Agenda item

The following applications will be considered in the afternoon session starting at 2.00pm:

1.  21/05190/FUL - Nempnett Farm, Greenhouse Lane, Nempnett Thrubwell

2.  21/02973/OUT - Parcel 3589, Silver Street, Midsomer Norton

3.  21/04881/FUL - Parcel 6536, Top Lane, Farmborough, Bath

4.  21/04890/FUL - Land Below Inglescombe Farm, Haycombe Lane, Englishcombe, Bath

5.  22/01299/FUL - Frome House, Lower Bristol Road, Westmoreland, Bath

6.  22/00672/FUL - 13 Brookside Close, Paulton, Bristol

7.  22/00443/FUL - Pond House , Rosemary Lane, Freshford, Bath

8.  22/00624/FUL - 136 The Hollow, Southdown, Bath

The Committee considered:

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

·  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 decisions list attached as Appendix 4 to these minutes.

Item No. 1

Application No: 21/05190/FUL

Site Location: Nempnett Farm, Greenhouse Lane, Nempnett Thrubwell

The Case Officer introduced the report and confirmed the officer recommendation that the application be refused as it constituted inappropriate development in the greenbelt as detailed in the report.  In terms of diversification, he clarified that there would still be an agricultural element retained to the site as a result of the development and it was only the pig rearing that would be replaced by two subterranean glamping pods. 

The following public representations were received:

1.  Luke Ford, agent and George Ford, applicant, speaking in support of the application.

The local ward member, Cllr Vic Pritchard was unable to attend the meeting but submitted a statement in support of the application which was read out by the Democratic Services Officer:

1.  The proposal sought to remove five intensive pig rearing buildings and replace with two subterranean structures to compliment an existing B&B enterprise, and this would lead to the cessation of a high number of associated articulated lorry movements bringing in feed and removing slurry.

2.  The pig rearing buildings in a greenbelt setting were intrusive covering a considerable area on an elevated position and would have only been consented to complement a farming enterprise.  The proposed development would enhance the rural setting and have less impact on the openness of the greenbelt.

3.  The Committee should consider a visit to the site if minded to refuse the application.

In response to Members questions, it was confirmed:

1.  There was no specific policy relating to subterranean buildings in the greenbelt.

2.  The proposal was not a Passivhaus and so this could not be used as a special circumstance for development in the greenbelt.

3.  Highways officers had not raised any objection in terms of access and parking.  Due to its location, it was likely that the site would be accessed by car.

4.  The applicant had not put forward economic viability as a reason for the development, the motive for the application had been moving away from the intensive farming associated with pig rearing.

5.  The applicant could have put forward an application for change of use of the existing pig rearing buildings for accommodation, but officers needed to consider each case on its merits. 

Cllr Paul Crossley stated that he considered the application to be an exciting proposal which would remove concrete outbuildings and replace with less obtrusive subterranean glamping pods.  He proposed that officers be delegated to permit the application subject to appropriate conditions for the reason that it constituted very special circumstances in that it would enhance the openness of the greenbelt and remove built form and would increase the economic viability of the farm and surrounding area.  This was seconded by Cllr Matt McCabe and on being put to the vote it was CARRIED (9 in favour and 1 against). 

RESOLVED that officers be delegated to permit the application subject to appropriate conditions for the following reasons:

1.  The application constituted very special circumstances in that it would enhance the openness of the greenbelt and remove built form.

2.  The application would increase the economic viability of the farm and surrounding area.

Item No. 2

Application No: 21/02973/OUT

Site Location: Parcel 3589, Silver Street, Midsomer Norton

The Case Officer introduced the report and confirmed the site related to parcel of land located within the Bath and North East Somerset Boundary which would form an access to a development within the Mendip boundary and that an associated planning application for a housing development would be considered by Mendip District Council on 13 July.  She confirmed the officer recommendation that officers be delegated to permit the application, subject to the conditions set out in the report and a Section 106 Agreement to secure a contribution towards improvements to local bus infrastructure, the Somer Valley Enterprise Zone Cycleway, targeted training and recruitment and green space and parks infrastructure.

The following public representations were received:

1.  Rosie Dinnen, agent speaking in support of the application.

Cllr Shaun Hugheswithdrew from the committee as he had submitted an objection in relation to the associated application but raised the following points speaking as adjacent ward member:

1. He did not support the allocation of the nearby site for housing due to the impact on the infrastructure of neighbouring Midsomer Norton including schools, doctors’ surgeries and dental practices.
2. The financial contributions proposed were not enough to mitigate the impact of the development on Midsomer Norton.

He urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Cllr Michael Evans, speaking as adjacent ward member raised the following points:

1. He was opposed to the allocation of housing on the adjacent site and was disappointed with the decision of the Planning Inspectorate.
2. In view of the site being allocated for housing, he was not asking the Committee to refuse the application, but instead to seek appropriate mitigation.
3. Due to the slow progress on the Somer Valley Enterprise Zone and imbalance between houses and jobs in the area, a Section 106 contribution towards cycleways would be better spent on a route between Farrington Gurney and Midsomer Norton.
4. Any Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) money should be spent on the immediate area.

In response to Members questions, officers confirmed:

1.  It was appropriate and reasonable to ask for a contribution to the Somer Valley Enterprise Zone Cycleway to assist with access to an employment area.

2.  Mendip District Council was not a CIL charging authority and so there would be no CIL funding as a result of the housing development but even if there was, it would not benefit Bath and North East Somerset as the housing site was located in the Mendip district area. 

3.  Section 106 obligations had to be justified and officers considered the contributions requested to be proportionate to the application for an access road.

4.  The proposal did not include a pedestrian crossing and the current crossing consisted of two dropped kerbs. 

5.  There was no active travel plan in relation to the school. 

A number of members expressed concern about the lack of a proper pedestrian crossing and asked if officers could negotiate a contribution towards a crossing to ensure a safe route for children attending primary schools.  The Planning Officer re-emphasised that there would be no CIL funds to achieve this, and officers would need to renegotiate the Heads of terms of the Section 106 Agreement and whether this would meet the test of being a reasonable obligation and would also involve going back to consultees.

Cllr Sally Davis proposed that a decision be deferred to allow officers to explore all possible options for the developer to make a contribution towards a pedestrian crossing.  This was seconded by Cllr McCabe and on being put to the vote was CARRIED (8 in favour 0 against - UNANIMOUS)

RESOLVED that a decision be deferred to allow officers to explore all possible options for the developer to make a contribution towards a pedestrian crossing.

Item No. 3

Application No: 21/04881/FUL

Site Location: Parcel 6536, Top Lane, Farmborough, Bath

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

The following public representations were received:

1.  Annabel McGregor, applicant, speaking in support of the application.

Cllr Matt McCabe reported the views of local ward member, Cllr Neil Butters who was unable to attend:

1.  He supported the application due to the environmental benefits of the renewable energy scheme in the context of the climate emergency.

2.  There had been few objections in the local community and neither Parish Council had objected to the application.

In response to Members questions, it was confirmed:

1. There was a landscaping plan to screen the site.
2. It was possible for the site to be used for grazing livestock, but it was not appropriate to secure this by a condition.

3.  There would be a detailed Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (condition 10) to manage biodiversity. 

4.  The site would return to a greenfield site at the end of the life of the application and this would be secured by the decommissioning strategy condition.

5.  The 40-year time scale had been put forward by the developer.  If the developer wanted to continue beyond 40 years, they would need to submit a new application.

6.  It may be that advances in technology would mean the site would be decommissioned before 40 years, but the Committee could only consider the application as submitted.

7.  The Council did not allocate sites for solar farms as that was considered to be too restrictive.

8.  If the site ceased to operate as a solar farm, the Council had the power of discontinuance under the Town and Country Planning Act.

