Agenda item

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

·  21/03965/FUL Manor House, Watery Lane, Burnett, Keynsham, Bristol

·  21/03966/LBA Manor House, Watery Lane, Burnett, Keynsham, Bristol

·  21/03682/FUL Church Farm, Church Lane, Priston, Bath

·  21/05364/FUL 16 Broadlands Avenue, Keynsham, Bristol

The Committee considered:

1. A report by the Head of Planning on various planning applications.
   
   
2. An update report by the Head of Planning (attached as Appendix 1 to these minutes).
   
   
3. Oral statements by members of the public and representatives on items.  (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 Site Visit decisions list attached as Appendix 3 to these minutes.

Items 1 and 2 were considered together.

Item No. 1

Application No. 21/03965/FUL

Site Location: Manor House, Watery Lane, Burnett, Keynsham, Bristol

Item No. 2

Application No. 21/03966/LBA

Site Location: Manor House, Watery Lane, Burnett, Keynsham, Bristol

The Case Officer introduced the report and confirmed the officer recommendation to permit the full application and grant consent for the listed building application.

The following public representations were received:

1. A representative of the Town Council spoke against the applications.
2. Two local residents spoke against the applications.
3. The applicant spoke in support of the applications.

The local ward member, Cllr Alastair Singleton, spoke in support of the applications.  He acknowledged that local opinion was divided on the applications and there were genuine concerns about the visual impact, but that Bath and North Somerset Council had declared a Climate Emergency in 2019 and the applicants had worked with officers to design an acceptable scheme that would provide renewable energy sources to their property. 

In response to members’ questions, it was confirmed:

1. There was not an adopted Neighbourhood Plan for the area.  There was a Village Community Plan, but this would not carry any weight in terms of planning law.
2. Whether the application complied with policy GB1 of the Council’s Placemaking Plan (protecting the visual amenities of the green belt) was a consideration and officers had concluded that the proposed development did comply with policy.
3. Roof mounted solar panels would be too steep and enclosed to provide sufficient energy output.  Officers were not in a position to consider whether a hybrid scheme was possible as they could only determine the application as submitted. 
4. In terms of community engagement requirements as set out in SCR3 of the Placemaking Plan, and concerns expressed by residents about the lack of consultation, officers could only confirm that the applicants had engaged in pre-application discussions with the Council and were unable to comment on whether the applicants had engaged with the community in advance of submitting the applications.
5. In relation to the definition of “protected landscape” referred to in SCR3, this was defined as areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONB) rather than green belt.
6. In terms of the definition of “minimising visual impact” in SCR3, this was site specific in that it must be the minimum feasible in that location.
7. The residents of Whitson Lodge would be able to see the rear view of the panels from bedroom windows.  There was a balance between the siting of the panels in terms of optimum location for energy generation and where they would have least impact on visual amenity.
8. The park was not a heritage asset in itself but contributed to the character of the village.
9. The area of the compound was 714 square metres.
10. The growth and impact of the proposed screening hedge had been factored into the scale of the compound to prevent overshadowing.  The species and height of the hedge would be conditioned to ensure adequate screening.
11. The amount of energy generated by solar panels would vary and in the case of this application, the energy production had to be considered alongside that of the ground source heat pump.
12. Although there was a change in the update report to confirm that there would not be a surplus generated but a minor additional demand from the grid, the officer recommendation had not changed as it was considered that the energy provided by the development would outweigh the harm.

