Agenda item

The following items will be considered at 11am:

1.  24/01160/FUL - 11 Richmond Road, Bath

The Committee considered:

1.  A report by the Head of Planning on the applications under the site visit applications list.

2.  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 applications decisions list attached as Appendix 2 to these minutes.

1.  24/01160/FUL - 11 Richmond Road, Bath

The Planning Officer introduced the report which considered an application for the erection of a 3-bed dwelling. 

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

The following public representations were received:

1.  Dr Millicent Stone local resident, objecting to the application.

2.  Chris Melbourne, applicant supporting the application.

Cllr Mark Elliott was unable to attend as ward member and a statement was read on his behalf summarised as below:

1.  There would be an impact on residential amenity for the residents of Maple House in terms of overlooking.

2.  The proposed building was different in design and conception to the surrounding buildings and could be seen as contrary to the area’s character.

He asked the Committee to consider not supporting the officers’ recommendation.

In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed:

1.  There was a car port and not a garage as part of the proposed development.

2.  In terms of whether the trees would damage the roots of the proposed development in the long term, the Tree Officer had made an estimation about the future impact and did not raise an objection.

3.  Any noise impact from the balcony/terrace was not considered to be adverse.

4.  One of the trees included in the tree preservation order was an Ash and it was possible it would be removed if it had Ash Dieback disease.

5.  The officer assessment had concluded that the proposal did not represent and overdevelopment of the site. 

6.  The application site was considered to be sustainable due to its location in the urban area of Bath.

7.  The size of the proposed glazed area of windows to the upper floor at the rear was approximately 10m square.

Cllr Lucy Hodge opened the debate as local member and stated that the application site was on the edge of the conservation area and asked the Committee to consider whether the requirements of the policy D7 relating to infill and backland developments had been met in terms of residential amenity and design. 

Cllr Shaun Hughes raised concerns that the design did not fit with the setting due to the flat roof and the large extent of glazing.  He expressed further concern that the proposed first floor windows would result in a significant loss of amenity to Maple House due to overlooking which would not be sufficiently screened by the boundary trees throughout the year.  He moved that the application be refused for these reasons.  The motion was seconded by Cllr Eleanor Jackson.

Cllr Paul Crossley spoke in support of the motion for the reasons suggested and an additional reason that the size, scale and overall footprint of the proposed building would result in overdevelopment of the site.  As mover of the motion, Cllr Hughes agreed to include this as a reason for refusal.

Cllr Toby Simon spoke in support of the application as he considered the design to reflect the location and the level of overlooking not to be harmful due to the layout of the site. 

On voting for the motion, it was CARRIED (8 in favour and 2 against).

RESOLVED that the application be refused for the following reasons:

1.  The proposed first floor windows would result in a harmful level of overlooking to the occupiers of Maple House.

2.  The flat roof and large extent of glazing was out of character with the local area and the size, scale and overall footprint of the development would result in overdevelopment of the site.