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 Committee’s delegated powers, the applications be determined as set out in the decisions list attached as Appendix 3 to these minutes.

Note: At this point Cllr Sue Craig left the meeting having declared an interest in the following application.  Cllr Sally Davis took the Chair.

Item No. 1

Application No. 20/03166/FUL

Site Location: Regency Laundry Service, Lower Bristol Road, Westmoreland, Bath – Erection of two buildings of up to 4 storeys comprising co-living accommodation with co-working space to the ground floor, alongside landscaping works, cycle parking and disabled car parking bays following demolition of existing buildings.

The Case Officer reported on the application and his recommendation to refuse.  He explained that the arrangements for the payment of Council Tax by future residents of the accommodation are not a planning matter or a material consideration.

A local resident spoke against the application.

The agent spoke in favour of the application.

Cllr June Player spoke against the application.  She expressed concern regarding the adverse effect of the large bulky buildings on residential amenity, in particular, for the residents of St Peter’s Place.  She also expressed concern about the adverse impact on the character of the area.  She stated that the arrangements for parking and cycling is not acceptable and the height of the proposed buildings would lead to loss of light and overlooking.  The quality and design of the buildings are not appropriate and there are parking and highway safety concerns.

Cllr Colin Blackburn spoke in favour of the application.  He felt that the provision of accommodation for professionals wanting to house share is needed in Bath.  He felt that the scheme is positive and of high quality.  The site is no longer suitable for commercial use and he stated that the focus should be on residential accommodation in this location.

The Case Officer then responded to questions as follows:

·  There would be a lift in the building.

·  There would be some larger accessible studios which would be suitable for disabled people. 

·  There would be a drop-off area in front of the building.

·  The employment space available in Bath is largely office space rather than industrial.  There is only about a 1% vacancy rate for industrial premises. No evidence has been provided by the applicant that they have advertised the site for industrial use within the last 12 months.

·  It was confirmed that the rental would be approximately £220 per week for the studio accommodation with shared facilities.

·  There would be two parking bays, one for disabled parking and one for a car share vehicle.  There would be no visitor parking.  There is on street parking to the west of the site.  The site is very close to the city centre and is aimed at young professionals.

·  The level of parking provision is a planning consideration.  The current parking policy has no specified parking standard for co-living accommodation. 

·  If the accommodation comprised self-contained flats, then about 75-80 parking spaces would be required.

·  The affordable housing element of the scheme would be secured by a section 106 agreement which would be in perpetuity.  The applicant could appeal this after five years but would have to provide strong reasons why this was no longer appropriate.  The Council would be able to nominate tenants through its housing team.

·  Lighting levels are considered to be reasonable in this high-density area.

·  There would be six charging points for electric bicycles and cycle parking within the scheme.

Cllr Crossley stated that digital employment space is now required, and that the development is in line with future employment practice.  He noted that property in Bath is very expensive and that this would provide 100% residential accommodation rather than student accommodation.  He felt that the developer has listened to both residents and councillors.  The accommodation would be suitable for young people and is in a sustainable location.  It would encourage graduate retention and help local employers.  Council tax will be payable and there is also 20% affordable housing.  The green credentials of the building are good, and it will meet both housing and carbon reduction goals.

Cllr Crossley then moved that the Committee delegate to permit the application.  This was seconded by Cllr Clarke.

Cllr Jackson stated that people need jobs and felt that this proposal does not meet the need for cheaper accommodation.  She did not feel that the committee should go against the policy regarding employment zones.  The premises have not been marketed for a year.  She also felt that the design should complement the surroundings and that there would be a loss of amenity for local residents.

Cllr MacFie felt that the applicants have not proved that there is no requirement for industrial use in the area as required by the policy.

Cllr Hounsell felt that the application is premature because the necessary marketing has not yet taken place.

Cllr Hughes felt that more diverse industry is required in the area and he had concerns regarding this type of development which could generate a high turnover of tenants.

Cllr Hodge noted that the site is ring-fenced for industrial use and should be used to provide jobs and employment for the future. 

The motion was then put to the vote and there were 3 votes in favour of the motion and 7 votes against.  The motion was therefore LOST.

Cllr Jackson then moved the officer recommendation to refuse.  This was seconded by Cllr Hodge.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 5 votes in favour, 3 votes against and 1 abstention to REFUSE the application for the reasons set out in the report.

Note: At this point Cllr Sue Craig returned to the meeting and resumed the Chair.