Cllr Matt McCabe opened the debate as ward member and spoke in support of the application but raised a concern about the end of the life of the site in 40 years’ time and the need to make sure that the site did not become derelict.  He proposed that officers be delegated to permit the application, subject to consideration of options to ensure against the site becoming derelict and the Council becoming liable to clear the site.  He suggested that this could be in the form of a bond to protect against unforeseen circumstances.  This was seconded by Cllr Sally Davis.

Cllr Rob Appleyard agreed that it was important to futureproof and safeguard this individual site and commented that the Town and Country Planning Act may be amended in 40 years’ time and not offer the same protection for local authorities.

Cllr Paul Crossley spoke in support of the application and requested that he be given the opportunity to look at the landscape and ecological plan.

On voting for the motion, it was CARRIED (10 in favour, 0 against - UNANIMOUS)

RESOLVED that officers be delegated to permit the application, subject to the conditions set out in the report and further negotiations with the developer to secure the decommissioning of the site if it was no longer operable at a date sooner than the 40-year timescale outlined in the application.

Item No. 4

Application No: 21/04890/FUL

Site Location: Land Below Inglescombe Farm, Haycombe Lane, Englishcombe, Bath

The Committee noted that this application had been withdrawn by the applicant and had therefore also been withdrawn from the agenda.

Item No. 5

Application No: 22/01299/FUL

Site Location: Frome House, Lower Bristol Road, Westmoreland, Bath

The Case Officer introduced the report and confirmed the recommendation that officers be delegated to permit the application subject to the conditions set out in the report, with the deletion of Condition 12 which was covered by the student management plan detailed in Condition 13, and a Section 106 Agreement to secure a financial contribution towards off-site greenspaceenhancement projects.

The following public representations were received:

1.  Jenny Bakhoff, local resident, and Alex Sherman, Bath Preservation Society, speaking against the application.

2.  Matthew Halstead, applicant, speaking in support of the application.

The local ward member, Cllr June Player, raised the following points:

1. The previous application was refused by Committee and the reasons for refusal were also valid for this application:
   1. The overprovision of student housing in the area resulting in an inappropriate housing mix (Policy CP10). 
   2. The loss of office space (Policy ED1B).  The site had a number of constraints which made it unsuitable for residential development. 
   3. Residential Amenity (Policy D6)
2. As local ward councillor for 11 years, she was aware that most of the homes of multiple occupancy (HMOs) in the area were student accommodation and there had been a big impact on neighbourhood as a result of increasing student numbers.  The census data referred to in the report was 10 years out of date and there had been an increase in the number of students and student accommodation since 2011.
3. If the site was considered suitable for housing it could be considered for 1-bedroom social housing units as there was a demand for this type of housing in the area. 

Cllr Dine Romero addressed the meeting as local member for the adjacent ward:

1. The proposal was in the wrong location.
2. As there was no parking included in the development, this would have an impact on parking in the surrounding area.
3. Due to the location of the proposed development and the proximity of the ground floor tyre repair centre, it would not be a pleasant living environment for occupants.

In response to Members questions, it was confirmed:

1. The new census data had only started to be released on 28 June and ward details on population would not be available until later in the year which meant that it would not be reasonable to defer the application until the latest information was available.  The 2011 census data was the most up to date information that was currently available.  Officers were aware that there were approximately 661 HMOs in Westmoreland but were unable to clarify how many of these were occupied by students.

2.  There was a range of measures included in the student management plan to ensure that students would not park in the surrounding area, and this would be enforced by residents reporting breaches to the management company.

3.  Officers were not in a position to predict whether the applicant would apply to convert the ground floor to accommodation at a later date and could only assess the current application. 

4.  The Economic Development Team had been asked to comment on the application but had not responded.  Cllr Rob Appleyard asked that this be pursued in relation to future applications.

