Agenda item

The following items will be considered at 11am:

1.  24/00287/FUL - Whitecross House, Whitecross Road, East Harptree, Bristol, Bath and North East Somerset

2.  24/03112/FUL - Woodlands, Staunton Lane, Whitchurch, Bristol, Bath and North East Somerset

The Committee considered:

1.  A report and update report by the Head of Planning on the applications under the main 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.  24/00287/FUL - Whitecross House, Whitecross Road, East Harptree, Bristol, Bath and North East Somerset

The Case Officer introduced the report which considered an application for 4 dwellings by subdivision of a main house, conversion of ancillary stables and the erection of 1 new dwelling.

She gave a verbal update to report:

1.  An additional objection comment had been sent to the Chair and circulated to the other members of the Planning Committee.  It was not considered that this raised new issues that had not already been assessed in the Committee report.

2.  An amendment to page 33 of the report to refer to the Council’s Duty under Section 86 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act.

3.  An addition to page 33 to include reference to the special qualities of the Mendip National Landscape.  There were 15 special qualities and the 2 of particular relevance to this application were the views in and views out of the landscape.  The scheme was not considered to impact on these or any other special qualities of the Mendip National Landscape. 

The Case Officer confirmed the officers’ recommendation that permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.

The following public representations were received:

1.  Mark Jerzak, local resident, objecting to the application.

2.  Sasha Berezina, agent, supporting the application.

In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed:

1.  There were 3 dwellings on the site currently and this would increase to 6 dwellings as a result of the development.  Officers did not consider that the scheme constituted over-development of the site and felt that there was adequate outdoor space.

2.  In terms of impact on residential amenity, officers concluded that there would not be a significant impact.  The two-storey dwelling was sufficiently distanced from the neighbouring property.

3.  The scheme was too small to trigger a requirement for affordable housing.

4.  A bicycle/bin store was included in the plans.  There would be enough space for cars to enter and leave the site when the bins were taken out for waste collection.

5.  The installation of electric vehicle charging equipment was a building regulations issue.

6.  Officers had made a judgement that aluminium framed windows were acceptable on the former stables, as there were limited views from the public realm.  The other windows would be timber framed.

7.  A snug could potentially be used as an additional bedroom, and this could not be controlled by the planning process.

8.  The scheme would not result in a loss of on street parking.  There would be 8 parking spaces (2.5m x 5m) on site which was policy compliant.  It would not be possible for members of the public to park on the site as it was private land.

9.  There was a condition to protect the Grade II Curtilage Listed wall during the construction of the development.

10.The height of the new dwelling was less than 1m higher than Court Cottage. 

11.The roof lights were conservation style, and this was the subject of a condition.

12.Although it appeared on the plan that there would be a loss of green space, the new green space was better quality and value in terms of Biodiversity Net Gain. 

13.The air source heat pumps associated with the new dwellings would need to comply to MCS planning standards and this was subject of a condition. 

14.Solar panels would be included on the new dwelling, there was no policy requirement for them to be added to existing dwellings.

15.In relation to concerns about the sewage system, this was covered by a pre commencement condition.

16.The hardstanding area would need to be permeable.  It would not be possible to create further hardstanding areas during the 30-year Biodiversity Net Gain period.  Officers could investigate whether it was possible to remove permitted development rights to prevent green space being converted to a hard surface in the future. 

17.It was possible to include an additional condition in relation to any significant finds as the result of the archaeological watching brief. 

18.The application was too small to trigger a Section 106 contribution.  There would be a Community Infrastructure Levy (CiL) charge and there was a separate process to determine how CiL money was spent.

Cllr Shaun Hughes raised concerns relating to insufficient green space and loss of amenity and stated that the application was bordering on over-development. 

Cllr Fiona Gourley expressed concerns about the over-development of the site and that the site could be converted to holiday accommodation in the future. 

Cllr Eleanor Jackson suggested that some of the issues raised could be addressed by conditions if officers were delegated to permit the application.  She drew particular attention to ecological issues relating to bats/swifts and an addition condition relating to archaeological finds. 

Cllr Deborah Collins stated that while she gave weight to the provision of additional housing, she was concerned about over-development of the site with limited outside amenity.

Cllr Toby Simon moved that officers be delegated to permit the application subject to a review of conditions in light of issues raised, specifically, a restriction to prevent holiday lets; the removal of permitted development rights to prevent further hard surfaces; strengthening of the ecological compliance condition to ensure remediation measures in relation to bats/swifts meet satisfactory standards and strengthening of the archaeology condition in relation to a significant archaeological discovery.  This was seconded by Tim Warren who expressed the view that although he had reservations about the height of the new dwelling, on balance he believed the application was policy compliant.

On voting for the motion, it was CARRIED (6 in favour and 4 against).

RESOLVED that officers be delegated to permit the application subject to a review of conditions in light of issues raised as follows:

1.  a restriction to prevent holiday lets;

2.  the removal of permitted development rights to prevent further hard surfaces;

3.  strengthening of the ecological compliance condition to ensure remediation measures in relation to bats/swifts meet satisfactory standards

4.  strengthening of the archaeology condition in relation to a significant archaeological discovery. 

2.  24/03112/FUL - Woodlands, Staunton Lane, Whitchurch, Bristol, Bath and North East Somerset

This application was withdrawn from the agenda as it had been registered incorrectly and would need re-registering and a new consultation period.