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 items 1, 2 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 delegated powers, the applications be determined as set out in the decisions list attached as Appendix 4 to these minutes.

Item No. 1

Application No. 17/00075/FUL

Site Location: Land between Leamon Cottage and Mendip Villas, The Street, Compton Martin – The erection of 10 dwelling houses, including access onto The Street, 26 off-street parking spaces, and associated soft/hard landscaping

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

The registered speakers spoke for and against the application.

Cllr Vic Pritchard, local ward member, spoke against the application.

In response to a question she explained that there was not a particular uniformity of housing in Compton Martin and that a courtyard development would be acceptable.  She also confirmed that the number of parking spaces allocated was policy compliant.

(Note: At this point Cllr Appleyard left the meeting.)

Councillor Becker stated that the houses were very small and felt that the developer was cramming too many properties into this space.  The Case Officer explained that the site had been allocated for around 10 dwellings and that smaller houses meant that the properties would be more affordable.

Councillor Crossley felt that the proposed layout was not satisfactory and stated that elements of the design were disappointing.  The outside amenity space was diminished by gardens being located at the front of the properties.  He then moved that the application be refused on the grounds of the design of the layout, poor outside amenity space and an inadequate parking layout which would lead to residents parking in neighbouring roads.

Councillor Matthew Davies seconded the motion stating that the development should be more appropriate for the village with a better housing mix.

Councillor Anketell-Jones stated that there was no safe pedestrian access and that more design work was required.

The Team Manager, Development Management, stated that officers felt that layout was acceptable and that a balance had to be struck to achieve the best use of the site.  He also confirmed that the Placemaking Plan, being the most recent plan, took precedent with regard to parking provision.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 8 votes for and 1 vote against to REFUSE the application on the grounds of inadequate housing mix, inadequate parking layout leading to highway safety issues and inappropriate site layout.

(Note: At this point Cllr Appleyard returned to the meeting).

Item No. 2

Application No. 17/05062/FUL

Site Location: 148 London Road West, Lower Swainswick, Bath, BA1 7DD – Erection of 4 dwellings following demolition of 2 existing run down dwellings

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

The registered speaker spoke in favour of the application.

Cllr Appleyard, local ward member, spoke in favour of the application.  He stated that the two existing buildings were old and of poor design.  The road already has an eclectic mix of buildings.  He felt that the proposal had merit and would be an improvement to the area.  The application addressed parking issues and the property was located near to a bus stop.

In response to a question the Case Officer confirmed that the proposed buildings would be higher than other properties nearby and would be visible from the other side of the valley.  She believed that the application represented overdevelopment.

Cllr Appleyard moved that the Committee delegate to permit the application as it offered a good use of space.  Cllr Roberts seconded the motion noting the mix of dwelling types in this area.

Cllr Crossley stated that the application was a useful intensification of the area and was a good design.

Cllr Organ stated that the proposal would improve the appearance of the street and also increased the housing stock available in the area.

Cllr Anketell-Jones did not like the design at the rear of the property and felt that the application represented an unfavourable mix of styles.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 8 votes in favour and 2 against to DELEGATE TO PERMIT the application subject to conditions including those relating to materials (requiring samples of Bath stone) and landscaping.

Item No. 3

Application No. 15/01802/FUL

Site Location: Church Farm Derelict Property, Church Hill, High Littleton – Construction of new pedestrian and vehicular access to Church Farm, High Littleton from A39 High Street following removal of section of boundary wall

This item was withdrawn from the agenda at the request of the applicant.

Item No. 4

Application No. 18/00413/FUL

Site Location: 22 Innox Grove, Englishcombe, Bath, BA2 9DX – Erection of two-storey side extension following demolition of existing conservatory

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

The registered speakers spoke in favour of the application.

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

Cllr Jackson noted that the extension was very large and was not subservient to the main dwelling.  The extension represented a 63% volume increase.  The Case Officer confirmed that it was not necessary for the extension to “step down” in this case as it would be linked to an existing terrace.

Cllr Crossley thought that this was an interesting extension which represented a sympathetic design.  He moved that the Committee delegate to permit the application as it would provide the space required for a family and would also be of benefit to the community.  The motion was seconded by Cllr Matthew Davies.

The Team Manager, Development Management, explained that the proposed extension was considered to be inappropriate development in the greenbelt according to the Supplementary Planning Document guidance.  This stated that an appropriate extension should only comprise approximately one third of the existing dwelling.  The property was also in an elevated and prominent location.

Cllr Jackson felt that the planning guidance was unfair to smaller dwellings as it was easier for extensions to become disproportionate.

Cllr Crossley also noted the difficulty for small dwellings when planning to extend.  He did not feel that this proposal would be harmful to the greenbelt as the extension would form part of a terrace and met the requirements of the Englishcombe Local Plan.  The special circumstances identified in this case were the need to extend an undersized unit to make it suitable for modern family living.

Cllr Appleyard expressed concern about making a decision against planning policies but also felt that the policy should be reviewed.

Cllr Organ stated that he could not support the motion as the proposed extension represented a 63% volume increase in a greenbelt location and was not subservient to the existing dwelling.  It would also be positioned at the end of a terrace in a prominent position.

Cllr Jackson noted that an existing conservatory would be demolished so the overall increase would not be too large.

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

Item No. 5

Application No. 18/00460/FUL

Site Location: 35 Hantone Hill, Bathampton, Bath, BA2 6XD – Erection of two storey side and single storey rear extension, and external alterations

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

The registered speaker spoke in favour of the application.

Cllr Crossley moved the officer recommendation to permit.  This was seconded by Cllr Roberts.

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.

(Note: At this point Cllr Caroline Roberts left the meeting).

Item No. 6

Application No. 17/05725/VAR

Site Location: Walnut Tree Hill, High Street, Priston, Bath, BA2 9EB – Variation of condition 6 (landscaping) of application 15/01408/VAR (Variation of condition 8 (landscaping) attached to planning permission 13/05112/FUL (Erection of a dwelling with garage, drive and landscaping (Revised proposal))

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

The registered speakers spoke against the application.

Cllr Veale, local ward member, stated that this was a substantial and prominent property which had been granted planning permission on appeal.  There had been a number of issues with the site.  He then moved that a site visit should take place and that samples of the materials to be used on the wall should be made available to enable members to make an informed decision. This was seconded by Cllr Appleyard.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED unanimously to DEFER consideration of the application pending a site visit at which samples of the materials to be used should be made available to the Committee.