Agenda item

Main Plans List - Applications for Planning Permission Etc for Determination by the Committee

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

 

21/03907/FUL61 Warminster Road, Bathampton

 

21/04147/FULFrome House, Lower Bristol Road, Westmoreland, Bath

 

21/04507/FULProposed Café, 223 Trajectus Way, Keynsham

 

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

 

• 221/04626/FULAshfield, Stockwood Vale, Keynsham

 

21/05004/FUL - Clarkson House, 5 Great Stanhope Street, Kingsmead, Bath

 

 

Minutes:

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 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. 21/04147/FUL? 

Site Location: Frome House, Lower Bristol Road, Westmoreland, Bath 

Enlargement of Frome House and associated change of use from office (Use class E(g)) (Excluding existing ground floor tyre repair centre) to 66 student bedspaces and associated works 

 

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

 

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

 

The applicant spoke in favour of the application. 

 

Councillor June Player, local ward member, spoke against the application, she felt that office space is needed in this location and not more student accommodation. Student accommodation has just been built only 35 paces away, so even since the application, the neighborhood has changed and now put into context would have a more detrimental effect, especially as this application is built right up to the pavement. With narrow pavements in this area this will add to the hemmed in feeling already now present. Councillor Player requests the committee complete a site visit if this application is not rejected.

 

Councillor Dine Romero, local ward member, spoke against the application with concerns that the lack of parking on the site will cause a negative impact in neighboring roads. The proposed five story building will tower over people, and this will cause a loss of amenity in Albany Road. The constant noise from Bathwick Tyres and particulates coming from the business does not fit well with this development above. She supported Councillor Player in asking for a site visit if this is application is not rejected.

 

 

The Case Officer then responded to questions as follows: 

 

 

·  No marketing evidence of viability as office development has been provided by the applicant, but the officer assessment is that in principle the application complies with Policy E1B.

 

·  The Local Plan Partial Update topic paper for student accommodation shows a shortfall of 648 Purpose Built Student Accommodation places, and is a material consideration, but given limited weight in the officer’s report.

 

·  The Local Plan partial update has not yet been adopted so can only be given limited weight.

 

·  The principle of student accommodation is assessed against policy B5, for this application it is only part of the overall consideration when assessing the planning balance.

 

·  The scheme was considered by Officered to be acceptable in terms of building height policy; the Committee would have to make its own conclusion on appropriateness.

 

·  The student management plan has been included as a condition in the update report to address parking and refuse issues. If the committee permit the application, it would need to resolve to delegate to permit to add these conditions to the application.

 

Cllr Appleyard does not believe this application will free up any HMOs as he feels they make their own market, so no reduction will be seen. He is disappointed that the applicant, being a local business, is not aware of the domination of HMOs within the area. He feels that this application is opportunistic and is an application too far, putting student accommodation where no real need has been shown.

 

Cllr Jackson agrees with Cllr Appleyard, but would add poor quality design, loss of amenity for residents, loss of commercial job generation space, overdevelopment of the site, impact on the listed buildings, and harm to the world heritage site.

 

Cllr Appleyard proposed a motion to refuse the application seconded by Cllr Jackson for the following reasons:

 

·  Overdevelopment of the site.

·  Size and Impact.

·  Poor quality design.

·  Loss of amenity for residents.

·  Impact on listed buildings.

·  Harm to the world heritage site.

·  Loss of commercial job generating space.

·  Overprovision of student housing resulting in an inappropriate housing mix.

 

 

Cllr Clarke is not persuaded and agrees with officers’ professional judgement on the application. Students should be encouraged to come to the area. He has personal experience in other cities, where student accommodation can be used outside of term time, so would not necessarily have any fallow time, as it can be used for other uses outside of term time.

 

Cllr Bromley believes this site is not suitable for student accommodation, as particulates from the Lower Bristol Road and commercial operation below are not suitable for the accommodation above.

 

Cllr Hodge believes that the Georgian design is not right in this location. She also questioned if the policy around student accommodation (Policy B5) could be challenged if this application were refused as being contrary to policy (in principle) as she does not feel that student accommodation is required in this location.

 

Cllr MacFie has listened and agrees with the points raised by the speakers, especially Cllr Player and Cllr Romero and agrees that if this is not rejected a site visit would be needed.

 

Cllr Jackson felt that this is the wrong type of accommodation, Bath is hemorrhaging graduates as there is not the correct type of accommodation available for them.

 

Cllr Hounsell supported the motion to refuse as the build is completely incongruous in the street scene, as the design, overdevelopment and block look just does not fit here.

 

The motion to overturn the officer recommendation and refuse the application was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 8 votes in favour, 1 Against and 1 Abstention to REFUSE the application for the reasons set out above.