Cllr Duncan Hounsell opened the debate as ward member and raised the following comments:

1. He had heard the case of the applicant and Councillor Alastair Singleton speaking in support of the scheme as well as residents speaking against the scheme.
2. The Committee could only consider the application as submitted and not comment on any alternative schemes.
3. The Committee needed to be mindful of local and national planning policies in determining the application.
4. The declaration of a climate emergency currently had limited weight in terms of planning law. 
5. National policy framework was clear in paragraph 151 that “very special circumstances” were required due to the green belt location.
6. In terms of SCR3 policy the site was not agricultural or a local protected landscape.  In terms of minimising visual impact, there would be some harm from the view of Whitson Lodge, but the applicant had considered this to be the location which would have the least impact.
7. In relation to concerns raised by local residents about highway safety, Highways officers had not raised any objection and there was no evidence of glare from the panels and so this could not be defended on appeal as a reason for refusal.
8. If the Committee were minded to approve the applications, screening should be in place as soon as possible to mitigate the impact on the green belt and a condition should be in place to ensure the solar panels would be removed at the end of their life. 
9. Members needed to consider if securing the energy needs of the Grade 2 listed building constituted “very special circumstances”, although approving the applications would not open up the green belt to further development as each case had to be judged on its merits.

Cllr Shelley Bromley referred to the openness of the green belt and the impact on the historic village and questioned whether “very special circumstances” were satisfied based on the needs of one property.

Cllr Hal MacFie expressed the view that the positioning of the solar panels was too near Whitsun Lodge, and he was concerned about the visual impact.

Cllr Shaun Hughes stated that he did not feel that the applications offered balance from the perspective of neighbouring properties.

Cllr Lucy Hodge stated that she believed there were policy reasons to object to the application and that she did not consider there to be “very special circumstances” to outweigh development in the green belt.  She referred to SCR3 and the requirements to minimise visual impact and engage with the community at the pre-application stage which she did not feel had been met.

Cllr Eleanor Jackson moved that the applications be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The applications were too intrusive and would have a negative impact on the openness of the green belt. The applications constituted inappropriate development of the green belt and there were not “very special circumstances” to outweigh development in the green belt.
2. There would be a detrimental impact on the setting of the listed buildings of the Manor House and the church. There was a failure to minimise visual impact and a failure to engage with the community which was contrary to heritage policies and SCR3 of the Bath and North East Somerset Council’s Placemaking Plan.
3. Permitting the development would result in a loss of residential amenity and would change the character of Whitsun Lodge which was contrary to D6 of the Bath and North East Somerset Council’s Placemaking Plan.

This was seconded by Cllr Hodge. 

Vote on item No. 1

Application No. 21/03965/FU

On being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED (8 in favour and 2 against).

RESOLVED that the application be refused for the following reasons:

1. The application was too intrusive and would have a negative impact on the openness of the green belt. The application constituted inappropriate development of the green belt and there were not “very special circumstances” to outweigh development in the green belt.
2. There would be a detrimental impact on the setting of the listed buildings of the Manor House and the church. There was a failure to minimise visual impact and a failure to engage with the community which was contrary to heritage policies and SCR3 of the Bath and North East Somerset Council’s Placemaking Plan.
3. Permitting the development would result in a loss of residential amenity and would change the character of Whitsun Lodge which was contrary to D6 of the Bath and North East Somerset Council’s Placemaking Plan.

Vote on item No. 2

Application No. 21/03966/LBA

On being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED (8 in favour and 2 against).

RESOLVED that the application be refused for the following reasons:

1. The application was too intrusive and would have a negative impact on the openness of the green belt. The application constituted inappropriate development of the green belt and there were not “very special circumstances” to outweigh development in the green belt.
2. There would be a detrimental impact on the setting of the listed buildings of the Manor House and the church. There was a failure to minimise visual impact and a failure to engage with the community which was contrary to heritage policies and SCR3 of the Bath and North East Somerset Council’s Placemaking Plan.
3. Permitting the development would result in a loss of residential amenity and would change the character of Whitsun Lodge which was contrary to D6 of the Bath and North East Somerset Council’s Placemaking Plan.

Item No. 3

Application No. 21/03682/FUL

Site Location: Church Farm, Church Lane, Priston, Bath

The Case Officer introduced the report and confirmed the officer recommendation to permit the application.

