Agenda item

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

•  21/05528/VAR - Bath Rugby Club, Bath Recreation Ground, Pulteney Mews, Bathwick

•  21/05529/VAR - Bath Rugby Club, Bath Recreation Ground, Pulteney Mews, Bathwick

•  21/05530/VAR- Bath Rugby Club, Bath Recreation Ground, Pulteney Mews, Bathwick

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

•  21/03682/FUL - Church Farm, Church Lane, Priston

•  21/03965/FUL - Manor House, Watery Lane, Burnett

•  21/03966/LBA - Manor House, Watery Lane, Burnett

•  21/05364/FUL - 16 Broadlands Avenue, Keynsham

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 Main decisions list attached as Appendix 4 to these minutes. 

Items 1,2 and 3

Item No. 1 

Application No. 21/05528/VAR

Site Location: Bath Rugby Club, Bath Recreation Ground, Pulteney Mews, Bathwick, Bath Variation of condition 1 of application 20/00135/VAR (Variation of conditions 1 and 2 of application 17/01637/FUL to allow the stands and related development to remain in situ for a further 2 years (until 30th May 2022) and the retention of the east stand during summer 2020 (Erection of temporary spectator stand along the eastern side of the playing field including associated works and ancillary facilities comprising floodlighting, toilets, food and bar facilities within structure. (Amended location 3 metres to the east of stand granted planning permission 12th February 2016 (LPA ref. 15/05237/FUL). Structure and capacity to remain as approved.))). 

Item No. 2 

Application No. 21/05529/VAR

Site Location: Bath Rugby Club, Bath Recreation Ground, Pulteney Mews, Bathwick, Bath Variation of condition 1 of application 20/00136/VAR (Variation of condition 1 of application 15/05235/FUL to allow the stands and related development to remain in situ for a further 2 years (until 30th May 2022) (Part demolition of existing permanent West Stand (retaining rear wall and concrete slab) together with terraces in north west corner of the site and removal of existing temporary stands and seating; erection of temporary covered West Stand and seating, including camera gantry, uncovered seating and associated works and ancillary facilities including retention of existing floodlighting, erection of boundary fence with new access gates onto riverside path, provision of toilets and food and bar facilities within temporary stand (temporary application for a period of up to four years).)).

Item No. 3 

Application No. 21/05530/VAR

Site Location: Bath Rugby Club, Bath Recreation Ground, Pulteney Mews, Bathwick, Bath Variation of condition 1 of application 20/00137/VAR (Variation of condition 1 of application 15/05237/FUL to allow the stands and related development to remain in situ for a further 2 years (until 30th May 2022) (Erection of temporary spectator stands along the north and eastern sides of the playing field; erection of hospitality boxes to either side of the retained south stand; erection of control box and screen/scoreboard between north and east stands including fence enclosure. Associated works and ancillary facilities comprising floodlighting, and toilets, food and bar facilities within temporary north and east stands (temporary application for period of up to four years)).

The Chair explained the procedure to allow an efficient meeting taking all three applications but splitting when it comes to the debate and separate votes and the speakers have three lots of time.

The Case Officer reported on the three applications and his recommendations to permit. 

Four members of the public spoke against the applications

The agent spoke in favour of the applications.

Councillor Manda Rigby, local ward member for Bathwick, felt that exceptional circumstances have not been shown in this application as this does not feel like a temporary application as it has been the same for ten years, and feels meaningful communications are not being carried out by the applicant. Poor timescale planning by the applicant has meant that these applications are even required. If the committee is minded permitting it limits the application for two years, the condition to remove the stand in the summer months is kept, and the due diligence is carries out as if it was a full application, with updated surveys, security and travel plans completed

The Case Officer then responded to questions as follows: 

• Regarding the covenant/legal matters quoted by the speakers, these are not material considerations for planning
• Regarding the Covid pandemic delaying plans for two years and why not just extending for two years, the officer stated that the committee can choose how long to set the consent for, but the officers view is that the usual timeline of 12 months to carry out and get planning permission then additional 3 years is the normal time for consent to be granted to allow time for developer to get everything ready and for construction to start/complete.
• There is no agreement or timetable given by the applicant but there have been pre-application enquiries regarding the future planning application for the site.
• To achieve planning permission and the rest of what is required within two years would seem quite a tight timescale to allow for this to be competed, as in report a 4-year timescale is recommended.
• The Club have been updating their travel plan and think the last time was completed in 2019, it would be a perfectly reasonable thing to add to the permission if minded to.
• The condition to remove the stand each year is still within the conditions and will not change with these updated applications as the conditions stay the same.
• Adding to the condition wording, with a reasonable time frame, is not the officer recommendation but could be added if the committee feels it is required.

Cllr Appleyard stated that there are frustrations from lots of parties regarding these and possible future applications on this site. He feels the timescale is the main issue with these applications and takes the officer’s professional opinion and reasons for the timescale as stated due to time taken to get planning permission and the team and builders in place for any possible future development. He then moved the officer recommendation to permit. This was seconded by Cllr Davis.

Cllr Hughes has concerns and that four years needs to be a maximum, and it would be better sooner to get a long term solution to the site.

Cllr Davis thinks it’s difficult as the conditions that the committee would like to put on this application are not possible, but the updated travel plan would be an additional condition she would be happy to see added.

Cllr Appleyard stated that he was happy for this extra condition to be added to his proposal to permit.

Cllr Bromley reasonable timescale as indicated by officers and would allow time for all the necessary work to be completed but would also like to see an updated security plan.

Cllr Craig would prefer in two years’ time to be being asked to extend again with a half-built stand rather than wait four years for anything to be happening.

Cllr Clarke considers it needs to be looked at on planning grounds as the commercial and other aspects are not within the remit. The applicant really needs to get moving and be communicating their future plans at the earliest opportunity and get moving on their plans immediately if these applications are permitted.

Cllr Hounsell would have preferred 3 years rather than four and implores the applicant to get a proper plan in place and timeline for future plans.

Cllr MacFie feels four years is too long an extension and could not support this.

Cllr Hodge agrees with Cllr MacFie that four years is too long and would prefer three years.

Cllr Hounsell stated that after hearing from other Councilors he will not now support the original motion as he would prefer three years rather than four.

Cllr Jackson feels four years is too long and we could be back in four years in the same situation, three years could be agreed but two would be better.

Cllr Hughes feels four years gives timescale for them to get the job done

Vote on Item No. 1 

Application No. 21/05528/VAR

The motion to delegate to permit to approve the officer recommendation with an updated travel plan was put to the vote and the motion was REFUSED, 5 votes in favour, 5 against. The Chair used her carrying vote against the motion.

A new motion was proposed by Cllr Hounsell and seconded by Cllr Hodge to approve the officer recommendation with the term limited to 3 years and to delegate for an updated travel plan

The motion to delegate to permit to approve the officer recommendation with the term limited to 3 years and for an updated travel plan was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED unanimously to APPROVE the application for the reasons set out above.

Vote on Item No. 2 

Application No. 21/05529/VAR

Motion proposed by Cllr Davis and seconded by Cllr Clarke to approve the officer recommendation with the term limited to 3 years and to delegate for an updated travel plan

The motion to delegate to permit to approve the officer recommendation with the term limited to 3 years and for an updated travel plan was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED unanimously to APPROVE the application for the reasons set out above.

Vote on Item No. 3 

Application No. 21/05530/VAR

Motion proposed by Cllr Jackson and seconded by Cllr Bromley to approve the officer recommendation with the term limited to 3 years and to delegate for an updated travel plan

The motion to delegate to permit to approve the officer recommendation with the term limited to 3 years and for an updated travel plan was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED unanimously to APPROVE the application for the reasons set out above.

Item No. 4 

Application No. 21/03682/FUL

Site Location: Church Farm, Church Lane, Priston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset Erection of two dwellings and associated works, to follow demolition of existing equestrian related barns.

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

A representative from Priston parish council spoke against the application.

Two members of the public spoke against the applications

The agent spoke in favour of the application. 

