Agenda item

The following items will be considered in the morning session starting at 11am:

1.  22/04498/FUL The Cottage, Sutton Hill Road, Bishop Sutton, Bristol, Bath And North East Somerset

2.  23/01759/FUL 8 Rennie Close, Bathwick, Bath, Bath and North East Somerset

The Committee considered:

A report and update 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)  22/04498/FUL The Cottage, Sutton Hill Road, Bishop Sutton, Bristol, Bath And North East Somerset

The Planning Officer introduced the report which considered an application for a single storey front extension. 

He confirmed the recommendation that the application be refused as it was considered overly dominant and harmful to the character of the cottage.

The following public representations were received:

1.  Barney Bonner, agent, supporting the application.

In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed:

1.  The site was not in the green belt and therefore the Committee did not need to consider whether the proposal was 30% larger than the original footprint.  However, officers had made a judgement that the application was too large and dominant.  The proposal was smaller than the existing garage.

2.  Although the Parish Council support of the application was dependent on a condition to control artificial lighting, officers did not consider this was a reasonable condition for an application of this size. 

3.  In relation to the comments made by neighbours, these were building regulation matters and not a consideration for the Committee.

Cllr Tim Warren acknowledged the support of the Parish Council in relation to the application and expressed his view was that the proposal was appropriate within the housing development boundary.  He proposed that officers be delegated to permit the application subject to suitable conditions to ensure the proposal was built in accordance with plans.  This was seconded by Cllr Eleanor Jackson who stated that a further reason would be that the development would allow the applicants to work from home which was a material consideration in the context of the climate emergency.  Cllr Tim Warren agreed with this additional reason as mover of the motion. 

Cllr Paul Crossley spoke in support of the application, he considered the design to be sympathetic and did not consider that it would cause substantial harm. 

On being put to the vote the motion was CARRIED (8 in favour, 0 against - unanimous)

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

(1)  The development was appropriate in its location within the housing development boundary.

(2)  There was an additional environmental benefit of enabling the applicants to work from home.

(2)  23/01759/FUL 8 Rennie Close, Bathwick, Bath, Bath and North East Somerset

The Case Officer introduced the report which considered the application for the erection of a ground floor extension to the rear and installation of a roof light.

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

The following public representations were received:

1.  Bob Goodman, local resident, objecting to the application.

2.  Rachel Tadman, agent, and Karen Kidd, applicant, supporting the application.

Cllr Alison Born was in attendance as local ward member and raised the following issues on behalf of herself and the other ward member Cllr Deborah Collins:

1.  They had requested that the application be referred to the committee following concerns raised by local residents.

2.  They had visited the gardens of neighbouring properties and concluded that the proposed extension would be overbearing.

3.  They considered the proposal to be too large in the context of other buildings, it would cover the width of the back of the house, and although it was angled on one side, it would extend out by 2.6m and 3.8m on the other side.

4.  The extension would cover a large part of the garden.

5.  There were also concerns about the drainage.

She 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.  Permitted development rights were in place for the property and the owners could extend 3m by 3m without applying for planning permission.  The application was for an extension of 3.8m (depth) by 3.098m (height). 

2.  There was no policy restriction on extending into the garden area and as courtyard gardens were commonplace in central Bath, the loss of garden space would not warrant a reason for refusal. 

3.  The application was fully compliant, and the land was in the ownership of the applicant.

4.  In relation to residential amenity, members needed to be satisfied that any harm was significant in accordance with policy D6.

5.  The roof of the proposed extension was flat.

6.  The proposed extension would be angled at a 45 degree to limit overshadowing of the neighbouring property.  Officers considered that impact on residential amenity was not significant.

Cllr Lucy Hodge proposed that a decision be deferred pending a site visit.  This was seconded by Cllr Eleanor Jackson.

On being put to the vote it was NOT CARRIED (4 in favour and 5 against - Chair using second vote). 

Cllr Paul Crossley proposed that the application be refused on the grounds that it was an overdevelopment of the site and would cause an unacceptable level of harm on neighbouring properties.  This was seconded by Cllr Lucy Hodge. 

On being put to the vote it was NOT CARRIED (4 in favour and 5 against - Chair using second vote).

Cllr Tim Warren moved the officer recommendation that permission be granted.  This was seconded by Cllr Hal MacFie.

On being put to the vote the motion was CARRIED (5 in favour, 4 against - Chair using second vote).

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