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, 2 and 4 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. 19/03838/FUL

Site Location: Site of Former Ministry of Defence Offices, Warminster Road, Bathwick, Bath – Proposed construction of 42 new dwellings and 2 new blocks of apartments to provide a total of 70 new homes on part of the former MOD site at Warminster Road (revision to consented development).

The Case Officer reported on the application and his recommendation to delegate to permit.  He informed the Committee that the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contribution had been recalculated and is now £1,147,193.

The agent spoke in favour of the application.

Cllr Manda Rigby, local ward member on the Committee, stated that she was happy with the proposal to remove the overbearing blocks of flats and recognised that this would help the cashflow of the developers.  However, she was unhappy with the decrease in the provision of affordable housing.  The overall allocation should be 40% under current policies and under this proposal would result in only 15% for the site overall.  Building land is an issue in Bath and if the opportunity to build affordable housing on this site is lost then she queried where it would be built.  She was keen to see a mixed development on this site.  She also had concerns about the impact of the intrusive development on the world heritage site.  She also pointed out that the proposed allocation for visitor parking is less than required under the current policy.

Officers then responded to questions as follows:

·  This area of the site is closer to the city centre and the road becomes more rural as it leads out of the city.  There was a great deal of debate about the style of the buildings when the original consent was granted.  The development is now partly built in the proposed style.

·  The parking ratio would be 1.87 parking spaces per dwelling with 0.1 visitor spaces per dwelling.

·  The Legal Advisor confirmed that the Council’s discretion cannot be fettered by a Section 106 Agreement.

·  The Case Officer confirmed that the Council would prefer more affordable housing.  However, a commuted sum could be spent elsewhere on a site which offered more value for money.

·  An offer of 80% of open market value would not be an affordable product in Bath.  Phase 1 of the development delivered 61 dwellings, 29 of which were affordable.  This is higher than the 33% required and the developer has made contributions.

Councillor Rigby pointed out that if a number of high value properties were approved then this would bring down the percentage of affordable housing that was required.

Councillor Craig welcomed the change to remove the blocks of flats and noted that land availability is an issue in the area.  She noted that an overall figure of 15% affordable housing is much less than is required under the current policy.

The Case Officer advised members to consider the proposal in front of them and pointed out that cashflow is an issue for the developer.

Cllr Rigby then moved that permission be refused for the following reasons:

·  The low percentage of affordable housing which is contrary to policy.

·  The impact of the development on the world heritage site due to views from the valley and the urban nature of the design.

·  The allocation of visitor parking spaces is not policy compliant.

Cllr Craig seconded the motion.

Cllr Davis stated that she supported the officer recommendation for the reasons set out in the report.

Cllr Jackson had concerns about accepting such a reduction in the provision of affordable housing and the fact that this breached planning policies.  She also drew attention to the points raised by the Bath Preservation Trust in their submission.  She felt that the circumstances were not really exceptional because all developers will be affected by the Covid-19 epidemic.

Cllr Clarke noted that the developers had put forward a number of proposals that improved the development.  He pointed out that refusal could lead to an undeveloped site which would be detrimental to those people who had already purchased properties in the development.

The motion was then put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 6 votes in favour and 3 votes against to REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

·  The low percentage of affordable housing which is contrary to policy.

·  The impact of the development on the world heritage site due to views from the other side of the valley and the urban nature of the design on the edge of a rural area neither of which enhance the site.

·  The allocation of visitor parking spaces is not policy compliant.

Item No. 2

Application No. 19/04772/FUL

Site Location: Additional Development Area, Holburne Park, Bathwick, Bath – Proposed erection of 8 additional dwellings, landscaping, car parking and associated works on land adjacent to Holburne Park, Warminster Road, Bath.

The Case Officer reported on the application and his recommendation to delegate to permit.  He informed the Committee that the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contribution had been recalculated and is now £102,752.  An additional objection had been received relating to impacts on the residential amenity.

An objector spoke against the application.

The agent spoke in favour of the application.

Cllr Manda Rigby, ward member on the Committee, spoke against the application stating that the proposal was overbearing and did not enhance the area.  She also expressed regret that Bathwick St Mary’s Primary School could not have been extended to provide additional school places for those children living in the new development.

Cllr Jackson stated that she would like to see more details regarding the gradients of the site and moved that consideration of the application be deferred pending a site visit.  This was seconded by Cllr Craig.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 7 votes in favour, 1 vote against and 1 abstention to DEFER consideration of the application pending a SITE VISIT.

