nuisance in the future then they could pursue this matter through the Environmental Health team.

Councillor Roberts noted that this was private land and that the helicopter already flew in and out of the site.

Councillor Crossley noted that the helipad was required for safety reasons and queried whether the permission could be temporary for three years.  The Team Manager, Development Management, explained that a temporary permission would not be appropriate in this case as no significant changes in circumstances were anticipated.

Councillor Appleyard welcomed the fact that the local community was trying to find a balance between the concerns of local people and the requirements of the applicant.  He felt that this was a good application and welcomed the proposed flying time restrictions.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 8 votes in favour, 1 vote against and 1 abstention to DELEGATE TO PERMIT the application subject to the conditions set out in the report and the inclusion of an additional condition to restrict the use of the helipad to residential use only.

Item No. 4

Application No. 17/04739/FUL

Site Location: 6 Madams Paddock, Chew Magna - Demolition of the existing dwelling, associated garage and greenhouse and erection of a new dwelling and garage. The proposal also includes the associated landscape and drainage works

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation for refusal.  She informed the Committee that two supporting comments from neighbours had been received since the publication of the agenda.

The registered speaker spoke in favour of the application.

Cllr Liz Richardson, local ward member, spoke in favour of the application.

The Case Officer then responded to questions as follows:

·  The NPPF states that the Committee should have regard to the comments of the Independent Design Review Panel.

·  The replacement dwelling would be 118% larger than the existing dwelling.  The policy states that a replacement building should not be materially larger than the existing.  The proposal is materially larger in both volume and appearance.

·  The materials that would be used for the front of the dwelling are red sandstone.

Councillor Jackson stated that the design was not appropriate for this location and moved the officer recommendation for refusal.  This was seconded by Councillor Organ.

Councillor Anketell-Jones noted that the successful integration of all forms of new development with their surrounding context is an important design objective outlined within the NPPF.  He stated that the current house was not particularly distinctive but that the new design did not appear residential.  The proposed dwelling was well designed and was not large in relation to the size of the plot.

Councillor Organ stated that the overall design was very different from the existing properties in Madam’s Paddock.  The property was substantially larger than the existing dwelling and the design was out of character.

Councillor Crossley noted that there was no exceptional architecture in this area and that a replacement dwelling offered an opportunity for inspirational development.  However planning policy restricted development in this location and the key issue was the fact that the replacement dwelling would be materially larger than the current property.

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