Agenda item

The Committee considered:

·  A report by the Head of Planning on various planning applications.

·  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. 16/04870/FUL

Site Location: Bidwell Metals Ltd, Chapel Road, Clandown, Radstock – Erection of 28 dwellings, public open space, a community building and ancillary works following the demolition of two buildings (REVISED DESCRIPTION)

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to refuse.  She then responded to questions as follows:

·  If the application were refused then the applicant could resubmit a further planning application for any future development on the site.  A further application would be free of charge if submitted within 12 months of the decision.  The reasons for refusal would form a material consideration in relation to a future application.

·  CIL would apply to a future application in the same way as to the existing permission.

·  Officers were aware of some issues with the ownership of the site.

·  If the Committee refused the application then the applicant would have the right of appeal.

Cllr Jackson pointed out that Radstock Town Council supported the officer recommendation to refuse.  She then moved the officer recommendation.

Cllr Crossley seconded the motion stating that he felt the scheme was a good one but that given the current circumstances refusal was the correct decision at this time.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED unanimously to REFUSE the application for the reasons set out in the report.

Item No. 2

Application No. 18/02900/FUL

Site Location: Land at Rear of 106 High Street, Dovers Lane, Bathford, Bath – Erection of two storey, 3 bed dwelling

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

A local resident spoke against the application.

The agent spoke in favour of the application.

Cllr Geoff Ward, local ward member, spoke against the application.  He pointed out that Bathford Parish Council objected to the proposal along with a number of local residents.  The area was already congested and there were concerns about the safety of local school children who walked along the lane.  The increase from a 2 bedroom dwelling to a 3 bedroom dwelling was too great on this restricted site.

Cllr Martin Veal, local ward member on the Committee, spoke against the application.  He pointed out the potential road safety hazards in this very narrow lane.  He felt that the application represented overdevelopment of the site in this historic conservation area.  The increase in volume was inappropriate and would create increased traffic.  He pointed out that the local Headteacher had expressed concern regarding the safety of pupils walking to and from school.

The Deputy Head of Planning, Development Management, informed the Committee that there was an extant planning permission for a dwelling on this site which was a material planning consideration.  The Highways Officer had raised no objection to the new application and there was no highway reason for refusal previously for a dwelling on the site.  A refusal on highway related grounds would be difficult to defend at appeal and may well lead to a cost award.  She also advised that any other developments in this location would be considered on their own merits and that members should focus on the application in question and specifically the changes between the extant permission and the proposed dwelling.

The Case Officer responded to questions as follows:

·  The other properties in Chapel Row were relatively small.

·  The new proposal represented a 4.5% increase in volume.

·  The number of parking spaces required for a 3 bedroom dwelling was 2 and this proposal contained 3 spaces.

·  The footprint of the dwelling could be extended under permitted development rights.

Cllr Appleyard understood the concerns of local residents but noted that permission had already been granted for a dwelling in this location.  He did not feel that a 4.5% volume increase was unreasonable.  He also noted that the Highways Officer had raised no objection.  There had been no change to the access or egress since the previous application.  He then moved the officer recommendation to permit.

Cllr Kew felt that, if approved, the conditions imposed would be important.  He suggested that the construction management plan should include a requirement that construction vehicles should not park in Dovers Lane at times when children would be travelling to and from school and hours should also be restricted.  He seconded the motion on that basis and Cllr Appleyard agreed to incorporate this into his motion and to delegate authority for officers to implement this requirement.

In response to a question from Cllr Martin Veal the Deputy Head of Planning, Development Management, advised that it would not be reasonable to remove permitted development rights in this case.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 7 votes for, 2 votes against and 1 abstention to DELEGATE TO PERMIT the application subject to conditions as set out in the report and subject to the construction management plan (referred to under Condition 8) preventing the use of Dovers Lane by construction vehicles at times when children are travelling to and from school.