Agenda item

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

1.  20/02673/OUT Land Parcel 0005 Bath Road Keynsham Bath and North East Somerset

2.  20/02253/FUL Former Radstock County Infant School Bath Old Road Radstock Bath and North East Somerset

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

3.  22/00630/FUL10 Highbury Place Walcot Bath, Bath and North East Somerset BA1 6DU

4.  22/00631/LBA 10 Highbury Place Walcot Bath, Bath and North East Somerset BA1 6DU

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. 20/02673/OUT

Site Location: Land Parcel 0005, Bath Road, Keynsham, Bath And North East Somerset

The Case Officer introduced the report and advised that although the application was contrary to the current development plan, officers were recommending approval for the following reasons:

1.  Local authorities were required to have a five-year supply of land for housing and there was a predicted shortfall.

2.  The Local Plan partial update (LPPU) would look to address the housing trajectory shortfall by identifying this and other sites for development. 

3.  The site was in a highly sustainable location which was broadly consistent with the district wide spatial strategy.

4.  There was an absence Green Belt protection compared to nearly all other undeveloped land in this locality.

5.  There would be a provision of sustainable transport measures which were broadly in line with the Sustainable Transport Strategy for Keynsham and which would create the headroom to avoid a severe impact upon the highway network.

6.  There would be a significant package of Section 106 obligations and contributions.

The following public representations were received:

1.  Tom Rocke, agent for the applicant spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Andy Wait, in attendance as local ward member, spoke against the application and raised the following points:

1.  The current Local Plan stated there should be no more housing in this area until there was an improvement in the transport network. 

2.  The LPPU which would allow development of this site had not yet been approved and so the committee would be agreeing development on land which was currently safeguarded.

3.  The development would result in additional traffic on the A4.

4.  The proposals to improve the cycle network were not adequate.

He urged the committee to reject the application.

In response to members’ questions, it was confirmed:

1.  The work involved in potentially defending a decision on appeal was not a material consideration, however the benefits offered by the developer in relation to the application and the risk of not securing these benefits if the application was refused by committee was a material consideration.

2.  The determination of the planning application and the LPPU examination in public were 2 separate processes and the representations of the developer in relation to the LPPU process was not relevant to consideration of this application.

3.  In response to the comments raised about the application being premature in advance of the LPPU process, the planning authority did not have control over the timing of applications being submitted and had a duty to determine planning applications.

4.  In terms of the future development of the adjacent site, while a consistent approach was important, each case had to be determined on its merits.

5.  In response to concerns about cases where developers had not met obligations, there was a good level of confidence that this scheme would be delivered with all the benefits secured through a legally binding Section 106 Agreement.

6.  In terms of the predicted number of children and requirements for school places, a contribution had been agreed with the applicant and would be secured via a Section 106 Agreement. The contribution amount would be linked to a formula in case the housing mix changed as a result of the reserved matters applications.

7.  In terms of housing trajectory, the Council was required to have 5 years supply.  Even though the Council had over delivered in previous years, there was still a requirement to maintain 5 years supply going forward.  The current trajectory took into account other applications that had been approved where there was evidence that schemes would be delivered.

8.  In relation to the travel plan, the details were being finalised but it would be a package for Keynsham as a whole to ensure more capacity to allow sites to come forward.

Cllr Hal MacFie opened debate as local ward member.  He acknowledged the package of benefits associated with the application and the work of officers to achieve this but was minded to refuse the application on the grounds of the timing as he believed it was premature to determine the application in advance of the LPPU examination in public.  He also stated that the transport measures did not address the infrequent bus service to Keynsham town centre. 

Cllr Duncan Hounsell concurred with the comments about the timing of the application in advance of the LPPU examination in public.  He moved that the application be refused on the grounds that it did not comply with current policy KE3B Placemaking Plan as the majority of the site was currently safeguarded land.  This was seconded by Cllr Hal MacFie. 

Cllr Paul Crossley spoke in support of the application as planning policy was evolving and the current application offered a good package of gains for the community.  He stressed that the 30% affordable housing should be mandatory and the split of 75% social rent, 25% Intermediate (Shared ownership) shouldnot be negotiable. 

On voting for the motion to refuse the application, this was NOT CARRIED (4 in favour and 6 against).

Cllr Paul Crossley proposed a motion that, for the reasons given in the officer report, the decision be delegated to officers to permit the application, subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the obligations and contributions set out in the report with a caveat that the 30% affordable housing was mandatory and within that 75% (social rent)/25% (shared ownership split was not negotiable.  This was seconded by Cllr Sally Davis.

On being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED (6 in favour and 4 against).

RESOLVEDthat officers be delegated to permit the application for the reasons and with the conditions listed in the report, subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the obligations and contributions set out in the report including the mandatory 30% affordable housing (75% (social rent)/25% (shared ownership) split.

Item No. 2

Application No. 20/02253/FUL

Site Location: Former Radstock County Infant School, Bath Old Road, Radstock

The Case Officer introduced the report and confirmed the officer’s recommendation that the application be approved subject to a Section 106 Agreement to secure highway works, the conditions set out in the original report and the additional condition in the update report relating to the details of the boundary treatment.  She confirmed that in relation to the reference in the report to Council Tax, the potential receipt of Council Tax was not a material consideration in relation to planning applications.

The following public representations were received:

1.  Peter Crook, local resident, spoke against the application.

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

1.  He expressed concern that Bath Old Road was already dangerous due to traffic issues of parking and rat running that was putting people’s lives at risk.

2.  He asked the Committee to refuse the application as any housing on Bath Old Road would exacerbate the traffic problems.

In response to Members questions, it was confirmed:

1.  The application site was currently vacant and so wasn’t responsible for any of the current traffic issues.  The officer’s recommendation was that permission should be subject to a Section 106 Agreement to include off site highway measures to aid the existing situation.

2.  A marked bus stop had not been suggested as part of the contribution as it wasn’t deemed a necessary or proportionate intervention.

3.  Highways officers had reviewed the safety record of the road and there had not been a significant number of reported incidents. 

4.  In terms of the change in comments from the Town Council, the reason was not known as there had not been a change in the application, but there had been a re-consultation as the original application had been submitted in 2020.  In relation to the highways concerns raised by the Town Council, it was the view of officers that these had been addressed within the report.

5.  Officers did not consider the design was dominated by car parking.  Some car parking provision was required due to the type of development, but this was at the rear and out of sight from the main road.

6.  The landscaping was considered to be acceptable as there was a wildlife enhancement scheme and a condition to ensure that landscaping was in line with the submitted plans.

7.  The developer would be expected to market the 5 affordable housing units in the usual way to registered providers and evidence of this would be required.  The developer had offered a financial contribution which would be used to deliver affordable housing either on or off site and would be secured by a Section 106 Agreement.

8.  It was noted that the covenant on the land to ensure the boundary wall would be maintained to a certain height had not been complied with which was a concern to residents, but this was not a planning issue.  However, the update report recommended an additional condition to secure further details of boundary treatments for the approval of the planning authority to address these concerns. 

Cllr Eleanor Jackson proposed that a decision on the application be deferred pending a visit to the site to allow members to witness the transport issues and the gradient of the road.  This seconded by Cllr Shaun Hughes.

On being put to the vote, the motion was NOT CARRIED (3 in favour, 6 against and 1 abstention).

Cllr Eleanor Jackson then proposed that officers be given delegated authority to permit as recommended in the original and update report, with an additional condition to ensure that no new windows were added on the side elevation of the properties without the prior consent of the planning authority to ensure against overlooking and the strengthening of the boundary condition to ensure a secure and stable boundary delineation to the approval of the planning authority.

This was seconded by Cllr Duncan Hounsell.

Cllr Paul Crossley spoke against the application which he considered to be over development of the site. 

On being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED (9 in favour and 1 against)

RESOLVEDthat officers be delegated to permit the application subject to:

1.  a Section 106 Agreement to secure the obligations and contributions set out in the report.

2.  an additional condition to ensure no additional windows will be added to the side facing elevations that face properties either side of the site (1, 8, 9 and 15) without the prior approval of the planning authority.

3.  the strengthening of the boundary condition to ensure a clear delineation and a stable and secure boundary.

Items 3 and 4 were considered together.

Item Nos. 3&4

Application Nos. 22/00630/FUL & 22/00631/LBA

Site Location: 10 Highbury Place, Walcot, Bath

The Case Officer introduced the report and confirmed the officer’s recommendation that the application be refused due to the reasons set out in the report.

Cllr Tom Davis, in attendance as local ward member, spoke in support of the application and raised the following points:

1.  Residents were not being treated consistently as a similar application at the other end of the terrace had been refused for similar reasons, but the decision was overturned at appeal.

2.  The report suggested that the Council’s declaration of the climate emergency constituted a material difference since the Planning Inspectorate’s decision on the similar application, but it could be argued that this added to the application due to the proposed facilities for charging an electric vehicle and the preservation of the cherry and silver birch trees.

3.  If the committee had concerns about the proposed buff paving, there could be a condition to ensure a suitable finish to be agreed by the planning authority.

4.  There was public benefit in permitting the development in terms of the wider street scheme and context.

5.  If members were minded to refuse the application, consideration should be given to visiting the site before making a decision.

In response to Members questions, it was confirmed:

1.  Even though the wall had been removed in part, the remaining wall was still a positive aspect of the historical significance of the listed building.

2.  A section of the wall had been removed as a result of the appeal decision relating to the property at the other end of the terrace.

3.  The exact circumstances of the removal of other parts of the wall were not known, there were no known planning consents so it could have happened prior to planning policy or without permission.

4.  The decisions on boundary walls in other areas was not relevant to this application.

5.  It was not intended to use the stone from the wall elsewhere on the site.

6.  It was not possible to say if the additional off-street parking would prevent other residents parking outside the opposite property.

Cllr Shaun Hughes expressed support for the application for the reasons expressed by the ward member.

Vote on item No. 3

Application No.22/00630/FUL

Cllr Paul Crossley stated that the public benefits of the application outweighed any harm caused by the removal of part of the wall and proposed that the application be approved subject to suitable conditions including a condition to ensure that the material used for the parking space would allow water drainage and also be of a suitable finish in keeping with the surrounding area.  This was seconded by Councillor Sally Davis.

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

RESOLVEDthat officers be delegated to permit the application subject to appropriate conditions including a condition to ensure that the details of the material to be used for the parking area be submitted to and approved by the planning authority to ensure the surface allows for water drainage and the finish is in keeping with the surrounding area.

Reason: the public benefits of the application outweigh the harm to the listed building.

Vote on item No. 4

Application No. 22/00631/LBA

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

RESOLVEDthat officers be delegated to permit the application subject to appropriate conditions including a condition to ensure that the details of the material to be used for the parking area be submitted to and approved by the planning authority to ensure the surface allows for water drainage and the finish is in keeping with the surrounding area.

Reason: the public benefits of the application outweigh the harm to the listed building.