Agenda item

Site Visit List - Applications for Planning Permission Etc for Determination by the Committee

The site visit applications will be considered in the afternoon session of the meeting (after 2pm).

Minutes:

The Committee considered:

 

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

 

·  Update reports by the Head of Planning attached as Appendices 1 and 2 to these minutes.

 

·  Oral statements by members of the public and representatives.  A copy of the speakers’ list is attached as Appendix 3 to these minutes.

 

RESOLVED that in accordance with the Committee’s delegated powers, the applications be determined as set out in the decisions list attached as Appendix 4 to these minutes.

 

(Note: At this point Cllr Sally Davis, Vice-Chair, took the chair as Cllr Matt McCabe had declared an interest in the following application).

 

Item No. 1

Application No. 19/05534/FUL

Site Location: Telecommunication Mast 54146, Woolley Lane, Charlcombe, Bath – Erection of 20-metre-high telecommunications monopole accommodating 6 antenna apertures, 4 transmission dishes and 8 ground-based equipment cabinets.

 

The Case Officer reported on the application and his recommendation to permit.  He informed the Committee that additional representations had been received regarding health and safety concerns but that no new issues had been raised.

 

Two local residents and a representative from the Bath Preservation Trust spoke against the application.

 

The agent spoke in favour of the application.

 

Cllr Sarah Warren, local ward member, spoke against the application.  She highlighted the duty of the Committee to prevent harm.  She stated that some research showed that 5G can have an adverse effect on health.  Electromagnetic pollution could also cause environmental harm.  There was real concern from local residents regarding the effect of the 5G mast and she felt that the Committee should be cautious about approving the application.

 

Cllr Kevin Guy, local ward member, spoke against the application.  He noted that an exclusion zone was required for areas with high levels of radiation.  He pointed out that the mast would be close to a nursery school and community hall and that it would be irresponsible to approve the application.

 

The Case Officer then responded to questions as follows:

 

·  Health concerns are a material consideration, however, the NPPF guidance is clear on this issue.  To go against these guidelines would be going against national planning policy.  The applicant has submitted a certificate of compliance with the ICNIRP public exposure guidelines.  The key issues for the Committee to consider are visual impact, greenbelt policies, trees and ecology issues.  Any refusal on health grounds would be in clear contravention of planning policy.

·  The Legal Advisor explained that the NPPF is a material consideration for the Committee, but the weight given to material considerations is a matter for the Committee, as decision maker, to determine.

·  The ecologist has not objected to the application and there is no consensus about the effect of 5G on bat populations.  The site is currently in use for 4G with no evidence of any adverse effects.

·  There is no requirement for an exclusion zone to form part of the application.  This is covered by different legislation and is not a planning consideration.

·  Alternatives have not been considered at this stage because the site is already in use and meets coverage requirements.  The mast would be less intrusive than a completely new mast in the greenbelt and so no other sites have been identified.  If the mast were to be used by a combination of operators, then it would have to be larger which would result in a bigger impact.  It is considered that there are very special circumstances to permit this development in the greenbelt.

·  Councillors should consider the proposal in front of them as predictions regarding future applications cannot be made.

·  The trees on the site are not protected, however, a condition could be included to retain them for a period of time if the Committee felt this was necessary.

·  The proposed mast would be taller than the existing mast and would be 6.5m high and 3.5m wide.  The additional height is in the mast head.

 

Cllr Jackson moved the officer recommendation to permit the application.  She felt that the NPPF was very clear and that, despite some harm to the natural landscape, the public benefits of 5G are obvious.

 

Cllr Hounsell seconded the motion stating that he was satisfied regarding the safety of 5G from a health perspective.  The mast would provide benefits to the rural business sector.  It was also sensible to use the existing site instead of identifying a new one.

 

Cllr Hodge stated that local people also objected on the grounds of visual impact and inappropriate development in the greenbelt.  She felt that the benefits of the proposal did not outweigh the negative aspects.

 

Cllr MacFie stated that he would like to see more evidence regarding precautionary work and would prefer the mast to be located further away from populated areas.

 

The Deputy Head of Planning advised that, although the Committee could give weight to the health aspects of the application, given that the applicant has supplied the required certification, if it were refused on health grounds, at appeal the applicant would be able to demonstrate compliance with guidelines and the Council would need its own evidence to weigh against that, and there is none that it could provide.

 

The motion was then put to the vote and there were 3 votes in favour and 6 votes against.  The motion was therefore lost.

 

Cllr Craig then moved that the application be refused as it represented inappropriate development in the greenbelt as it was too large.  It also had an adverse visual impact on the AONB and landscape.  This was seconded by Cllr Rigby.

 

The motion was 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:

 

·  Inappropriate development in the greenbelt.

·  Visual impact on the AONB and landscape.

 

(Note: Having declared an interest in the above application Cllr Matt McCabe did not speak or vote on this item).

 

(Note: At this point Cllr Matt McCabe resumed the Chair).

 

Item No. 2

Application No. 20/00259/FUL

Site Location: Homebase Ltd, Pines Way, Westmoreland, Bath – Redevelopment of the site to provide a new care community (Use Class C2) comprising care residences and care suites and ancillary communal, care and well-being facilities, offices in Use Class E(g)(i) together with associated back of house and service areas, pedestrian and vehicular access, car and cycle parking, landscaping, private amenity space and public open space.

 

The Case Officer reported on the application and his recommendation to delegate to permit.  He informed the Committee that Sainsbury’s had now withdrawn their objections.  He also explained that a noise limit condition was now recommended and that any references in the report to Albert “Terrace” should read Albert “Crescent”.

 

Two local residents and a representative from Bath Preservation Trust spoke against the application.

 

The applicant’s representative spoke in favour of the application.

 

Cllr Shaun Stevenson-McGall, local ward member, spoke in favour of the application.  He noted that the proposal was based on scientific research and aimed to address loneliness experienced by older people and to improve the quality of life for residents.  The developer has engaged with the local community and the proposal conforms to policy SP7.  There would be a net increase of trees on the site and enhancement to wildlife protection.  He felt that the development would bring wider public benefit along with social and economic benefits for the local area.

 

Cllr June Player spoke against the application.  She pointed out the lack of affordable housing provision and the loss of 82 affordable homes on the site if the application were approved.  She felt that the design was too tall and too dense and that it would have a negative effect on residents in Albert Crescent and Norfolk Crescent.  She also drew attention to the comments from the statutory consultees, including the Conservation Officer, who had expressed concerns.

 

Officers then responded to questions as follows:

 

·  The Bath Building Height Strategy allows for six-storey buildings on gateway sites and mixed-use sites subject to consideration of the impact. 

·  If this were a C3 development, then 30% affordable housing would be required, subject to viability, but as this is a C2 development the requirement does not apply.  The site is allocated for certain uses and this application does not compromise other parts of the development.

·  The minimum age of residents would be 65 years (excluding spouses).

·  The site is an allocated site and there is an element of flood risk.  However, the proposed mitigation measures are considered to be acceptable.

·  It is acknowledged that there would be some impact on the residents of Albert Crescent.

·  There are no buildings close by that are built of brick.

·  The majority of plant would be moved to the basement to lower the height of the development.  Flood risk measures would be secured by condition.

·  The majority of plant in buildings A and B would be in the basement with some on the outside of the buildings.  An additional condition is recommended regarding noise limits.  There would be no control over when equipment can be used as this is a 24-hour facility.

·  There is no viability aspect that is material to this application.

·  There would be 136 parking spaces in the car park with 16 at street level.  This would represent 0.47 spaces per dwelling and evidence shows that for this type of resident, car ownership tends to be lower than average.  Visitor parking would be available and is controlled within time limits.  An impact study has found this to be acceptable.

·  It was acknowledged that there will be an adverse impact on the southernmost dwelling in Albert Crescent.

·  Whilst it is recognised that there will be some harm to residential amenity this has to be balanced against the public benefit of the development.

·  Whether there is a market for this type of development is not a planning consideration.

·  Most of the trees on the site would be felled but these were mainly low-quality trees.  Quite significant replacement planting would then take place to compensate for this loss.  This would not constitute a reason for refusal.

·  A qualifying care assessment would be required as part of the s106 agreement along with the necessary age requirement to become a resident.  A minimum level of 2.5 hours of care would be provided.

 

 

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

 

·  Unacceptable design in this location.

·  Impact on the World Heritage Site and Conservation Area.

·  Inappropriate materials.

·  Inadequate parking arrangements.

 

She felt that the quality of design was not acceptable in this location and also had concerns relating to the landscaping and tree planting.

 

Cllr Rigby seconded the motion.  Whilst she supported the idea of a guild she had concerns regarding the scale, size and massing of this development.  She also felt that the car parking provision was insufficient.  She stressed the need for affordable housing and had concerns that this could be lost for this part of the site.

 

Cllr Davis stated that the application had been through a long negotiation process and that she supported the views of the case officer and local ward member.  The application was in line with planning policies.

 

Cllr Hounsell was concerned regarding the six-storey element of the proposal and also felt that the application was contrary to Policy D6 relating to loss of amenity to residents in Albert Crescent.

 

Cllr Hodge felt that the main issues related to the scale, height and mass of the proposal.  She also felt that more green space should be provided.

 

Cllr Craig supported the principle of C2 development but had concerns regarding the loss of affordable housing on this site.  She felt that the design for this part of Bath should be considered in a more holistic manner.  She also expressed concerns regarding residential amenity relating to height, privacy and shade.

 

Cllr MacFie drew attention to the comments from a number of the consultees and felt that the application was along the right lines but not acceptable in its current form.  Height was an issue.

 

Cllr Rigby requested that an additional reason for refusal should be added relating to lack of affordable housing, as the overall allocation would be lost.  This proposal was not accepted and therefore Cllr Rigby withdrew her seconding of the motion.

 

Cllr Hounsell then seconded the motion to refuse as proposed by Cllr Jackson.

 

The Deputy Head of Planning explained that the role of consultees is to give advice.  There was nothing in the policies to prevent C2 use from coming forward for consideration.  There was no policy which could be used to refuse the application on the grounds of lack of affordable housing.

 

The case officer agreed to provide a further explanation to the Committee regarding Policy SP7 and the issues raised as a general matter in the future.

 

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

 

·  Inappropriate design due to scale, height, bulk and massing.

·  Inappropriate materials in this location.

·  Inadequate parking.

·  Lack of green infrastructure, loss of trees and lack of landscaping leading to loss of ecology.

·  Adverse effect on the amenity of local residents including overlooking and loss of privacy.

·  Adverse impact on the World Heritage Site.

Supporting documents: