Agenda item

The Committee considered:

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

·  An update report by the Head of Planning on item 7 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.

(Note: Cllr Organ left the meeting at this point as he had declared an interest in the following planning application).

Item No. 1

Application No. 18/05696/OUT

Site Location: Lays Farm Business Centre, Lays Farm Trading Estate, Keynsham, BS31 2SE – Outline planning permission for the demolition of existing industrial buildings and erection of B1 business buildings and 8 dwellings

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to permit.  She explained that conditions 12 and 13 should relate to B1 rather than B of the Use Class Order and confirmed that these would be amended accordingly.

The Agent spoke in favour of the application.

The Case Officer then responded to questions as follows:

·  The application showed an indicative layout at this stage as it was an outline application.  She confirmed that currently some residential dwellings were located within the industrial estate.

·  The employment spaces would be new buildings.

·  There would be a separate access road for the industrial units outside of the red line boundary.

·  The Highways Officer explained that the lack of turning space for vehicles would have to be addressed at the reserved matters stage.

·  The reserved matters application would not automatically be considered by the Committee but would be dealt with under the approved delegation process.

·  There would be no affordable housing on the site as the trigger for this had not been met.

The Deputy Head of Planning explained that, as this was an outline planning application, the details would be dealt with at the reserved matters stage and members should solely consider means of access for a mixed use scheme.

Cllr Jackson stated that the layout was sensible apart from the mixed development which could lead to suburbanisation.

Cllr Appleyard noted that a mixed use development had some advantages and pointed out that the site was on the edge of a residential area.  He then moved the officer recommendation to permit.

Cllr Crossley seconded the motion.  He stated that he would like the reserved matters application to be considered by the Committee rather than under delegated powers as there were still a number of issues to be resolved.

Cllr Kew did not think that the layout of the proposed development was appropriate and did not support the loss of employment land.

Cllr Richardson did not think that residential dwellings were appropriate on an industrial estate and highlighted the need for small industrial sites in Keynsham rather than more housing developments.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 6 votes in favour and 3 votes against to PERMIT the application subject to the conditions set out in the report.

(Cllr Organ returned to the meeting at this point).

Item No. 2

Application No. 19/00682/FUL

Site Location: Wellow House, High Street, Wellow, Bath – Erection of one residential dwelling and associated landscaping and access

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

A Parish Council representative, the Agent and the Applicant spoke in favour of the application.

Cllr Neil Butters, local ward member, spoke in favour of the application.  He highlighted the local support for the proposal and stated that a village should evolve in order to thrive.  He felt that the proposed dwelling was well designed and would cause no harm to the green belt.

The Case Officer then responded to questions as follows:

·  The new dwelling would be separate from the existing house and would be separated by means of a fence and hedgerow.

·  The boundary of the new house would include the tennis court and the driveway area.

·  Replacement trees could be located anywhere on the site.

·  The tennis court would constitute not previously developed land.

·  The plot was within the Housing Development Area.

·  The Deputy Head of Planning explained that the definition of infill development usually involved development on at least three sides of the site. 

Cllr Sandry noted that there was a community hall on the other side of the road to the site which could be considered as another building on the third side of the development.

Cllr Jackson noted that there was a shortage of disability compatible dwellings in this area and queried whether weight should be given to this as a Human Rights issue.  The Deputy Head of Planning explained that the public interest test would have to be applied and pointed out that no evidence of special circumstances has been provided with the application.  This meant that little weight could be given to personal reasons for the development.  The Committee could, however, take a different view from officers with regard to infill and the openness of the site.

Cllr Crossley stated that the proposal offered an opportunity to provide an accessible dwelling in this village location.  The proposal would improve the mix of housing in the area and would constitute infill development because the site was developed on three sides.  He moved that the Committee delegate to permit the application.

Cllr Kew seconded the motion.  He stated that the site was within the Housing Development Boundary, had a good design and would be complementary to the local area.  He also noted the support of the Parish Council and that there were no major objections from consultees.  The trees that had been removed could be replaced and there was a need for smaller properties in the area.

Cllr Anketell-Jones felt that the replacement of a tarmac tennis court with a small residential property would be appropriate in this location.

Cllr Richardson supported the proposal stating that it constituted infill development which was of good quality design and supported by the local community.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED unanimously to DELEGATE TO PERMIT the application as the Committee took the view that it constituted infill development.

Item No. 3

Application No. 19/00492/FUL

Site Location: 27 Georgian View, Southdown, Bath, BA2 2LZ – Change of use from 4 bed dwelling house (use class C3) to 6 bed HMO (use class C4) with works to convert garden store to living space

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

Two local residents spoke against the application.

The Agent spoke in favour of the application.

Cllr Steve Hedges, local ward member, spoke against the application.  He stated that there were too many HMO properties and too much student accommodation in Bath.  Consideration should be given to neighbours living in the area and action should be taken to prevent the loss of a family home in this area.  He also pointed out the parking problems that could be caused by additional car ownership in the area.

The Case Officer then responded to questions as follows:

·  Cycles could be stored along the side of the property if required.

·  The existing hardstanding area associated with the house did not require planning permission. 

·  The Highways Officer explained that the requirement for entry and exit in a forward gear only applied to new properties and not existing. 

·  The application had been assessed against the Houses in Multiple Occupation in Bath Supplementary Planning Document using both Criteria 1 and 2 and had passed both of these tests.  The data used was from January/February 2019.

·  The driveway allowed tandem parking.

Cllr Crossley stated that the whole area contained a large number of HMO properties although not all of these appeared to be registered.  It was important for the data used to be accurate.  Tandem parking was not ideal as people still tend to park on street if they would be blocked in by other vehicles.  There was a remorseless reduction in family homes in Bath.  He then moved that the application be refused for the following reasons:

·  Damage to the setting of the World Heritage City of Bath.

·  Loss of amenity to local residents due to squeezing more and more additional accommodation into the area.

Cllr Kew pointed out that there was a clear policy on HMO properties and that this must be adhered to.  There was no hard evidence regarding unregistered HMOs and this would be difficult to defend on appeal.

Cllr Appleyard seconded the motion pointing out that it was important to try to control the loss of family homes.

The Deputy Head of Planning pointed out that the HMO Policy had been agreed and that a Planning Inspector would make a decision based on this policy.

Cllr Jackson did not feel that this was a sustainable location for students.

Cllr Anketell-Jones had concerns regarding parking arrangements and the tandem parking.  He felt that the number of cars should be limited.

Cllr Sandry pointed out that different types of people lived in HMOs and these were not all students.  He had concerns regarding the accuracy of the HMO data that had been used.

The motion was put to the vote and there were 3 votes in favour, 5 votes against and 2 abstentions.  The motion was therefore LOST.

Cllr Kew then moved the officer recommendation to permit the application.  This was seconded by Cllr Organ.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 5 votes in favour, 3 votes against and 2 abstentions to PERMIT the application subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Item No. 4

Application No. 18/04922/OUT

Site Location: 6 Mount Road, Southdown, Bath, BA2 1LD – Outline application for the erection of one dwelling in rear garden (Access, layout and scale to be determined and all other matters reserved)

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to permit.  The Deputy Head of Planning explained that the application was now subject to the appeal process on the grounds of non-determination.  The final decision would therefore be made by the Planning Inspector.  The Committee was asked to consider the application, decide what its decision would have been had the application not been subject to appeal and the Inspector would then take this information into account when making a decision.

A local resident spoke on behalf of a number of neighbours against the application.

The Agent spoke in favour of the application.

Cllr Dine Romero, local ward member, spoke against the application.  She stated that the access to the new property would be via a cul-de-sac which would inconvenience the existing residents.  She also expressed concerns regarding the removal of trees and damage to the wildlife population which included bats and badgers.  She requested the following conditions if the application were to be approved – an independent wildlife survey, protection of the ash tree under a TPO, no overlooking windows, a different access and that reserved matters be considered by the Development Management Committee.

Cllr Jackson asked whether there could be an alternative access to the new property.  The Case Officer explained that this would involve demolishing an existing garage to make an access from Mount Road.

Cllr Crossley, local ward member, explained that Southdown was a densely populated area of Bath which did not contain a large amount of trees.  Green spaces and long gardens should therefore remain.  There was no merit in the application and the development would result in a loss of amenity to local residents.  A new house was not required in this location.  Any access should be from Mount Road and not Belmore Gardens and there were many issues with the application that needed to be addressed.  He moved that the application be refused on the following grounds:

·  Inappropriate development in this back garden location.

·  The development would be detrimental to the World Heritage City of Bath.

·  Loss of amenity to local residents.

·  The development is in a highly visible location.

Cllr Appleyard seconded the motion.

Cllr Kew felt that houses were needed in the Bath area and that this represented a windfall site.  The development would be on an adequate plot within the Housing Development Boundary.

