Agenda item

The Committee considered:

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

·  An update report by the Head of Planning 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. 19/04462/FUL

Site Location: 4-5 Railway Place, City Centre, Bath, BA1 1TH – Erection of extension at the fourth-floor level, front and rear infill extensions, external alterations and revisions to existing entrance onto Railway Place (Resubmission)

The Case Officer reported on the application and the recommendation to refuse.

The Agent spoke in favour of the application.

Officers responded to questions as follows:

·  The conclusion of the Case Officer was that the proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the setting of the listed buildings and character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area and World Heritage Site and therefore would not be the sole reason for refusal. 

·  The Legal Advisor explained that the effect of sections 72 and 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and how they relate to the policies in the NPPF regarding consideration of impacts upon heritage assets.  Members were advised that when weighing the identified harm to heritage assets against any public benefits, members should give great weight to the conservation of the heritage assets.  As such, it was not a case of simply balancing harm against public benefits, but was a “tilted balance” in favour of conserving the heritage assets. 

·  The Case Officer confirmed that there is a Bath Building Lines Strategy which covers roofscape issues.  However, the strategy is not a Supplementary Planning Document.  The concern of officers in this case was the local impact of the development rather than the roofscape.

·  The development would provide an additional 925 square metres of office space in Bath in addition to the 25,000 square metres to be provided at Bath Quays North and the 8,000 square metres at Bath Quays South.

·  The planning permission for office development at Pinesgate has now expired.  The position regarding office space in Bath is a material consideration.

Cllr Craig expressed concern regarding the adverse effect on the views of Bath from Beechen Cliff.

Cllr Jackson moved the officer recommendation to refuse.  She felt that the design detracts from the Conservation Area and noted that there was no tangible evidence of a need for more office space in this location.

Cllr Rigby seconded the motion.

The motion was then 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. 19/00772/FUL

Site Location: Land at Entrance to Manor Farm, Bath Hill, Wellow, Bath – Erection of two storey detached dwelling

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to permit.  She clarified the purpose of the HELAA (Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment) Call for Sites in 2018.  A further letter had been received expressing concern about drainage issues on the site.  She proposed an amendment to condition No. 4 and added two further conditions to ensure that parking provision was provided prior to occupation and to restrict permitted development rights.  She also gave details of two amendments to the relevant planning history.

A representative from Wellow Parish Council spoke against the application.

The Agent and Applicant spoke in favour of the application.

A statement from Cllr Neil Butters, local ward member, was read out at the meeting.  He supported the position taken by Wellow Parish council who objected to the application.  He was concerned that the new property would be overbearing as it was on higher ground than the bungalows at Manor Close.  He also expressed concerns about flooding and land stability at the site.  He was not convinced that the development amounted to infill and felt that there had been a lack of consistency about this.

Officers then responded to questions as follows:

·  There is no specified distance regarding spacing between neighbouring properties.  It is generally considered that 21-23 metres between properties is acceptable and any closer than this is based on the judgement of the planning officer having regard to amenity.

·  The Case Officer clarified the position of the gate and footpath in relation to the proposed property.

·  There is no definition of “limited infilling” in the NPPF and this is down to the judgement of the Case Officer.  It was explained by the Case Officer that the example stated in the Placemaking Plan was indicative only and not an exhaustive list of what might qualify as “limited infilling”.  There is development in the form of houses and roads, be they at a short distance away, on at least three sides of the site.

·  Part of the existing public footpath would be located in the car parking area of the development site.  However, this would not interfere with the public right of way.  The Legal Advisor explained that an informative was proposed which would address this issue.  He confirmed that any effect on a public right of way is a material consideration.

·  There is no Wellow Neighbourhood Plan.

Cllr Clarke stated that the development was on Green Belt land and that he did not feel that the proposal amounted to infill development.  The new property would overlook the bungalows in Manor Close.  He also expressed concern about the potential flood risk and land instability as the site sits on Fullers Earth.

Cllr Jackson moved that the application be refused for the following reasons:

·  The proposal does not constitute infill development and therefore amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. 

·  The design is inappropriate and does not reflect the context of the surrounding area.

·  Overdevelopment of the site.

·  The detrimental impact on the amenity of both the residents of Manor Close and any occupant of the new property.

She stated that the proposal would change the rural character of the area and expressed concern about the detrimental impact of the footpath crossing the development site.

Cllr Rigby seconded the motion.  She explained that, while she sympathised with the applicant and their reasons for wishing to build the property, she felt that there were clear planning reasons to refuse the application.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 8 votes in favour, 1 vote against and 1 abstention to REFUSE the application for the reasons set out above.