Agenda item
Main Plans List - Applications for Planning Permission Etc for Determination by the Committee
The following items will be considered at 11am:
1. 25/00791/VAR - Bath Rugby Club, Bath Recreation Ground, Pulteney Mews, Bathwick, Bath
2. 25/00790/VAR - Bath Rugby Club, Bath Recreation Ground, Pulteney Mews, Bathwick, Bath
3. 25/00789/VAR - Bath Rugby Club, Bath Recreation Ground, Pulteney Mews, Bathwick, Bath
The following items will be considered at 2pm:
1. 24/03941/FUL - Ravenswell Lodge, Access Road to Ravenswell House, Charlcombe, Bath
2. 25/01724/TCA - Audley House, Park Gardens, Lower Weston, Bath
3. 25/01692/TCA - Audley House, Park Gardens, Lower Weston, Bath
Minutes:
1. A 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.
(Cllr Paul Crossley and Tim Warren declared an interest and withdrew from the meeting during the following 3 items).
The Chair reported the procedure for considering the 3 Bath Recreation Ground applications as follows:
1. The Case Officer would introduce the 3 Bath Recreation Ground reports.
2. The public speakers would be called to speak on the applications and the speaking time would be combined.
3. Members would be invited to ask questions on the 3 applications.
4. There would be a separate debate and vote on each of the 3 applications.
1. 25/00791/VAR - Bath Rugby Club, Bath Recreation Ground, Pulteney Mews, Bathwick, Bath
2. 25/00790/VAR - Bath Rugby Club, Bath Recreation Ground, Pulteney Mews, Bathwick, Bath
3. 25/00789/VAR - Bath Rugby Club, Bath Recreation Ground, Pulteney Mews, Bathwick, Bath
The Case Officer introduced the first report which considered application 25/00791/VAR for the variation of condition 1 and removal of condition 2 of application 24/01261/VAR to facilitate the retention of the existing temporary stands in situ through to May 2027 and facilitate the retention of the East Stand during both summer 2025 and 2026.
She confirmed the officers’ recommendation that permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.
The Case Officer introduced the second report which considered application 25/00790/VAR for the variation of condition 1 of application 21/05529/VAR to facilitate the retention of the existing temporary stands in situ through to May 2027.
She confirmed the officers’ recommendation that permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.
The Case Officer introduced the third report which considered application 25/00789/VAR for the variation of condition 1 of application 21/05528/VAR to facilitate the retention of the existing temporary stands in situ through to May 2027.
She confirmed the officers’ recommendation that permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.
The following public representations were received:
1. Ceris Humphries, Pultney Estate Residents Association and Rosemary Carne, local resident, objecting to the applications.
2. Tim Burden, agent, Tarquin McDonald Chief Executive of Bath Rugby and John Finn, Chief Executive, Bath Recreation Ltd, speaking in support of the applications.
Cllr Manda Rigby was in attendance as ward Councillor and read a statement summarised as below:
1. Temporary planning permission had originally been given to all stands with a condition that the east stand would be taken down during the summer.
2. The city of Bath had double heritage status, and the views should be protected.
3. Local residents supported the stand being taken down and views being restored during the summer.
4. The first application to retain the east stand during the summer was during the Covid pandemic and there were exceptional circumstances at that time.
5. While there was an argument for retaining the other temporary stands, there were no exceptional circumstances and no public good in retaining the east stand and it had always been intended that this would be taken down every year.
6. Reference was made to the carbon emissions associated with removing and reinstalling the stand, but extra events over the summer would also result in carbon emissions.
In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed:
2. The stand was due to be removed for approximately 23% of the year which equated to 11-12 weeks. The removal and the reinstatement of the stand would take approximately 7 weeks and there would need to be a period of reseeding.
3. In response to concerns raised about flashing signs on the site, this was not part of this application.
4. If the applications were refused, any impact on planned events such as graduations would be an issue for the organisers to resolve.
5. The cost of removing and reinstalling the stand was not a material consideration. The public benefits were retaining the use of the toilet and bar facilities for various events and the avoidance of construction traffic and noise associated with the removal and reinstallation of the stands.
6. The west stand had not been removed in recent years.
Debate and vote on item 1 - 25/00791/VAR - Bath Rugby Club, Bath Recreation Ground, Pulteney Mews, Bathwick, Bath
Cllr Toby Simon opened the debate as ward Councillor. He expressed the view that there were benefits to the application such as increased public use and the avoidance of the disturbance of removing and reinstalling the stand and associated loss of car parking at the pavilion and leisure centre and that these outweighed the visual disbenefits. He also referred to the timescale for the stand to come down which had been narrowed to approximately 6 weeks allowing time for reseeding. He moved the officers’ recommendation to permit the application subject to the conditions set out in the report.
Cllr Halsall seconded the motion and expressed the view that use of the recreation ground should be optimised all year round.
Cllr Fiona Gourley concurred with the view that the recreation ground should be used to its fullest extent for the benefit of more people.
Cllr Shaun Hughes stated that although he sympathised with objectors, he supported the motion due to the logistics involved in removing and reinstalling the stand.
On voting for the motion, it was CARRIED (8 in favour and 0 against - unanimous).
Debate and vote on item 2 - 25/00790/VAR - Bath Rugby Club, Bath Recreation Ground, Pulteney Mews, Bathwick, Bath
Cllr Toby Simon opened the debate as ward Councillor and expressed the view that 2 years was a reasonable time period. He moved the officers’ recommendation to permit the application subject to the conditions set out in the report. This was seconded by Cllr Ian Halsall.
On voting for the motion, it was CARRIED (8 in favour and 0 against - unanimous).
Debate and vote on item 3 - 25/00790/VAR - Bath Rugby Club, Bath Recreation Ground, Pulteney Mews, Bathwick, Bath
Cllr Toby Simon opened the debate as ward Councillor and moved the officers’ recommendation to permit the application subject to the conditions set out in the report. This was seconded by Cllr Ian Halsall.
On voting for the motion, it was CARRIED (8 in favour and 0 against - unanimous).
RESOLVED that the application be permitted subject to the conditions set out in the report.
4. 24/03941/FUL - Ravenswell Lodge, Access Road to Ravenswell House, Charlcombe, Bath
The Planning Officer introduced the report which considered an application for the erection of replacement rear extensions, landscaping and associated works to follow the partial demolition of Ravenswell Lodge.
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. Lesley Craddock, local resident, objecting to the application.
2. Professor Robert Tavernor, applicant, supporting the application.
Cllr Mark Elliott was unable to attend as ward Councillor and a statement was read on his behalf as summarised as below:
1. He supported the property being updated and turned into a viable family home and recognised that the applicant had addressed some of the concerns raised by local residents.
2. He had asked for the application to be determined by committee due to it being a sensitive site in the Green Belt and the Cotswold National Landscape.
3. He was concerned about the proximity to Soper’s Wood as this was an ancient woodland.
4. There was a contested enforcement notice around change of use of some surrounding agricultural land and woodland into residential land.
5. The original property had already been significantly extended so the proposal would see a significant increase in size from the original.
6. The residents of Ravenswell Cottage next door were concerned about the scale and mass of the building its effect on their residential amenity.
7. He recommended that the Committee undertake a site visit before making a decision.
In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed:
1. A bat survey had been undertaken and there were found to be bats roosting in the existing extension requiring a license to be secured in advance of the development. There had been a reduction in glazing in the proposed development to protect the bat flight corridor
2. Soper’s Wood was an extensive woodland and part of A Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI). There was also an extent of woodland in the applicant’s ownership which did not form part of the SNCI.
3. Officers had accepted that there was a disproportionate increase in relation to the original property and therefore consideration was given to whether there were very special circumstances to allow the development in the green belt. It was noted that the replacement would not result in a material increase when compared to the current property.
4. In relation to the potential impact on the Scots Pine tree, the view of the Tree Officer was that the development could be constructed without impacting on the tree. Extra planting had also been secured as a condition to offset any potential damage to the tree in the long term.
5. Ravenswood Cottage was approximately 3m north of Ravenswood Lodge. The proposed extension pulled the built form of the host dwelling away from the northern boundary of the site. The two dwellings were on the same level and the land sloped to the east.
Cllr Tim Warren opened the debate and acknowledged the intention of the applicant to turn the property into a sustainable home and expressed the view that there would be sufficient screening to minimise the impact on the surrounding area. He moved the officers’ recommendation to permit the application subject to the conditions set out in the report. This was seconded by Cllr Paul Crossley.
Cllr Shaun Hughes expressed reservations about the impact on the residential amenity on neighbouring properties and stated that he would support a site visit to understand the relationship between the development site and neighbouring properties, in particular Ravenswell Cottage.
Cllrs Fiona Gourley and Eleanor Jackson agreed that it would be useful to visit the site in advance of making a decision.
Cllr Tim Warren and Cllr Paul Crossley, as mover and seconder, confirmed that they were not willing to withdraw their motion to allow a further motion to come forward proposing a site visit and therefore a vote was taken on the motion to permit the application.
On voting for the motion, it was CARRIED (5 in favour and 4 against).
RESOLVED that the application be permitted subject to the conditions set out in the report.
5. 25/01724/TCA - Audley House, Park Gardens, Lower Weston, Bath
She confirmed the officers’ recommendation that no objection be raised to the works.
Cllr Ian Halsall moved the officers’ recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr Tim Warren.
On voting for the motion, it was CARRIED (9 in favour and 0 against - unanimous).
RESOLVED that no objection be raised to the tree works.
6. 25/01692/TCA - Audley House, Park Gardens, Lower Weston, Bath
The Planning Officer introduced the report which considered a tree works notification in the conservation area.
She confirmed the officers’ recommendation that no objection be raised to the works.
Cllr Paul Crossley moved the officers’ recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr Tim Warren.
On voting for the motion, it was CARRIED (9 in favour and 0 against - unanimous).
RESOLVED that no objection be raised to the tree works.
Supporting documents:
PDF 1 MB