Agenda item

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

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

 

·  21/05683/FUL - Bromley Mount, Bromley Road, Stanton Drew, Bristol

·  22/00380/FUL – King Edwards School, North Road, Bathwick, Bath

·  22/00294/FUL - Durley Grange, Durley Lane, Keynsham, Bristol

·  22/00598/TCA - Audley House, Park Gardens, Lower Weston, 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 Main decisions list attached as Appendix 4 to these minutes. 

 

Item No. 1

Application No. 21/05683/FUL

Site Location: Bromley Mount, Bromley Road, Stanton Drew, Bristol

 

The Case Officer introduced the report and confirmed that the officer recommendation was to refuse the application as it constituted inappropriate development in the green belt. 

 

The following public representations were received:

 

1.  The applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application.

 

Cllr Vic Pritchard, local ward member, spoke in support of the application.  He stated that current policy was inadequate and there were justifiable reasons for overriding policy as it would be more sustainable for the applicant to carry out all works at the same time rather than apply for an extension at a later date.

 

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

1.  The application related to the development in its entirety and the key issue was that it was materially larger than the original building (32%) which was contrary to green belt policy and the case would need to be made for “very special circumstances”.

2.  An application for an extension could not be considered at the same time as it could only been submitted once the current dwelling had been completed.

3.  There was no guarantee that an application for an extension in the future would be permitted as each case had to be judged on its merits.

 

Cllr Duncan Hounsell referred to comments raised about current policy being inadequate and stated that the role of the Committee was to check compliance against existing policy, and he did not consider that the application could be permitted. 

 

Cllr Shelley Bromley concurred that “very special circumstances” had not been proven to allow the development.

 

Cllr Eleanor Jackson moved the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.  This was seconded by Cllr Duncan Hounsell and on being put to the vote and it was CARRIED (unanimous 10 in favour, 0 against).

 

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the report.

 

Item No. 2

Application No. 22/00380/FUL

Site Location: King Edwards School, North Road, Bathwick, Bath

 

Cllr Lucy Hodge withdrew from the meeting and did not take part in the debate or vote on this item.

 

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

 

Cllr Duncan Hounsell moved the officer recommendation, this was seconded by Cllr Eleanor Jackson and on being put to the vote it was CARRIED (unanimous 9 in favour and 0 against).

 

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

 

Item No. 3

Application No. 22/00294/FUL

Site Location: Durley Grange, Durley Lane, Keynsham, Bristol

 

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

 

The following public representations were received:

1.  The applicant spoke in support of the application.

2.  Cllr Brian Simmons, as ward member, spoke in support of the application.  He stated that the location of the site was unique in Bath and North East Somerset and the applicant and his family had suffered noise and air pollution due to the close proximity of the dwelling to the Keynsham bypass.  He confirmed that the proposed development would allow the site to be improved by creating a screen.

 

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

 

The Case Officer responded to members’ questions as follows:

 

1.  There was no dispute that there was noise pollution on the site, but the officer view was that it had not been successfully demonstrated that the proposed building would reduce air and noise pollution.

2.  The primary function of the application was the building and the reductions to noise and air pollution may be a byproduct.

3.  Whether an alternative location was more suitable was not a consideration as the Committee needed to determine the application in front of them.

4.  In terms of whether the view expressed by the applicant that a reduction in height of 1.2m would mean the building was acceptable as permitted development, this was not the case as there was also limit of 2.5m if a building was within 2m of the boundary.

 

Cllr Shelley Bromley stated that she was uncertain how the application would reduce pollution.

 

Cllr Eleanor Jackson stated that if the Committee were minded to permit the application, there would need to be a condition to ensure the development was ancillary to the main house.

 

Cllr Duncan Hounsell stated it was important to look at the application holistically and confirmed that the site was unusual in terms of layout and moved that a decision be deferred pending a site visit.  This was seconded by Cllr Hal MacFie and on being put to the vote was CARRIED (5 in favour and 4 against).

 

RESOLVED that consideration of the application be deferred pending a site visit.

 

Item No. 4

Application No. 22/00598/TCA

Site Location: Audley House, Park Gardens, Lower Weston, Bath

 

Cllr Lucy Hodge withdrew from the meeting during this item.

 

The Arboricultural Officer introduced the report and confirmed the officer recommendation that no objection be raised to the proposed works.

 

Councillor Shelley Bromley moved the officer recommendation, seconded by Councillor Eleanor Jackson and on being put to the vote the motion was CARRIED (9 in favour 0 against)

 

RESOLVED that no objection be raised to application.

Supporting documents: