Agenda item

The following applications will be considered in the morning session starting at 11.00am:

1.  21/04590/FUL - Homewood Park Hotel, Hinton Charterhouse

2.  21/00677/FUL - Proposed Development Site, Lansdown View

The Committee considered:

·  A report by the Head of Planning on various planning applications.

·  An update report by the Head of Planning on item no 1 attached as Appendix 1 to these minutes.

·  Oral statements by members of the public and representatives on items 1 and 2.  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 decisions list attached as Appendix 3 to these minutes.

Item No. 1

Application No: 21/04590/FUL

Site Location: Homewood Park Hotel, Homewood, Hinton Charterhouse, Bath.

The Case Officer introduced the report and referred to an email sent from the Chair of Freshford Parish Council to members of the Committee raising the issue of a potential breach of a planning condition in relation to a previous planning permission on the site which required the stable block to have been removed from the site by 2005 and was now being used as part of the volume calculations for the new development. She confirmed that as 10 years had passed, there was no enforcement issue and officers were satisfied the judgement in the report was sound.

The Case Officer confirmed the officer recommendation to permit the application subject to the conditions set out in the report.

The following public representations were received:

1.  John Adler, Freshford Parish Council, speaking against the application.

2.  Gary Parker, local resident, speaking against the application.

3.  Kevin Murphy, applicant’s agent, speaking in support of the application.

Cllr Matt McCabe withdrew from the committee as he had previously submitted an objection in relation to the application but raised the following points speaking as local ward member:

1.  The application was located in a prominent site.

2.  Conditions associated with past planning applications had not been adhered to, the boundary hedge which was intended to screen the spa was half the size it should be.

3.  There was a building on site with no planning permission which was over 100% larger than the original house and this building was being included in the volume calculations. 

4.  The application was materially larger and on two storeys and there would be a huge impact on the privacy of the neighbouring property and light spill resulting from the development.

5.  The development constituted harm in the green belt.

In response to members’ questions, officers responded as follows:

1. In relation to the buildings without planning permission, it was the officers’ understanding that the stables and potentially the manége should have been removed in 2005, however as more than 10 years had passed since then and the time of the new roof being added in 2008, the buildings were now considered as lawful buildings.  Therefore, it was appropriate for these buildings to be included as part of the volume calculations.  It was noted that for enforcement action to take place, the Council needed to be informed that a breach of conditions had taken place. 
2. In relation to the hedge screening the spa, the condition attached to the previous consent did not specify the hedge should be kept in perpetuity or give details about trimming and so there was no enforcement issue.  If this application was approved, there would be additional planting to screen the site was protected and this would be secured by a condition.  The condition could be strengthened to specify 2m and officers could assess the detailed landscaping plans to ensure the site was screened throughout the year and specify the planting of more mature whip trees to ensure the site would be screened as soon as possible.
3. There were outstanding enforcement matters which were being investigated but they did not relate to this application. 
4. Additional car parking spaces would be available to be used as required and would be located alongside the access track.
5. There was not an allocation for a hotel and spa in the Freshford Neighbourhood Plan, however there were relevant policies regarding design against which officers considered the application to be acceptable.
6. The issue of light spill had been assessed and considered to be acceptable both in terms of ecology and residential amenity.  There was a condition to ensure that any extra external lighting would need planning permission. 
7. Environmental Health Officers had been consulted and had not raised any objection in relation to potential noise pollution.
8. Officers considered that it was reasonable for the operating hours to reflect licensing hours and the hours had not changed as a result of this application.  It would be difficult to restrict the hours of use of the balconies.
9. In terms of whether the application was materially larger, although there was a volumetric increase, the proposal must be looked at in regard to all spatial and visual aspects and the officers’ view was that the proposals would not be materially larger. 

Cllr Hal MacFie spoke in support of the officers’ recommendation.  Cllr Sally Davis stated she would be happy to support permitting the application subject to the strengthening of the landscaping condition to ensure that the hedge should be maintained at 2 metres and that landscaping should be dense to ensure that the site was appropriate screened.

Cllr Lucy Hodge also requested that the landscaping condition ensure that more mature whip trees would be planted to ensure the site was screened at the earliest opportunity.

Cllr Rob Appleyard proposed that officers be delegated to permit the application subject to an amendment to condition 11 to ensure that the hedge was retained at a 2-metre height in perpetuity; that landscaping should be dense and of an appropriate mix to ensure the site was screened throughout the year and the planting of more mature whip trees.  This was seconded by Cllr Sally Davis and on being put to the vote was CARRIED (6 in favour and 3 against)

RESOLVED that officers be delegated to permit the application subject to the conditions set out in the report with an amendment to condition 11 to ensure that the hedge would be retained at a 2-metre height in perpetuity; that landscaping would be dense and of an appropriate mix to ensure the site was screened throughout the year and the planting of more mature whip trees to ensure the site was screened at the earliest opportunity.

