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 items 1 and 2 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 3 to these minutes.

Item No. 1

Application No. 20/01078/FUL

Site Location: Land North of 9B, Tennis Court Avenue, Paulton – Erection of detached dwelling

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

The agent spoke in favour of the application.

Cllr Liz Hardman, local ward member, spoke against the application.  She stated that, the principle of housing development has been established on Tennis Court Avenue, a street made up entirely of semi-detached properties. However, a detached dwelling would not be in keeping with the street scene as all other houses in the street are semi-detached.  She pointed out that a precedent has been set where two very recent applications in Tennis Court Avenue, for detached houses were rejected and both appeals had been dismissed by the Planning Inspector.  She also stated that Paulton Parish Council is strongly opposed to the application.

The Case Officer then responded to questions as follows:

·  There would be a side access which both the new property and 21 Hope Terrace would be able to use.

·  A number of the properties in this part of the street have sold off part of their long gardens for development and the character of the area has changed as a result of new properties being built.

Cllr Jackson noted the impact of the development on the street scene and felt that the application should be refused on the grounds of urban design.  She felt that the existing garage is neat and tidy and has no adverse impact on the area.  It would not be possible to erect semi-detached properties on this plot.

Cllr Clarke had visited the area and did not see evidence of any particular parking problems in this street.

Cllr Hounsell felt that the design would fit in with the location and moved the officer recommendation to permit.  This was seconded by Cllr Craig who stated that the development would not make any difference to parking in the area and that it would be a shame to lose the opportunity for a much-needed dwelling.

Cllr Rigby supported the motion stating that the detached dwelling would be in proportion with other properties in the street.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 9 votes in favour and 1 abstention to PERMIT the application subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Item No. 2

Application No. 20/01061/FUL

Site Location: 21 Henrietta Gardens, Bathwick, Bath, BA2 6NA – Erection of 4 dwellings and associated works following demolition of existing dwelling

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

A representative of the Pulteney Estates Residents’ Association (PERA) spoke against the application.

The agent spoke in favour of the application.

Cllr Dr Yukteshwar Kumar, local ward member, spoke against the application.  He stated that he had received a great deal of correspondence from local residents who were against this application.  He stressed that any development in the heart of the city, which is a World Heritage Site, should be considered very carefully.  He felt that the height of the buildings was not suitable for the site and that parking was a concern as it would cause inconvenience to the neighbours.  Existing properties would also lose sunlight.  The site may also be of archaeological importance and this should not be lost. 

Officers then responded to questions as follows:

·  The accommodation would be set across three floors at a height of 8m.

·  There is no restriction on the number of storeys for a property in this area.  The policy is driven by local character and there are a range of different dwelling heights in the area.

·  The applicant does not own the access track leading to the site.

·  There are 3-storey flats on one side of the site and 2-storey terraced houses on the other side.

·  The level of overlooking is not considered enough to warrant refusal of the application.  There would be some overlooking towards the built form of the neighbouring bungalow.

·  The Highways Officer stated that the existing access would be retained and that this contains some private parking.  There would be unobstructed access to the proposed dwellings and all eight parking spaces will be accessible.

·  The two end dwellings would have a side access to their rear gardens and the two mid-terrace dwellings would have to access their rear gardens through the house itself.

·  The cycle store would be located near the front door by the parking area and close to the bin stores.

·  A loft extension could be added to the dwellings under permitted development rights; however, the addition of a dormer window would require planning permission.

·  A Section 106 Agreement is in the process of being negotiated to secure a level of contribution for tree planting.  It was noted that this should be included in the officer recommendation.

·  The site is within an area of potential archaeological interest and conditions have been added to reflect this.  Any archaeological findings will be recorded and preserved.

Cllr Rigby, local ward member on the Committee, noted that the existing bungalow adds no particular value to the area.  However, she did not feel that the neighbouring flats should be used as a point of reference.  There are three 2-storey houses next to the site which backs onto a private road containing garages for residents of Daniel Street.  She felt that there is a level of harm to the Conservation Area and that the proposal would not preserve or enhance the area.  She stated that the development is too large for the site and that there would be overlooking and loss of light to neighbouring properties.  She also felt that the development would be too high and that four houses was one too many.  She then moved that the application be refused.

Cllr Jackson seconded the motion and felt that the application should be refused for the following reasons:

·  Overdevelopment of the site.

·  Inappropriate design for this location.

·  Loss of amenity to neighbours.

Cllr Davis stated that the proposed 2.5 storey dwellings were appropriate for the area and pointed out that measures would be taken to protect the archaeology in the area.

Cllr Hounsell felt that the application represented intelligent use of the space available.  He pointed out that residents could extend into the loft using permitted development rights in any case.

Cllr Clarke felt that the application is policy compliant and that the reasons put forward against the development are very subjective.

Cllr Malloy supported the motion stating that the application would result in overdevelopment of the site and properties that would not be in keeping with the area.

The Team Manager, Development Management, informed the Committee that house values are not a material consideration, although housing mix to meet housing need can be taken into account.

The motion was put to the votes and there were 5 votes in favour and 5 votes against.  The Chair then used his casting vote against the motion.  The motion was therefore LOST.

