Agenda item

The following items will be considered at 11am:

1.  23/01535/PIP - Strathmore, Staunton Lane, Whitchurch, Bristol, Bath And North East Somerset

2.  23/02676/FUL - 22 Rockliffe Avenue, Bathwick, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset

3.  23/03048/VAR - Parcel 2000, Silver Street, Midsomer Norton, 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)  23/01535/PIP - Strathmore, Staunton Lane, Whitchurch, Bristol, Bath And North East Somerset

The Planning Officer introduced the report which considered a permission in principle planning application for the erection of one dwelling and associated works. 

She confirmed the recommendation that permission in principle be granted.

The following public representations were received:

1.  Isabelle Reynolds, agent, speaking in support of the application.

In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed:

1.  In relation to permission in principle applications, an assessment could only be made in relation to the location, land use and amount of development.  If permission was granted, the applicant would have 3 years to submit the technical details.  A permission in principle did not mean that an application for the technical details would be granted if technical details did not prove to be satisfactory.

2.  The Planning Inspector’s decision to allow an appeal for 3 infill dwellings at a nearby site had not set a precedent, but consideration needed to be given to the Inspector’s conclusion that decision makers should, when determining whether or not a site can be considered in a village, have regard to the situation 'on the ground' as well as to any relevant policies.

3.  In relation to the highways objection raised in 2017 which was no longer of concern to officers, this related to a private road.  Since 2017, there had been the Inspector’s decision to grant an appeal on a nearby site and in view of this, it was considered that a refusal on highway grounds could not be warranted. 

4.  The site did include a tree which was not the subject of a Tree Preservation Order. 

5.  Some weight could be given to an application being self-build. 

6.  There were some rare cases where personal circumstances could be considered but, on the whole, personal circumstances were not a material consideration.

7.  The application site was within the curtilage of Strathmore and would be located in the side garden.  There was no difference to its location in terms of openness than if it had been located on a separate piece of land.

8.  In terms of the green belt location, if the principle of infill was considered appropriate, there was no need for very special circumstances to justify the development.

A number of Members expressed a general concern that the decision of the Planning Inspector to grant permission for a nearby application as infill would effectively lead to the redrawing of the boundary for housing development resulting in a piecemeal approach to further developments.

Cllr Ian Halsall stated that he supported the permission in principle application in view of the location, land use and amount of development. 

Cllr Paul Crossley moved the officer recommendation to grant permission in principle.  This was seconded by Cllr Hal MacFie.

Cllr Toby Simon spoke in support of the application as a self-build development which met a housing need.

On voting for the motion to grant permission, it was CARRIED (9 in favour, 0 against – UNANIMOUS)

RESOLVED  that permission in principle be granted.

(2)  23/02676/FUL - 22 Rockliffe Avenue, Bathwick, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset

The Planning Case Officer introduced the report which considered an application for the erection of front porch extension, replacement of windows and doors, installation of raised flat roof to rear extension and new ground floor side windows and alterations to door and window openings.  She reported that the application had been referred to committee under the scheme of delegation as the applicant was an employee of the Council’s Planning Department.

She confirmed her recommendation that the application be permitted.

Cllr Toby Simon opened the debate as local ward member and confirmed that he supported the application.  He proposed the officer recommendation that the application be approved.  This was seconded by Cllr Ian Halsall.

On being put to the vote the motion was CARRIED (9 in favour, 0 against – UNANIMOUS).

RESOLVED  that permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.

(3)  23/03048/VAR - Parcel 2000, Silver Street, Midsomer Norton, Bath And North East Somerset

The Planning Case Officer introduced the report which considered an application for a variation of a condition relating to a boundary wall and associated landscaping and reported that the application had been referred to Committee under the scheme of delegation as the applicant was an employee of the Council’s Planning Department.

She confirmed her recommendation that the application be permitted.

Cllr Eleanor Jackson spoke in support of the variation as she did not consider the original proposal for lime trees to be suitable in the location.  She proposed the officer recommendation that the application be permitted.  This was seconded by Cllr Paul Crossley.

On being put to the vote the motion was CARRIED (9 in favour, 0 against – UNANIMOUS).

RESOLVED  that permission be granted.