 

Item No. 2 

Application No. 21/04507/FUL? 

Site Location: Proposed Cafe, 223 Trajectus Way, Keynsham, Bath And North East Somerset. Erection of no. 4 dwellings (Use Class C3) and associated works. 

 

The Case Officer reported on the application and her recommendation to permit. She clarified that the recommendation was to delegate to permit subject to conditions and the prior completion of a planning obligation (which could be a unilateral undertaking or an agreement depending upon the view of the legal team).

 

The agent spoke in favour of the application. 

 

The Case Officer then responded to questions as follows: 

 

·  The original masterplan earmarked the site for mixed use, anticipated as a riverside cafe, but there is nothing to preclude this site from coming forward as another use in terms of planning policy.

 

·  The 1.3 pupil yield figure only considers primary age children.

 

·  No viability report was provided by the applicant for change of use of the site, but the application falls within policy.

 

·  Policy KE2a allowed for at least 700 dwellings at this site, 625 have been delivered so far and there are a further 135 under construction. In total the development has provided over 700 units (in excess of the policy requirement) however there is no cap restricting additional development.

 

·  This is a new application within the housing development area.

 

Cllr Clarke, as ward Councillor, stated that he has a lot of sympathy with residents as they feel promises from the developer regarding the riverside café have not been met. However, he could see no grounds for overturning the officer recommendation, as they have applied planning policies and there is no planning reason for refusing this application.

 

Cllr Appleyard feels it is not in our sphere of influence as to where the developer chooses to build the mixed use/retail units, as long as the overall requirements are met.

 

Cllr Hounsell believes there is a moral obligation for the developer to provide what they have advertised, even if not a planning consideration. He feels the developer need to take note of what the residents are saying but, as Cllr Clarke stated, there are no planning objections that apply in this case.

 

Cllr MacFie feels that profit has been put before residents, as the developer has not done what they committed to do under KE2a. Not to do so would tarnish them as a developer. He cannot support this application as it is a loss of an important community facility.

 

Cllr Davis stated that the committee need to look at the application and not what the committee would like the developer to have put in front of the committee.  This application must be taken on its merits only, and not on promises made outside of the planning process.

 

Cllr Davis moved the recommendation to delegate to permit and this was seconded by Cllr Clarke.

 

Cllr Jackson feels it is most regrettable that the developer has not done what was expected but does not feel the committee has sufficient grounds to refuse. A slight positive note is the increase in housing provision by the four properties.

 

Cllr Hughes asked how we can guarantee for any of our residents that the developers will provide what they have advertised, we need to hold them to account. Lessons need to be learnt going forward to make sure the wording of applications ensures that this cannot happen in the future, especially as in this case they have provided no justification for this change.

 

Cllr Craig feels it’s very regrettable there is no recourse in losing this community asset and agrees with Cllr Hughes that we need to find a way to stop this occurrence in the future.

 

Cllr Jackson asked for a condition regarding the lighting as highlighted by Natural England, and an arboricultural condition regarding tree planting.

 

The Planning Officer stated these restrictions are covered by conditions 12, 13, 14, 8 and 9.

 

The motion was put to the vote, and it was RESOLVED by 5 votes in favour, 4 Against, and 1 Abstention to delegate to PERMIT the application subject to the conditions set out in the report and the prior completion of the Section 106 agreement.

 

 

 

 

Item No. 3 

Application No. 221/04626/FUL? 

Site Location: Ashfield, Stockwood Vale, Keynsham, Bristol, Bath And North East Somerset. Proposed ridge height increase and dormer extension to provide further accommodation in roof. Installation of side balcony to master bedroom. 

 

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

 

The agent spoke in favour of the application. 

 

The Case Officer then responded to questions as follows: 

 

·  The previous extension created a 43% increase, with this application adding 50sq m it takes it over a 50% increase from the original size. What is currently proposed is around a 5-7% increase on the building size that is there now. The cumulative impact is over 50% and is based upon the size equivalent to the size of the property on the 1st of July 1948 as per current green belt policy.

 

·  The property has neighbours beside and behind and has fields across the road from the property. The road becomes less dense and more open and more sporadic as you travel west.

 

·  There are no objections from neighbours and the application is supported by the Town Council.

 

·  The previous application which increased it to the current 43% over the original property size was recommended for refusal by officers, as disproportionate development in the green belt, but was overturned at committee.

 

 

Cllr Clarke as ward Councillor stated he always finds it hard to go against officer recommendations, especially as this application falls within the greenbelt. He feels this application is quite marginal but would like to hear other members’ views.

 

Cllr Jackson asked about how this is treated under the NPPF - does this strengthen the officer’s recommendation?