Item No. 3

Application No. 20/00395/RES

Site Location: Land between Homelands and 10 Camerton Hill, Camerton, Bath – Approval of reserved matters with regard to outline application 17/00299/OUT (Erection of 1 single-storey dwelling (Resubmission)).

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to permit.  She pointed out an amendment to the report – the raised plinth referred to would be 1.8m and not 18m.

The Chair read out a statement from the agent (who had registered to speak but been unable to join the virtual meeting) in favour of the application.

In response to a question the Case Officer explained that there is already a mix of different types and design of housing in this area.

Cllr Jackson stated that the proposed development would not be out of place and was suitable for this rural location.  She moved the officer recommendation to permit.  Cllr Clarke seconded the motion.

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.

Item No. 4

Application No. 20/01024/FUL

Site Location: 84 Triangle North, Oldfield Park, Bath, BA2 3JB – Erection of a two-storey rear extension following removal of existing extension.  Erection of a single-storey side extension to number 84 and single-storey rear extension to number 85.

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

A local resident spoke against the application.

Cllr June Player, local ward member, spoke against the application.  She stated that in this street only 3 properties are not HMOs.  This has led to an imbalanced community and the cumulative effect of these HMOs has a detrimental impact on the amenity of all residents.  Allowing even more occupants in this area will also cause problems when social distancing is required to avoid the spread of Covid-19.  Parking is also a problem in this area, which it is a busy road and bus route.  The proposal will not enhance the local environment.

Cllr Colin Blackburn, local ward member, supported both Councillor Player and the local resident’s comments.

The Case Officer then responded to comments as follows:

·  The properties are existing HMOs and are C4 use.

·  The two-storey extension to No.84 would be rebuilt on the existing footprint following the demolition of the existing extension. 

Cllr Davis stated that the application was policy compliant and moved the officer recommendation to permit.

Cllr Jackson seconded the motion and stated that the development would improve the appearance of the buildings.  She did not feel that there were any policy grounds for refusal.

The Chair expressed his concern at the high level of HMOs in this area.

The Deputy Head of Planning explained that the properties are existing HMOs and that there were no policy grounds on which to refuse.

Cllr Hodge sympathised with the views of the local resident and ward members and hoped that new policies could be agreed to prevent such a high density of HMO properties in the future.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 8 votes in favour and 1 abstention to PERMIT the application subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Item No. 5

Application No. 19/05519/FUL

Site Location: Avon Farm, Avon Lane, Saltford – Change of use of a former office building to a dwelling (Retrospective).

The Case Officer reported on the application and his recommendation to permit.  He informed the Committee that a further objection had been received which referred to the enforcement history of the site, impact on the Green Belt, and impact on conservation.

The agent spoke in favour of the application.

Cllr Alastair Singleton, local ward member, spoke against the application.  He stated that this was a Green Belt location and that holiday lets on the site were being advertised as available even though they had not been granted planning permission.  This could potentially lead to over 40 people being on the site.  He believed that the holiday lets would not be granted planning permission.  He felt that the application represented over development and did not conform to planning policies.  He stated that this was an unsustainable location and that the access was an issue.  He asked the committee to refuse this application on the following planning grounds –the possible contravention of policy RE6 point 7, overdevelopment of the site, and being contrary to policies ST1 and ST7.

The Officers then responded to questions as follows:

·  The application had been assessed as though it was an office rather than a storage area.  Policy RE6 does not categorise the former use of a building.

·  The Committee is being asked to consider an application for this particular unit.  The Deputy Head of Planning clarified that building elsewhere on the site provided some context but the fallback position is also relevant.  The building could be used as an office and the highways impact could diminish rather than increase.

·  The Deputy Head of Planning explained that planning history is a material consideration, however, in this case, it has no bearing on the proposal.

·  Saltford currently has no Local Plan in place.

Cllr Davis understood the concerns of local residents but felt that the application should be approved.  She moved the officer recommendation to permit.

Cllr Clarke seconded the motion noting that, if the building was used as an office this would lessen any highways concerns.

The motion was put to the vote and there were 4 votes in favour and 5 votes against.  The motion was therefore LOST.

Councillor Rigby then moved that the application be refused for the reasons set out in the highway officer’s objections.  This was seconded by Cllr Hodge.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 5 votes in favour, 2 votes against and 2 abstentions to REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

·  The site is in an unsustainable location contrary to Placemaking Plan Policy ST1.

·  The proposals do not demonstrate that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people contrary to Placemaking Plan Policy ST7.