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 3, 4, 5 and 6 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. 20/00861/FUL

Site Location: 231 Wellsway, Bath, BA2 4RZ – Change of use from residential dwelling (Use Class C3) to HMO (Use Class C4)

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

A local resident spoke against the application.

The applicant spoke in favour of the application.

Cllr Winston Duguid spoke against the application.  He raised concerns regarding an increase in noise due to higher density and loss of a bungalow to student accommodation.  He queried the need for more student accommodation in Bath at a time when student numbers are not likely to increase.

Officers then responded to questions as follows:

·  The Case Officer confirmed that the residents of the HMO would not necessarily be students.  The Use Class C4 related to three or more unrelated individuals.  A further application would be required if the applicant wished to increase the number of occupants to seven or more.

·  Whilst the B&NES policy does not specify space standards, this application does meet national space standards.

·  The area is outside of the saturated area for HMO properties and meets Tests 1 and 2 of the Supplementary Planning Document relating to HMOs.

Cllr Davis stated noted that the applicants had reduced the number of bedrooms requested from 7 to 4.  She also noted that the access to the bungalow was very steep and not particularly suitable for older people.  She moved the officer recommendation to permit.  This was seconded by Cllr Clarke.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 6 votes in favour, 2 votes against and 2 abstentions to PERMIT the application subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Item No. 2

Application No. 20/00257/FUL

Site Location: Land between Three Gables and Payson’s Croft, Church Lane, Bishop Sutton – Erection of dwelling

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

A local resident spoke against the application.

Cllr Vic Pritchard, local ward member, spoke against the application.  He felt that the application was in conflict with the local Neighbourhood Plan.  He stated that there were a number of sensitive issues and inconsistencies within the proposal and asked the Committee to refuse the application.

The Case Officer then responded to questions as follows:

·  The area is of a mixed character with an altering building line.  The property is slightly set back.

·  The site is considered to be within the definition of infill development.

Cllr Davis noted that a number of revisions have been made to the original plans.  She then moved the officer recommendation to permit.  This was seconded by Cllr Jackson.

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

Item No. 3

Application No. 20/01337/FUL

Site Location: Lambrook Barn, Deadmill Lane, Lower Swainswick, Bath, BA1 8DE – Erection of single storey extension

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to permit.  In response to a question she explained that the new extension would have a flat roof and that there was already some timber cladding on the building.  The impact on the street scene would be minimal.

Cllr Rigby moved the officer recommendation to permit.  This was seconded by Cllr Davis. 

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

Item No. 4

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.

A local resident spoke against the application.

Cllr Liz Hardman, local ward member, spoke against the application.  She raised concerns regarding disruption of the street scene due to all other houses in this street being semi-detached.  She also raised concerns at the lack of parking provision in an already busy road.  She pointed out that Paulton Parish Council strongly opposed the application.

Officers then responded to questions as follows:

·  The Highways Officer confirmed that he had visited the site in June and had not seen any particular parking issues.  He confirmed that vehicles currently reverse onto the road from this site and that this is not prejudicial to highway safety.  He also explained that the new owner purchased the site in February 2020 and that, since then, the parking area had only been available to them.  This meant that any displacement of parking had already occurred and so would not be affected by this application.

·  The Case Officer confirmed that there were no concerns regarding the design of the new dwelling.

·  The total floor area is 108sqm.

·  The Team Manager, Development Management, informed the Committee that there is currently no finalised Neighbourhood Plan for Paulton but one is being produced.

·  The Case Officer explained that the new property would be positioned slightly lower than 9B Tennis Court Avenue and that this would prevent overlooking.  She stated that the application is policy compliant.

Cllr Clarke felt that a house in this location would be more attractive than the existing garages.

Cllr Rigby stated that she did not know the area and moved that a site visit take place to enable the Committee to better understand the concerns raised.  Cllr Hodge seconded the motion.

Cllr Hounsell stated that it was important to fully understand the street scene and noted that all other matters appeared to be policy compliant.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 8 votes in favour, 1 vote against and 1 abstention to DEFER consideration of the application pending a SITE VISIT.

(Note: At this point Cllrs MacFie, McCabe and Rigby left the meeting having declared interests in the following application.  The Vice-Chair, Cllr Sally Davis then took the Chair).

Item No. 5 and 6

Application Nos. 20/01690/VAR and 20/01689/VAR

Site Location: Liberal Democrats, 31 James Street West, Bath – Variation of conditions 3 (construction management plan) and 7 (Plans List) of application 20/00098/FUL (External works including an external lift to the front elevation, construction of a rear extension and internal ground floor renovation works to increase accessibility (Resubmission of 19/04523/FUL).  Variation of conditions 6 (Archaeological watching brief) and 7 (Plans List) of application 20/00099/LBA (External works including an external lift to the front elevation, construction of a rear extension and internal ground floor renovation works to increase accessibility (Resubmission 19/04330/LBA).

The Case Officer reported on the applications and her recommendations to permit and to grant listed building consent.  She drew members’ attention to the matters in the update report.

Cllr Jackson stated that the variations to the conditions were an improvement on the previous applications and moved the officer recommendations to permit and grant listed building consent.  This was seconded by Cllr Clarke.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED unanimously to PERMIT application no. 20/01690/VAR and to grant listed building CONSENT to application number 20/01689/VAR.

(Note: At this point Cllrs MacFie, McCabe and Rigby returned to the meeting and Cllr McCabe resumed the Chair).

Item No. 7

Application No. 20/00782/FUL

Site Location: 51 Lymore Avenue, Twerton, Bath, BA2 1BB – Provision of a loft conversion and erection of hip to gable and rear dormer extension.

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

The applicant spoke in favour of the application.

Cllr Paul Crossley, local ward member, spoke in favour of the application.  He pointed out that 34 letters of local support for the application had been received and only 1 objection.  The applicant had discussed his proposals with his neighbours, and they supported him.  The retrospective nature of the application had been a genuine mistake.  He stated that the proposal would give the family the extra space they need and would not be harmful to the local area as there are already a mix of different properties.

The Case Officer then responded to questions as follows:

·  The site is not in a Conservation Area but is within the World Heritage Site.

·  There are various different roof forms in the area.

Cllr Rigby noted that the retrospective aspect of this application had no bearing on the decision of the Committee.  She did not feel that the proposal would be harmful to the local area and moved that the application be delegated to officers to permit.

Cllr Jackson seconded the motion and noted that the hip would be to the side and not to the front or rear of the property.

Cllr Davis supported the motion as she felt the application did reflect the character of the area and would not be detrimental.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED unanimously to DELEGATE TO PERMIT the application as the application is not harmful or detrimental to the character of the area.

(Note: At this point Cllr Duncan Hounsell left the meeting having declared an interest in the following application).

Item No. 8

Application No. 20/01119/FUL

Site Location: 31 Torridge Road, Keynsham, BS31 1QQ – Erection of a detached bungalow (Resubmission).

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

The agent spoke in favour of the application.

The officers responded to questions as follows:

·  The Legal Advisor stated that the Committee should not rely on restrictive covenants and should secure any requirements either by a S106 Agreement or through planning conditions.

·  The Case Officer confirmed that some trees were removed from the site last year.  The trees were not protected by a Tree Preservation Order and are not in a Conservation Area and so no permission to remove them was required.  Additional planting could be requested if required to compensate for the trees that have been removed.

·  The Highways Officer confirmed that there is room for vehicles to manoeuvre and that some amendments have been made to the site access to facilitate this.

·  A mix of housing is supported in this area.

·  Permitted Development Rights for the property would remain in place and would be quite wide-ranging.  This would allow development such as a dormer or loft conversion.  The Legal Advisor informed the Committee that sound planning reasons would be required to remove existing permitted development rights.

·  The wall is not listed and the property is not in a Conservation Area.

Cllr MacFie felt that the proposal would be detrimental to the amenity of the existing properties as their outlook would be reduced.  This would also affect the outlook across the roofscape with loss of trees and a garden view.  He also expressed concerns about the tight access to the property.

Cllr Davis pointed out that the applicant has made changes to the original application reducing the development to one bungalow and moving the parking area.

Cllr Clarke was disappointed at the removal of mature trees but acknowledged that permission was not required to do this.  More dwellings were required in the area and overall, he found the objections to the application quite weak.

Cllr Rigby felt that the loss of amenity to local residents was significant and included a loss of openness.

Cllrs Hodge and Craig expressed concern at the loss of green infrastructure.

Cllr McCabe stated that the impact on amenity was substantial and that any further development, resulting in a two-storey property, would increase this impact.

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

·  Loss of amenity.

·  Loss of openness.

·  Loss of green infrastructure.

 This was seconded by Cllr Rigby.

Cllr Jackson felt that the bungalow would be too close to the boundary of Walden Road and would also have ecological implications.

The Team Manager, Development Management, clarified the reasons for refusal confirming that the Committee was concerned about the loss of the spacious character of the area (Policy D7), the development being contrary and harmful to residential amenity, and contrary to the Placemaking Plan due to loss of green infrastructure.  The mover and seconder of the motion agreed to delegate to officers to refuse the application for the reasons outlined above.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 7 votes in favour and 2 votes against to DELEGATE TO REFUSE the application for the reasons set out above.

(Note: At this point Cllr Duncan Hounsell returned to the meeting).

(Note: At this point Cllr Sue Craig left the meeting having declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in the following item).

Item No. 9

Application No. 20/00006/LBA

Site Location: 21 Victoria Buildings, Westmoreland, Bath, BA2 3EH - Installation of secondary glazing to all windows.

The Case Officer reported on the application and his recommendation to grant listed building consent.

Cllr Jackson moved the officer recommendation to grant listed building consent.  This was seconded by Cllr Rigby.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED unanimously to grant listed building CONSENT subject to the conditions set out in the report.

(Note: At this point Cllr Sue Craig returned to the meeting).

Item No. 10

Application No. 20/01399/FUL

Site Location: New Leaf Farm, Mill Lane, Bathampton, Bath – Erection of agricultural storage building.

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

A representative from the Bath Preservation Trust spoke against the application.

The Case Officer responded to questions as follows:

·  Enforcement action is being undertaken separately regarding the removal of the unauthorised static caravan.  However, no enforcement notice has been served.

·  Although other buildings on the site could be used for agricultural storage, the applicant is still permitted to apply to erect another building for agricultural purposes.

·  The farm is a working farm primarily dealing with cattle, but the applicants are diversifying.

·  The materials to be used would be corrugated steel (dark grey) for the roof and Yorkshire timber cladding.

·  The issues raised by the Bath Preservation Trust are addressed to some extent in the officer recommendation.  The applicant would have to submit a further application for any future change of use.

·  The building would be at the end of a long access track and would have minimal impact from Mill Lane.  It is not adjacent to a public highway or footpath.

Councillor Hounsell moved the officer recommendation to permit.  This was seconded by Cllr Davis.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 7 votes in favour and 3 votes against to PERMIT the application subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Item No. 11

Application No. 20/01249/FUL

Site Location: The Coach House, College Road, Lansdown, Bath – Erection of rear and side extension.

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

A neighbour and a representative of local residents spoke against the application.

The agent spoke in favour of the application.

Cllr Lucy Hodge, local ward member, spoke against the application.  She outlined the history of the site and explained that the building has been substantially extended.  It has now reached the point of overdevelopment.  If permission were granted, then the footprint of The Coach House would exceed that of the main building.  The area is characterised by large family homes with no back-land development.  The proposal would be at odds with the historic layout and the building has reached the limit of its development.

Cllr Mark Elliott, local ward member, spoke against the application.  He explained that there is no room for vehicles to turn on this plot and that traffic has already increased in this area.  The overdevelopment would also cause overlooking.  The development could also set a precedent in this Conservation Area and would lead to loss of amenity and of green space.  A mix of properties should be maintained, and this represents overdevelopment on a back-land site.

Cllr Hodge summed up by stating that the proposal is contrary to policies D7, HE1 and BD1, does not contribute positively to the area and is detrimental to the amenities of local residents.

The Case Officer then responded to questions as follows:

·  The proposal would represent a 43% increase in floor space.

·  The shed is located at the side of the property.

·  The Highways Officer explained that he had visited the site in June and, while he appreciated that it is not ideal to have to reverse out of the site this is already the current situation.

·  The building is not listed.

·  The two-storey element to the proposal is smaller than the proposal put forward in 2003 and is at the rear of the property.

Cllr Jackson stated that the size of the building had been greatly increased.  She noted its impact on the main house and felt that it should be a subservient building.

Cllr Rigby moved that the application be refused on the following grounds:

·  The Coach House should be ancillary to the main building and this development would make it in competition with the main building.

·  The proposal does not preserve or enhance the Conservation Area, contrary to policies HE1 and D4.

·  The proposal exacerbates existing highway/traffic problems.

·  Loss of amenity due to overdevelopment of the site and overlooking contrary to Policy D6.

Cllr Jackson seconded the motion.  She stressed the unacceptable loss of amenity.

The Team Manager, Development Management, cautioned against the use of a highways reason for refusal as there is no clear evidence that there would be an increase in vehicles reversing onto the highway.  He also explained that officers did not feel that overlooking would increase as a result of the application.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 7 votes in favour, 1 vote against and 1 abstention to REFUSE the application for the reasons set out above.