 

The officer responded that the NPPF states development in the green belt is to be considered inappropriate. There are exceptions to what may be deemed inappropriate set out in the NPPF however where a proposal does not meet these exceptions the applicant is required to demonstrate very special circumstances. This application also needs to be assessed in relation to the Council’s SPD which states that extension in the green belt of about 1/3 the volume of the original dwelling may be acceptable.

 

Cllr Hughes stated that taken on its own specific merits, there is no change in the footprint, no change in height, it is not a historic building and there are no objections from neighbours or the town council. He felt that this application is only a small increase in size, so he has no real issue with this small alteration.

 

Cllr Hounsell disagrees with Cllr Hughes, as if we treat this application as an individual case, it weakens our policies overall, and even though he has sympathy with applicant he is still minded to agree with the officer recommendation.

 

Cllr Hodge agrees with Cllr Hounsell as the committee needs to be consistent with policy and this is an increase over what is acceptable, she felt that there were no special circumstances in this case.

 

Cllr Appleyard can’t see any special circumstances in this this case and thinks the officer has got it right, as the property has already been increased in size, to do so again would weaken the green belt policy.

 

Cllr Jackson moved to accept the officer recommendation and this was seconded by Cllr Appleyard.

 

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. 4 

Application No. 21/05004/FUL? 

Site Location: Clarkson House, 5 Great Stanhope Street, Kingsmead, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset Replacement of front windows from timber to uPVC. 

 

The Case Officer gave a verbal update on information provided by the applicant regarding the three curved corner windows. The applicant has stated that these could not be constructed using upvc, the corner curved windows would have to be constructed with timber frames. 

 

The officer stated that this building already has permission for replacement timber double glazed slim line windows.

 

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

 

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

 

The agent spoke in favour of the application. 

 

The Case Officer then responded to questions as follows: 

 

·  The Case Officer felt that the pattern and fenestration of the windows is important, as it matches the listed buildings close to the location. It is felt that this change within the existing setting of the conservation area would be very noticeable as the materials would be brighter, bulkier, and brasher. The application frames are thicker and have enclosed bars.

 

·  The officer agreed that the ventilation of listed buildings is very important but cannot comment on the difference between upvc or timber as she is not an expert. The site does have planning permission for timber slim line double glazed windows which would offer the same sort of energy efficiency.

 

·  According to the officer it is widely accepted that the upvc lifespan would be between 15-20 years. Normally with upvc the units would then have to be replaced in their entirety. In contrast a timber window can last more than 100 years. Both construction materials require maintenance but with regards to maintaining a timber window you can patch the window or repair in a more sustainable way without replacing the whole unit.

 

·  There is no specification in the current application, but there appears to be no real difference between the energy efficiency of the upvc windows and the slim line double glazed timber units. You do have to factor in the lifespan of the upvc as even though these may be cheaper initially to replace, they may require wholesale replacement, so over the whole lifetime the timber windows would appear to be more sustainable and at face value the energy efficiency of upvc is no better than the timber alternative already approved.

 

·  The corner curved windows would have to be wooden, and this in the officer’s opinion would highlight the difference in the materials.

 

 

 

 

Cllr Craig, ward Councillor, stated that the residents just want a better residential property to live in, that is warm and dry with potentially reduced cost. The current windows are in a poor state of disrepair. Cllr Craig feels this will probably be the first of many applications with the government asking for all landlords of residential accommodation to have increased energy efficiency in buildings.

 

Cllr Jackson proposed to accept the officer recommendation as stated in the report and this was seconded by Cllr Hodge.

 

Cllr Appleyard would vote against the proposal as he feels residents should have the best opportunity to heat their house as best as possible. The industry has stated that all upvc can be recycled and re-used up to ten times. He commented that wood needs continual maintenance whilst upvc does not. The industry also states that the corner windows can be created, but it may be that there is an increased cost element so that might be why this is not proposed in this application. There is a run of windows in this case and he feels that the average person would not notice the difference if there were inconsistency. He acknowledged that new regulations require triple vents to be fitted to upvc windows, this overcomes the issues highlighted by Cllr Jackson regarding issues caused due to poor ventilation.

 

Cllr Hodge felt that the need to replace upvc earlier and the associated costs may not help the residents in the future. The property due to its size and location does dominate the location and with the bright upvc it may look very striking and out of place.

 

Cllr Hounsell felt that on balance there is no proper science or figures either way for the different approaches, so based on the heritage aspect, he would support the officer recommendation.

 

Cllr Jackson felt that Cllr Appleyard has missed the point regarding the contrast that will be created as the corner windows would have to be different to the upvc.

 

 

The motion was put to the vote, and it was RESOLVED by 9 votes in favour and 1 Against to REFUSE the application for the reasons set out in the report. 

 

 


Supporting documents: