Agenda item

The following applications will be considered in the morning session (from 11am):

·  20/01474/FUL & 20/01475/LBA20 - Avon Road, Keynsham

·  20/03006/FUL - 81 Hillcrest Drive, Southdown, Bath

·  20/01794/FUL - Jubilee Centre, Lower Bristol Road, Twerton, Bath

The following applications will be considered in the afternoon session (from 2pm):

·  19/05534/FUL - Telecommunication Mast 54146, Woolley Lane, Charlcombe, Bath

·  20/00259/FUL - Homebase Ltd, Pines Way, Bath, BA2 3ET

·  19/05471/ERES - Western Riverside Development Area, Midland Road, Westmoreland, Bath

·  20/01765/FUL - Wansdyke Business Centre, Oldfield Lane, Oldfield Park, Bath

The Committee considered:

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

·  An update report by the Head of Planning on items 4 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 3 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 Nos. 1 and 2

Application Nos. 20/01474/FUL and 20/01475/LBA

Site Location: 20 Avon Road, Keynsham, BS31 1LJ – Erection of 2 storey side extension, removal of existing door and replacement and enlargement of existing dormer window and new conservation roof light to rear roof slope.

The Case Officer reported on the applications and her recommendation to refuse.

The applicant spoke in favour of the applications.

The Case Officer then responded to questions as follows:

·  The dwelling has a conservation roof light which is flush with the building.

·  The planning permission granted in 2005 has now expired and the NPPF changed in 2012.  The application must be considered under current policies.

·  There will be a new opening to create access and changes will only be made to external walls.

·  The applicant was aiming to create as much internal space as possible and this is why the window rim is so large.

·  The submitted design means that the dormer window is wider than the windows directly below.  The view of the Case Officer is that the dormer should not exceed the width of the window below and should represent the hierarchy of the building.

·  The modest enhancement to the building is not considered to outweigh the harm caused by the dormer window.

·  There would be no changes to the internal stairs.

Cllr MacFie felt that the proposal would improve the property and moved that the Committee delegate to permit the application.  This was seconded by Cllr Rigby.

Cllr Hounsell noted that personal circumstances have no bearing on the application.  He felt that, although the proposal would improve the property overall, the size of the dormer window which would cause harm to the listed building.

Cllr Hodge felt that the officer recommendation should be supported as the property is a listed building.

After hearing the debate, Cllr MacFie changed his motion, with the agreement of the seconder, to delegate to permit the application subject to the Case Officer securing the required width of the dormer window and surround as set out in the report.

If it was not possible to resolve the issue to the satisfaction of the Case Officer, then the application should be brought back to the Committee.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED unanimously to DELEGATE TO PERMIT the application subject to the size and design of the dormer window being resolved to the satisfaction of the Case Officer.

Item No. 3

Application No. 20/03006/FUL

Site Location: 81 Hillcrest Drive, Southdown, Bath, BA2 1HE – Creation of loft conversion and installation of rear dormer.

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

The applicant spoke in favour of the application.

Cllr Paul Crossley, local ward member, spoke in favour of the application.  He stated that the occupants need more space and that the proposal does not constitute a loss of local amenity.  There is already a diversity of roofscape in this area.  The proposal would improve and enhance the property.  The applicant has adjusted the design following discussions with planning officers and he felt that this was a good design.

The Case Officer then responded to questions as follows:

·  The proportions of the dormer window have been reduced by 1m but are still considered to be overly dominant.

·  The Deputy Head of Planning stated that the acceptable dimensions of the dormer window was a matter of planning judgement.  Considerations would be whether it is subservient, set into the roof, set down from the ridge line, not top heavy and relatively proportionate.

·  In this application the dormer window would be at the ridge line.

Cllr Jackson pointed out that the size of the dormer window was larger than the other windows in the house.  She also noted that personal circumstances cannot be taken into account when considering planning applications.

Cllr Craig felt that the dormer window was too large, and she moved that the Committee delegate to permit the application subject to finding an acceptable solution in line with policy.  This was seconded by Cllr MacFie.

Cllr Hounsell felt that the proposal was unacceptable due to its location on the ridge line, lack of subservience and incongruous appearance.

The Deputy Head of Planning advised the Committee that they should consider that application for determination as submitted rather than delegating to permit.

Cllr Craig then withdrew her motion with the agreement of the seconder.

Cllr Hounsell then moved the officer recommendation to refuse.  This was seconded by Cllr Rigby.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 7 votes in favour and 3 abstentions to REFUSE the application for the reasons set out in the report.

Item No. 4

Application No. 20/01794/FUL

Site Location: Jubilee Centre, Lower Bristol Road, Twerton, Bath – Mixed-use redevelopment of site for storage and distribution (Class B8) and erection of 121 units of purpose-built student accommodation (sui generis) following demolition of existing building and associated access and landscaping works.

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

A local resident spoke against the application.

The agent and prospective tenant spoke in favour of the application.

Cllr Sarah Moore, local ward member, spoke against the application.  She stated that there was too much student accommodation in this area.  She also expressed concern about parking in the locality which was already difficult.  The building was too high, and this would represent overdevelopment of the site.  Good quality homes for local residents were required.

The Case Officer then responded to questions as follows:

·  If the development were for C3 use, then this would require parking spaces. 

·  There would be a 1m balustrade along the boundary with the river and this had been designed with safety in mind.  It would be for the landowner to ensure that the site was safe for tenants and residents.

·  No viability assessment has been submitted regarding the demand for student accommodation.  There is demand for student accommodation in Bath, however, this location in a flood zone is considered to be unsuitable.

·  The drainage and flooding team are asked to comment on the infrastructure relating to the proposed development.  However, they do not comment on planning policy and the sequential tests which are required.  The application had failed these tests.

·  The key concern relating to this proposal is the student accommodation which would be located within a flood zone.  The position of the most vulnerable users of the building is the over-riding consideration including the provision of safe egress.

·  The enterprise zone for the Twerton/Newbridge area allows for more flexibility of use.

·  A marketing report was submitted with the application and B8 use is highly marketable.  It was confirmed that all the required viability information has been received.

·  Policy B5 of the Placemaking Plan relates to the location of student accommodation in the city.  In this case it is considered that, on balance, the provision of student accommodation in this area would not harm the vision of the spatial strategy and so this has not been included as a reason for refusal.

·  The proposal has been reduced to 4 storeys on the advice of the Conservation Team and it was now considered that there would be less than substantial harm to the nearby listed buildings in Rackfield Place.

Cllr Jackson stated that she felt there would be harm to the local character of the area, including listed buildings and that a tunnel effect would be created.  She moved the officer recommendation to refuse.  This was seconded by Cllr Clarke.

Cllr Craig supported the work of Mercy in Action but felt that the officer recommendation was correct noting the risk of flooding within this building.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED unanimously to REFUSE the application for the reasons set out in the report.

Item No. 5

Application No. 19/05471/ERES

Site Location: Western Riverside Development Area, Midland Road, Westmoreland, Bath – Approval of reserved matters pursuant to outline planning permission 06/01733/EOUT for the erection of 176 dwellings; retail/community space (Use Class A1/D1); access; parking; landscaping and associated infrastructure works following demolition of existing buildings and structures.

The Case Officer reported on the application and his recommendation to permit.  He gave a verbal update on views which have been submitted by Historic England stating that they consider the revised scheme to be an improvement.

The agent spoke in favour of the application.

The Case Officer then responded to questions as follows:

·  The materials to be used are rubble stone with metal cladding.  The only wooden part of the structure is limited to the internal courtyard and this must meet the necessary safety requirements.

·  There is no particular character of buildings in this area and the industrial design is felt to be appropriate.  No objections have been received from local residents.

·  There would be no student accommodation in this part of the Western Riverside development.  The affordable housing aspect of the development was dealt with at the outline stage.

·  The schedule for building is not a planning consideration.  Work is likely to begin by 2024 but this is for the developer to determine.

Cllr Craig stated that she liked the design but would prefer the red-brick to be a lighter shade.

Cllr Hodge stated that this development will obscure the views of open countryside from Victoria Park.  She then moved that consideration of the application be deferred pending a site visit to consider local distinctiveness and the impact of the development.  This was not seconded.

Cllr Davis then moved the officer recommendation to permit.  She noted that there was still some work to be carried out regarding materials but felt that the development would improve the area and reflected the industrial history of the site.  This was seconded by Cllr Jackson.

Cllr Hughes did not support the use of metal cladding.

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. 6

Application No. 20/01765/FUL

Site Location: Wansdyke Business Centre, Oldfield Lane, Oldfield Park, Bath – Erection of a 68-bed care home (Use Class C2) following demolition of the existing buildings and structures, with associated access, parking and landscaping.

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

A local resident spoke against the application.

The agent and a planning consultant spoke in favour of the application.

Cllr Shaun Stevenson-McGall spoke in favour of the application.  He stated that the development would provide employment opportunities.  He noted that there had been no objections from the statutory consultees.  Whilst he understood concerns regarding loss of industrial space, he stressed the need to value the care sector and the jobs it would create.  He felt that the location was suitable for this type of development.

The Case Officer then responded to questions as follows:

·  There are strong economic reasons for refusal.  Although the pandemic has changed the way people work there is still a need for this type of floor space.  This was supported by comments from the Economic Development Team.

·  This particular use was accepted in this location.  As the units are compact only smaller delivery vehicles would be parking in the area.

Cllr McCabe noted that the building had been run down for some time.

Cllr Jackson moved the officer recommendation to refuse.  She stated that the industrial site should be protected, and these types of premises were needed.  A nursing home would create parking problems in the area.  Cllr Hughes seconded the motion and supported the protection of the light industrial use.

Cllr Rigby stated that she was not aware of any pent-up demand for industrial use in this area.  She did not wish the building to remain in a run-down state.

Cllr Craig noted that traffic and parking was an issue in this area.

Cllr Davis highlighted the importance of providing jobs in this location and noted that there was not sufficient evidence to justify the loss of the current use.

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