5.  The site had been marketed since 2018 for office accommodation without success and it may be that there was less demand for office space since the Covid pandemic.

6.  There had not been any negotiations with the applicant about alternative types of housing as officers could only consider the application which had been submitted.

7.  The affordability of the units was not a material consideration. 

8.  Although there were other proposed developments for student accommodation, it could not be guaranteed that they would all come forward. 

9.  The emerging local plan included a requirement for demonstration of need for student accommodation through education providers, but little weight could be given to this as it had not yet been adopted. 

Cllr Paul Crossley spoke against the application in view of the high density of purpose-built student accommodation and the number of HMOs and the impact of this on the local community.  Cllr Rob Appleyard concurred with this view and acknowledged the concern of local residents of the impact of a high density of students in the area.  In supporting this view, Cllr Lucy Hodge also expressed concern that the development was inappropriate for the intended residents due to its location. 

A number of members expressed the view that while there was an overprovision of student accommodation, there was a demand for other types of accommodation within the city of Bath.

Cllr Eleanor Jackson expressed the view that there were not sufficient grounds for refusal and moved the officer’s recommendation that the application be permitted.  This was seconded by Cllr Sally Davis and on being put to the vote was NOT CARRIED (4 in favour and 6 against).

Cllr Matt McCabe proposed that the application be refused on the grounds that the development would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of local residents and the occupants of the proposed development, overprovision of student accommodation in the area and the loss of office space. This was seconded by Cllr Rob Appleyard and on being put to the vote it was CARRIED (6 in favour and 4 against)

RESOLVED that the application be refused for the following reasons:

1.  The development would result in the overprovision of student housing in the area resulting in an inappropriate housing mix (Policy CP10 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 17 and part 7 of the NPPF). 

2.  The development would result in the loss of office space (Policy ED1B of the Placemaking Plan). 

3.  The development would have a detrimental impact on residential amenity, both for local residents and occupants (Policy D6 of the Placemaking Plan)

[Cllr Rob Appleyard withdrew from the meeting at this point.]

Item No. 6

Application No: 22/00672/FUL

Site Location: 13 Brookside Close, Paulton, Bristol

The Case Officer introduced the report and confirmed the officer recommendation that the application be permitted subject to the conditions set out in the report.

The local ward member, Cllr Liz Hardman raised the following points:

1. Paulton Parish Council had raised objections to the application and as a member of the Parish Council and local ward member she also objected to the application.
2. The proposal was an over development of the site and there were insufficient parking spaces for a 4-bedroom house. The house was not in in keeping with the surrounding area.
3. There would be parking and access problems as the result of the development and its location at the end of the cul de sac. 
4. There was a risk of flooding as there was a brook to the east of the site which ran within 20m of the development and a culvert crossing the plot. 

She asked the Committee to refuse the application.

In response to Members questions, it was confirmed:

1.  The Flooding and Drainage Team had found the culvert to be in good condition,free from structural or operational defects, and it was not thought that it would have an impact on the development as it was 3 m away at the closest point.

2.  The proposed dwelling was bigger than other houses in the terrace, but surrounding dwellings were of different sizes.  The materials used would match the surrounding houses.

3.  In terms of parking and access, there was currently no off-street parking and so the addition of 4 parking spaces was a net increase of 1 and the issue of access/turning was not considered significant by Highways officers.  The car parking spaces were compliant with Council policy.

Cllr Eleanor Jackson stated that she considered that the application was an over development of the site and would result in the loss of garden provision and moved that the application be refused.  This was seconded by Cllr Shaun Hughes and on being put to the vote was NOT CARRIED (2 in favour and 7 against).

Cllr Paul Crossley moved the officer recommendation that the application be permitted, this was seconded by Cllr Sally Davis and on being put to the vote it was CARRIED (7 in favour and 2 against).

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

Item No. 7

Application No: 22/00443/FUL

Site Location: Pond House, Rosemary Lane, Freshford, Bath

The Case Officer introduced the report and confirmed the officer recommendation that the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report.  He gave a verbal update to confirm that not all volume calculations had been agreed by both applicant and local planning authority, but those deemed correct by the Council were as set out in the report

The following public representations were received:

1.  John Adler, Freshford Parish Council speaking in support in the application.

2.  Rob Hughes, agent, speaking in support of the application. 

The local ward member, Cllr Matt McCabe read a statement on behalf of Hinton Charterhouse Parish Council in support of the application.

In response to Members questions, it was confirmed:

1.  The existing dwelling could be extended under permitted development rights, and the applicants had stated they were willing to enter into a Section 106 Agreement to forego these rights if the application was approved.

2.  The view of officers was that even though the permitted development would be larger, it would have less impact on the openness of the greenbelt as an infill extension. 

3.  Consideration had not been given to whether the new application was more sustainable than the permitted development as this would be difficult to apply to the very special circumstances criteria.

4.  There had not been any objections from local residents.

5.  The figure of 60.3% increase in volume had been calculated by considering the original building andoutbuildings, but not the detached outbuildings, and the demolition of one outbuilding. 

Cllr Matt McCabe opened the debate as local ward member and confirmed that the other ward member, Cllr Neil Butters supported the application.  He drew attention to the following points:

1.  The current application was smaller than the previous one and smaller and less harmful than the permitted development. 

2.  The design was sensitive and was supported by the local parish councils and neighbours.

3.  The applicant was willing to surrender their permitted development rights and secure this by a Section 106 Agreement.

He asked the committee to overturn the officer’s recommendation for refusal and agree that officers be delegated to permit the application.

Cllr Eleanor Jackson moved that a decision be deferred pending a visit to the site.  This was seconded by Councillor Paul Crossley and on being put to the vote it was NOT CARRIED (3 in favour and 6 against).

Cllr Lucy Hodge stated that she believed the officer’s analysis of the volume was correct and that a 60% increase in volume was too high.  She stated that it was important to be consistent in considering applications in the greenbelt and she did not consider there to be very special circumstances to permit this application. 

Cllr Hal MacFie stressed the importance of good design and the renewable energy aspect of the application and supported Cllr Matt McCabe’s suggestion that the application be permitted.

Cllr Sally Davis moved the officer’s recommendation that the application be refused.  This was seconded by Cllr Lucy Hodge and on being put to the vote it was CARRIED (6 in favour 3 against)

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

Item No. 8

Application No: 22/00624/FUL

Site Location: 136 The Hollow, Southdown, Bath

The Case Officer introduced the report and confirmed the officer recommendation that the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

The following public representations were received:

1.  Andrew Webster, applicant, speaking in support of the application.

The local ward member, Cllr Dine Romero, raised the following points:

1. The applicant was seeking to extend the family home to allow them to stay in the Bath area.
2. This application would not have a detrimental impact on the street scene and there were a number of similar side dormers in the area.
3. If the Committee was not minded to permit the application, a decision should be deferred pending a site visit.

In response to Members questions, it was confirmed:

1.  The application site was not in a conservation area, but it was important to consider the character of the area.

2.  Before 2008, dormers were permitted development and therefore similar nearby side dormers may have been built without the need to obtain planning permission before the legislation changed. 

Cllr Crossley, opening the debate as local ward member, expressed the view that the application was acceptable and moved that it be permitted on the grounds that it did not harm the character of the area or detract from the street scene and was a well-designed scheme which would enhance the neighbourhood.  This was seconded by Cllr Eleanor Jackson.

Cllr Lucy Hodge spoke in support of the motion as the application did not overlook other properties and would not impact the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.

On being put to the vote the motion was CARRIED (8 in favour and 1 against)

RESOLVED that officers be delegated to permit the application subject to suitable conditions, for the following reasons:

1. The application was a well-designed scheme that would enhance the area and would not harm the character of the area or detract from the street scene.
2. The application would not have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.