The Case Officer then responded to questions as follows: 

• The properties do have a close boundary but have no windows on that side so no overlooking, and have a shared driveway, so residential amenity between the two acceptable. They are detached and have a gap between the properties.
• In the report it gives the reasons for why it is defined as developed land.
• During the application the applicant changed from the use of a septic tank.
• The condition on lighting states that no external lighting is currently allowed.
• Equestrian use is considered to qualify for brown field site status.

Cllr Davis is happy to accept the offers recommendation new plan not as high as current barns in the location, and proposes to accept the offers recommendation seconded by Cllr Hounsell

The motion was put to the vote 4 votes in favour, 5 votes against and 1 Abstentions.

Cllr Jackson proposed a site visit seconded by Cllr Bromley 

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 7 votes in favour, 0 votes against and 3 Abstentions to DEFER consideration of the application pending a SITE VISIT.

Items 5 and 6 were heard together

Item No. 5 

Application No. 21/03965/FUL

Site Location: Manor House, Watery Lane, Burnett, Keynsham, Bristol Installation of solar PV panels and ground source heat pump pipe work to eastern paddock to provide renewable energy sources for manor house. Connection of pipework to existing lower ground floor plant room.

Item No. 6 

Application No. 21/03966/LBA

Site Location: Manor House, Watery Lane, Burnett, Keynsham, Bristol Internal and external alterations for the installation of solar PV panels and ground source heat pump pipe work to eastern paddock to provide renewable energy sources for manor house. Connection of pipework to existing lower ground floor plant room.

The Case Officer reported on the applications and his recommendations to permit.

A representative from Compton Dando parish council spoke against the application.

Two members of the public spoke against the applications

The agent spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Alistair Singleton, local ward member, with the challenge of supporting the climate change this applicant has been worked through the planning system and all the correct procedures followed and looked at, there is objections to this development, and these must be considered. All recommendations from the specialist officers must be addressed, but the benefits of this application he believes it is right to recommend this application.

The Case Officer then responded to questions as follows: 

• We do not have the figures for any surplus going back into the grid
• No other sites for the location of the panels were provided as this location will have the best amount of solar gain and the least amount of loss of trees as only one tree would require removal and the furthest point away from the Manor House and St Michaels Church.
• The gap between the arrays is required I assume to avoid obstruction.
• The siting in the location would allow continuity of boundary as this side already has a hedge planning and the other boundary goes onto the highway without hedging.
• There has been no request to look at putting the solar panels on the roof of the listed building.
• The hedge planting condition requires the hedge to exceed the height of the panels and security fencing.
• A consideration was made to minimizing the view from and towards a listed building.

Cllr Hounsell stated that it is needed to look at the application in front of the committee and not what could be possible, this application has gone through the planning process. There have been many comments from people today about not being able to picture the location or how it will look like so he felt that it would be helpful for members to view the location and moved that consideration of the application be deferred pending a site visit, seconded by Cllr Bromley.

Vote Item No. 5 

Application No. 21/03965/FUL

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 6 votes in favour, 2 votes against and 1 Abstentions to DEFER consideration of the application pending a SITE VISIT.

Vote Item No. 6 

Application No. 21/03966/LBA

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 6 votes in favour, 2 votes against and 1 Abstentions to DEFER consideration of the application pending a SITE VISIT.

During this Item Cllr Jackson had to leave the room and did not vote on these applications due to her absence as she did not hear all the debate.

Item No. 7 

Application No. 21/05364/FUL

Site Location: 16 Broadlands Avenue, Keynsham, Bristol, Bath And North East Somerset, BS31 2DU Erection of front, side and rear extension. Provision of attic conversion and garden room.

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

There were no speakers on this item.

The Case Officer then responded to questions as follows: 

• The Impact of light would decrease light to one window next to the property but would not because a significant loss of light overall.
• There are various extensions to neighboring properties so fits within the local building character.
• The rear lane has a lot of buildings and has various cars parked along it; the proposed garden room is within the applicants plot so may only be affected during construction.
• Mainly the objections as outlined in report were regarding over development of the site.

Cllr Clarke proposed a site visit and seconded by Cllr Hodge.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 6 votes in favour, 2 votes against and 2 Abstentions to DEFER consideration of the application pending a SITE VISIT.