Cllr Richardson stated that this was infill development and noted the substantial number of conditions which were proposed which she felt would mitigate any issues raised by objectors.

The motion was put to the vote and there were 2 votes in favour, 7 votes against and 1 abstention.  The motion was therefore LOST.

Cllr Kew then moved the officer recommendation to permit.  This was seconded by Cllr Organ.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 7 votes in favour, 2 votes against and 1 abstention to agree that the Committee would have PERMITTED the application had it not been subject to appeal for non-determination.

Item No. 5

Application No. 19/00803/FUL

Site Location: Cherry Cottage, Mead Lane, Saltford – Erection of front gables, front balcony and external alterations (resubmission of 18/05702/FUL)

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

The Agent spoke in favour of the application.

Cllr Francine Haeberling, local ward member, spoke in favour of the application.  She felt that the development would improve the area and pointed out that the Parish Council supported the proposal.

Cllr Organ stated that the application would improve the overall appearance of the property and would enhance the street scene.  He moved that the Committee delegate to permit the application.

Cllr Kew seconded the motion and stated that there was already a mix of development in the area.  The previous development to the property had been poor and this would improve the appearance of the dwelling.

Cllr Sandry stated that the current property sat well in its plot and noted that there were some smaller properties in the area.  The property was already large and he felt that the development would be excessive.

Cllr Appleyard felt that the cumulative increase in volume was too great as it represented an increase of 133% from the original dwelling which was contrary to policy.

Cllr Anketell-Jones felt that the character and appearance of the property was dated.  He stated that the proposed development was proportionate and would not look out of place.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 7 votes in favour and 3 against to DELEGATE TO PERMIT the application subject to it being advertised as a departure from the Development Plan.

Item No. 6

Application No. 18/05561/FUL

Site Location: 31 High Bannerdown, Batheaston, Bath, BA1 7JZ – Alterations and extension to bungalow

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

A representative from Batheaston Parish Council and two local residents spoke against the application.

The Agent spoke in favour of the application.

Cllr Geoff Ward, local ward member, spoke against the application.  He stated that the property was located on a maturing housing estate with a mix of dwellings.  He explained that the current bungalow was suitable for an older resident and felt that it was important to maintain a mix of property types and different community groups within the area.

In response to a question the Case Officer confirmed that Batheaston did not currently have a Neighbourhood Plan but that work to create one was underway.

Cllr Kew stated that he could not obtain a clear impression of the area from the plans and officer report and found it hard to understand the impact on the local area.  He therefore moved that consideration of the application be deferred pending a site visit.  This was seconded by Cllr Applyard.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 6 votes in favour, 1 against and 3 abstentions to DEFER consideration of the application pending a site visit.

Item No. 7

Application No. 18/04535/FUL

Site Location: 49-50 Meadow Park, Bathford, Bath, BA1 7PY – Installation of timber decking and paved areas at rear of house with new decking and paving, including isolated raising of perimeter fences (retrospective)

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

A neighbour 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 the large amount of wood that had been used to create the decking area and also stated that the 3m high fence was unacceptable.  This had reduced the amount of sunlight to the neighbouring garden.  Whilst he understood the need to make the garden more level it was not acceptable to cover the whole garden with decking.

The Case Officer explained that neighbouring properties had a mix of decking and paving which helped with the changing levels in the back gardens.

Cllr Appleyard moved that consideration of the application be deferred pending a site visit to view the angles of the site and to ascertain the effect on neighbouring properties.  Cllr Kew seconded the motion.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 9 votes in favour and 1 abstention to DEFER consideration of the application pending a site visit.

Item Nos. 8 & 9

Application No. 18/05670/FUL and 18/05671/LBA

Site Location: Richmond House, Weston Park, Upper Weston, Bath – Erection of a rear kitchen and garden room extension.  External and internal alterations to include erection of a rear kitchen and garden room extension

The Case Officer reported on the applications and his recommendations to permit and to grant listed building consent.

A neighbour spoke against the applications.

The Agent spoke in favour of the applications.

The Case Officer confirmed that the seating area was located within the owner’s property although close to the boundary.  He also explained that the zinc roof cover had been chosen to give a softer appearance than lead.

Cllr Kew moved the officer recommendation to permit.  This was seconded by Cllr Appleyard.

Cllrs Jackson and Sandry stated that they did not like the design.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 7 votes in favour, 2 votes against and 1 abstention to PERMIT the application and to GRANT listed building consent subject to the conditions set out in the report.