The following public representations were received:

1. A representative of the Parish Council speaking against the application.
2. A local resident speaking against the application.
3. The applicant’s agent speaking in support of the application.

Cllr Matt McCabe, local ward member, had submitted a statement and was unable to attend due to illness.  The Democratic Services Officer read the statement on his behalf which raised the following points:

1. This was a complex application where a large farm had been broken up over the years, with buildings converted to residential housing and the owners were looking to demolish the barns and build housing more in keeping with the local building design.
2. The buildings were outside the Housing Development Boundary and, additionally, the Parish Council had pointed out that the most recent equestrian CLEU did not cover all of each barn.
3. The key consideration was whether the proposal was sufficient to allow for the demolition of both buildings to develop a site outside the Housing Boundary and the officer view was that ‘on balance’, given compliance with all other policies, a departure from GB2 was acceptable. 
4. He noted the concerns of local residents and asked that if the Committee was minded to approve the officer’s recommendation, additional conditions be included to improve the road surface of the dirt track and address the surface water run-off.

In response to members’ questions, the Case Officer confirmed;

1. The site was outside of, but adjoining, the Housing Development Boundary of Priston and therefore did not directly comply with policy GB2.  However, case law demonstrated that an assessment of the 'village on the ground' was also required.  The site was also considered to be previously developed land.  The application was a departure from GB2 but justified in the view of officers.
2. Allowing the application would not set a precedent for further development as each case would be judged on its merits.
3. The condition of the barns and whether they should be retained rather than demolished was not a material consideration for the Committee.
4. Officers believed the submitted drainage plan was acceptable, but the Committee could change or add a condition relating to drainage as long as this could be justified.
5. In terms of external lighting, there was a condition to require the details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
6. Although there were limited opportunities for sustainable travel to and from the site, this could not be sustained as an objection due to the close proximity to other dwellings.

Cllr Shaun Hughes stated that he was not convinced that “very special circumstances” applied to allow the development in the green belt.

Cllr Eleanor Jackson expressed concern that the development would alter the character of the area and result in an over development of the site.

Cllr Sally Davis stated she was minded to move the officers’ recommendation and sought the views of the Committee on whether two additional conditions in relation to drainage and improving the surface of the dirt track should be attached to the permission as requested by local residents and the ward member.

Cllr Lucy Hodge expressed support for the additional two conditions.

Cllr Sally Davis moved that the Committee delegate officers to permit the application subject to two additional conditions relating to a drainage scheme and improving the surface of the track.  This was seconded by Cllr Duncan Hounsell and on being put to the vote was CARRIED (7 in favour and 3 against).

RESOLVED that officers be delegated to permit the application subject to the conditions set out in the report and two additional conditions relating to a drainage scheme and improving the surface of the track.

Item No. 4

Application No. 21/05364/FUL

Site Location: 16 Broadlands Avenue, Keynsham, Bristol

The Case Officer introduced the report and confirmed that the officer’s recommendation that the application be permitted.

The following public representations were received:

1. Cllr Brian Simmons as ward member, read a statement on behalf of a local resident objecting to the application.

At this point in the meeting Cllr Brian Simmons withdrew from the meeting and did not participate in the debate or vote.

In response to the following questions from members, the Case Officer confirmed:

1. There was parking space for 3 cars at the front of the property.  There was a private lane at the back of the property but no dedicated parking space.  A car could park legally in the lane as it was privately owned and not a highway.
2. The proposed garden room consisted of a garage area, studio, home office and general garden room for sitting in.  There was a condition to ensure it was ancillary to the main property.

Councillor Shelley Bromley spoke in support of the application as there were similar developments elsewhere on the street.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson stated that there was no policy reason to refuse the application and that she did not consider it to be over development of the site.  She moved the officer recommendation to permit the application.  This was seconded by Cllr Hal MacFie and on being put to the vote was CARRIED (Unanimous - 9 in favour 0 against)

RESOLVED that the application be PERMITTED subject to the conditions set out in the report.