Agenda item

The following items will be considered at 11am:

1.  23/00660/FUL - Pixash Business Centre Pixash Lane Keynsham Bristol

2.  23/02945/TCA - Orchard Cottage , Dovers Lane, Bathford, Bath

The Committee considered:

A report by the Head of Planning on various planning applications under the main applications list.

Oral statements by members of the public and representatives. A copy of the speakers’ list is attached as Appendix 1 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 2 to these minutes.

(1)  23/00660/FUL - Pixash Business Centre, Pixash Lane, Keynsham

The Planning Officer introduced the report which considered an application for the construction of 2 industrial units with associated parking, external yards, landscaping and services.

He confirmed the recommendation that the application be permitted subject to the conditions set out in the report.

The following public representations were received:

1.  Chris Beaver, objecting to the application.

2.  Mike Taylor, supporting the application.

Cllr Andy Wait was in attendance as local ward member and drew attention to the following points:

1.  Although Keynsham Town Council did not object to the application, it did raise concerns in respect of the development being of Class B2, which could have a detrimental effect on the local community if the wrong type of industry was permitted so close to residential properties.

2.  His main objection was that the application constituted over-development of the site, especially in the context of the recent developments in the area: Hygge Park, Withies Green, the new recycling centre and nursing home.

3.  There was a concern about the increase in HGVs, especially as the A4 was a route for children walking to school.

4.  The Pixash Lane site had a number of successful businesses and there was a concern that the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on existing businesses.

5.  The swept path analysis should have included both HGVs and articulated lorries. 

6.  There had been a right of way in place for 80 years and a covenant agreed in 1998 requiring access at all times.  It was likely that this would be broken by the application.

7.  An alternative proposal had been suggested by local businesses which would retain the existing turning head and remove unit 1. 

He asked the Committee to refuse the application or defer a decision pending a visit to the site.

In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed:

1.  There would be some tree removal as part of the development, but this was mitigated by replacement planting in the boundary hedgerow and landscaped area. 

2.  The covenant was a private matter and not a material consideration for the Planning Committee.  If planning permission was granted it would be a matter for the applicant to resolve before the permission was implemented. 

3.  Swept path analysis was included within the Transport Statement which demonstrated that rigid HGVs would be able to turn within the site. Articulated lorries were longer than rigid HGVs but there was no swept path analysis for articulated lorries.  However, articulated lorries were designed to turn in a similar space to HGVs.  The view of Highways Officers was that HGVs/articulated lorries could turn in the new access road and that there was enough room for vehicles to load and unload.

4.  There was secure parking for 10 bicycles and the location of the secure unit was sufficient distance away from turning vehicles.

5.  The proposed use of B2 (general industrial) was a broad definition and it was not known what type of businesses would use the site.  However, the proposed conditions mitigated future impact.  If members were minded to exclude certain uses, it would be better to defer a definition to allow further negotiations with the applicant.  This would be a better option that delegate to permit to allow the issues of concern to be resolved.

6.  There were no mitigations included for neighbours being overlooked as there was a distance of 27 metres between the development and residential properties which was sufficient in planning terms.  As the building was industrial, use would be limited which would minimise overlooking outside office hours.  A condition could be included about operating hours, but officers did not think this was necessary.

7.  In terms of control of dust control and emissions, the environmental team did not recommend any conditions relating to these issues.  It would be possible to include a condition requiring the user to submit information about emissions, but officers would need to consider the wording and how the information would be used. 

Cllr Hal MacFie opened the debate as local ward member.  He expressed concern about the size of the proposed unit and the lack of space for vehicles to turn and load/unload as well as the uncertainties about the future use and the impact on residential properties.  He proposed that a decision be deferred.  This was seconded by Cllr Ian Halsall who stated that there were too many uncertainties about the proposal. 

Cllr Shaun Hughes spoke in support of the proposal to defer the application for the following reasons:

1.  To allow the developer to provide a swept path analysis for 16m vehicles.

2.  To allow further information to be provided to demonstrate that there would be no negative impact on the viability of existing businesses.

3.  To give clarity on the access road in terms of ownership and use.

4.  To review the class B2 use to see if conditions could be attached in relation to the future use of the site.

Cllr Hal MacFie also requested further information to be provided on the viability of the loading and unloading of forklift trucks.

Cllr Tim Warren spoke against the motion to defer as he considered that the Committee had enough information to determine the application.

On being put to the vote the motion to defer a decision was CARRIED (9 in favour, 1 against).

Cllr Paul Crossley moved that the Committee undertake a site visit.  This was seconded by Cllr Eleanor Jackson and, on being put to the vote, it was CARRIED (10 in favour, 0 against – unanimous).

RESOLVED  that

(1)  A decision be deferred on the application for the following reasons:

a.  To allow the developer to provide a swept path analysis for 16m vehicles.

b.  To allow further information to be provided to demonstrate that there would be no negative impact on the viability of existing businesses.

c.  To give clarity on the access road in terms of ownership and use.

d.  To review the class B2 use to see if conditions could be attached in relation to the future use of the site.

e.  To allow further information to be provided on the viability of the loading and unloading of forklift trucks.

(2)  That the Committee undertake a site visit.

(2)  23/02945/TCA - Orchard Cottage, Dovers Lane, Bathford, Bath

The Planning Case Officer introduced the report which considered an application for proposed works to a fell a cypress tree in a conservation area.

She confirmed her recommendation that no objection be raised as the tree was dead and removal of the tree was considered to be appropriate.  She stated that the application had been referred to the Committee in accordance with the scheme of delegation as the applicant was related to a member of staff.

In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed that, in the case of dead trees, there was a standard obligation to replant a tree and in this case the applicant had confirmed their intention to plant a rowan tree. 

Cllr Eleanor Jackson commented that dead trees did have ecological value.

Cllr Tim Warren moved the officer recommendation that no objection be raised.  This was seconded by Cllr Toby Simon and on being put to the vote the motion was CARRIED (10 in favour, 0 against – UNANIMOUS).

RESOLVED  that no objection be raised to the application.