Cllr Davis then moved the officer recommendation to delegate to permit the application subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement.  This was seconded by Cllr Clarke.

The motion was put to the vote and there were 5 votes in favour and 5 votes against.  The Chair then used his casting vote in favour of the motion and it was therefore RESOLVED to DELEGATE TO PERMIT the application subject to the conditions set out in the report and the completion of a S106 Agreement to secure a contribution towards tree planting.

Item No. 3

Application No. 19/04024/FUL

Site Location: 8 South Parade, Chew Magna, BS40 8SJ – Conversion and change of use of former NatWest Bank Buildings into 3 apartments and retail unit

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

The agent spoke in favour of the application.

Cllr Karen Warrington, local ward member, spoke against the application.  She explained that the building is in a Conservation Area and that it is important to preserve the building.  The Parish Council is keen to see the building brought back into use.  She expressed concerns regarding non-compliance with the parking policy, inappropriate density in this location, the impact on the Conservation Area and Grade II* listed building and the impact on the viability of retail outlets in Chew Magna High Street.

Officers then responded to questions as follows:

·  Whilst the current Covid-19 situation has an impact, this is considered to be a temporary issue and so should be given little weight.

·  There are no specific space standards in the B&NES policies, however it is considered that the size of the apartments is acceptable.

·  The top floor was previously office space for the bank (A2 use).

·  The Highways Officer explained that officers do not feel that the proposed retail unit requires parking provision.  There is a shortfall of six parking spaces for the residential element of the proposal, however, free parking is available within walking distance of the property.

·  The Case Officer explained that weight has been given to the fact that there is a parking shortfall.  It was felt that the benefits of the proposal outweighed the lack of parking provision.

Cllr Clarke noted that this area has always experienced problems with parking.  However, he felt that it has been worse in the past when there were more pubs and shops in the village.  He supported the development and the use of this building.

Cllr Hounsell stated that parking in Chew Magna is very difficult and that this would be challenging with a shortfall of six parking spaces.

Cllr Jackson moved the officer recommendation to permit.  She felt that the proposal would improve the external appearance of the building and would make good use of an empty building.  Cllr Clarke seconded the motion.

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

Item No. 4

Application No. 19/05110/FUL

Site Location: Three Ways, Station Road, Clutton – Erection of a single storey 2 bedroom dwelling adjacent to existing bungalow

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

A representative from Clutton Parish Council spoke against the application.

Officers then responded to questions as follows:

·  There is a warning sign near to the site asking drivers to be aware of the possibility of pedestrians walking in the road.  The area marked for pedestrians is a flush surface used by both pedestrians and vehicles.  There is not a formal crossing point.

·  The Highways Officer stated that, according to the Highway Code, there should be no parking within 10m of a junction.  The junction is 7.5m from the entrance to the property and 10m from the centre of the site.  It was noted that the Highways Officer had not visited the site and had relied solely on written information to reach his conclusions.

Cllr MacFie felt that the junction was dangerous and noted that there is no solid pavement for pedestrians to use.

Cllr Craig noted that a vehicle would have to either reverse into or out of the site and also felt that it was a dangerous junction.

Cllr Davis, ward councillor on the committee, stated that highway safety was the main concern.

Cllr Rigby was concerned that the Highways Team had not visited the site and queried how vehicles would enter and exit the site.

Cllr Clarke welcomed the provision of new houses in the area, however, felt that this was a difficult location.

Cllr Jackson moved that the application be refused on highway safety grounds as the entrance is located so close to the junction.  This was seconded by Cllr Hounsell.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED unanimously to REFUSE the application on the grounds of highway safety which is contrary to Policy ST7.

Item No. 5 – Urgent Item

Application No. 18/01516/REG04

Site Location: Land to the Rear of 89 to 123 Englishcombe Lane, Bath – Development of 37 residential dwellings (Use Class C3, including affordable housing), vehicular and pedestrian access, open space, landscaping, drainage, related infrastructure and engineering works.

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 Jess David, local ward member, spoke against the application.  She raised concerns regarding the ecological value of the site, visual and landscape impact of the proposal and transport planning and the potential impact on the local highway.  She felt that the application is contrary to policies NE3, NE2A, ST7 and ST1.  She did not feel that the application adequately addresses the challenges and complexities of this site: its ecology, its landscape setting, and the need to minimise impacts on the local highway and promote more sustainable travel. 

The Case Officer then responded to questions as follows:

·  The habitat translocation site is on Pennyquick Hill and is a greenfield site in the Green Belt which has previously been a farm. 

·  The habitat creation and translocation work must be completed by October and therefore needs to take place during September and October this year.

·  The Pennyquick site is privately owned and can currently be accessed by members of the public but there is no automatic entitlement to do so in the future.

·  If the tufa flushes remained on the Englishcombe Lane site then there would need to be a significant reduction in the number of houses to be built.  If the tufa flushes were left intact, then it was estimated that only around 10-20 properties could be built on the site rather than the proposed 37 properties.  Officers felt that the need for the 37 houses outweighed the harm that would be caused.

Cllr Jackson moved that consideration of the application be deferred pending a site visit.  This was seconded by Cllr Rigby.

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 to both the Englishcombe Lane and Pennyquick Hill sites.  If possible, this should be a physical rather than a virtual site visit.