Item No. 2

Application No: 21/00677/FUL

Site Location: Proposed Development Site Lansdown View, Twerton, Bath

The Case Officer introduced the report and confirmed that the report had been updated since the previous meeting to update condition 26 (North-west footpath), add a new condition 27 (Site Access) and an update to the proposed site plan replacing a short section of the steps with a ramp.

He confirmed the officer recommendation that officers be delegated to permit the application subject to the conditions set out in the report and the signing of a Section 106 agreement to ensure replacement tree planting, details of a management company for communal areas of the development, landscape and ecological management plan and implementation of highway works.

The following public representations were received:

1.  Jenny Bakhoff, local resident, speaking against the application.

Cllr Dine Romero in attendance as local ward member, raised the following points:

1.  The site was not appropriate for a housing development and the access was limited to one narrow lane.  Although it could technically allow emergency vehicles, they could only access the site from one direction due to a low bridge.

2.  She was concerned that local residents had received threatening letters from a solicitor about the removal of the bollard at the access point although accepted this was not a planning consideration.

3.  The land was unstable and new drainage would be required. 

4.  A good solution would be to return the land to allotments.

She urged the committee to refuse the application.

Cllr Paul Crossley, withdrew from the committee as he had previously submitted an objection in relation to the application but raised the following points speaking as local ward member:

1.  The steps were in the private ownership of houses 1-8 and it was not a public right of way.

2.  This was a densely populated area, and it was important to retain green spaces within dense communities.

3.  There was subsidence and it was not appropriate to build housing on the site. 

He urged the Committee to reject the application.

In response to Members questions, it was confirmed:

1.  The land had been used as a private allotment in the past and the Council had investigated acquiring the land for this purpose, but this was rejected due to the costs of overcoming soil pollution as the land was found to be contaminated by arsenic, asbestos and hydrocarbons. 

2.  To address concerns about the ownership of the access to the site, officers had included a condition to ensure that the dwellings could not be occupied until the access was in place.  There could be an earlier trigger point if members felt this was appropriate. 

3.  According to land registry information, the land was in the ownership of the applicant but there was a right of way for residents to access their garages.  The highways assessment had been carried out in relation to the plans and there was no bollard indicated on these plans.

4.  It was confirmed that although an emergency vehicle could access the site from both directions in theory, in practice larger vehicles could only approach from the south due to height restrictions on the bridge to the north.  This was the same for the existing properties at Lansdown View.  There would a turning head on the access road so that emergency vehicles could turn around.

5.  The committee could take into account the green infrastructure and ecological value of the site; however, the habitats were not considered to be of high value.  The view of officers was that the application complied with the requirement for “no net loss” in terms of biodiversity.

6.  Highways officers had calculated that an additional 82 vehicle movements would be generated by the proposed development, and this was the net increase.  In terms of highway safety, the narrowest point of the access road was 3.5m but this was a relatively short distance and there was good intervisibility at this point. 

7.  There was a condition to ensure that garages could not be converted into additional living space, but it was not possible to enforce that cars be parked in garages.  Electric charging points and bicycle storage were also included.  The dimensions of the garage were in line with the Council’s Placemaking Plan.  Although the emerging local plan was looking to exclude counting garages as a parking space in some areas, they would still be included in the central area of Bath.  The Committee were reminded not to give too much weight to the emerging plan.

8.  In relation to concerns about flooding, both Wessex Water and the Council’s Flooding and Drainage Team had raised no objection and the developer would be liable for any damage. 

Cllr Rob Appleyard proposed that the application be refused on the grounds of overdevelopment of the site which would result in the loss of a valuable green space and highway safety due to the dangerous access and egress to the site.  This was seconded by Councillor Sally Davis and on being put to the vote was CARRIED (6 in favour, 2 against, 1 abstention)

RESOLVED that the application be refused for the following reasons:

1.  The proposed development, represented overdevelopment of the site and would result in the loss of a valuable green space which contributed towards the visual amenity, character and appearance of the area. (D1, D2, D3, D4 and D7, Placemaking Plan).

2.  The proposed site access would result in poor accessibility and conflicts between vehicles accessing and egressing the site and pedestrians to the detriment of highways safety. (ST7 Placemaking Plan).