Agenda item
Main Plans List - Applications for Planning Permission Etc for Determination by the Committee
1. 22/01370/FUL - Parcel 4234, Combe Hay Lane, Combe Hay, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset
Minutes:
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. 22/01370/FUL - Parcel 4234, Combe Hay Lane, Combe Hay
The Planning Case Officer introduced the report which considered an application for the creation of new allotments including associated facilities and landscaping and access serving the allotments.
He confirmed the officers’ recommendation that permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report,
The following public representations were received:
2. Robert Hellard, on behalf of South of Bath Alliance, objecting to the application.
3. Mark Sommerville, agent, supporting the application.
Cllr Fiona Gourley was in attendance as ward councillor and read a statement summarised as below:
1. She shared the frustrations of Parish Councils and local residents.
2. The allotments should not be in the proposed location, and this was due to an inefficient use of the phase 1 development site.
3. Other options were not pursued.
4. There was a shortage of allotment provision and demand from local residents, but Derryman’s field was not an appropriate location.
5. There were concerns about who would take responsibility for the allotments.
6. There were many well-founded objections to the application, but on balance, she reluctantly agreed that the application should be permitted due to the need and demand for allotments.
7. Permission should be subject to strict conditions on the provision of water, a strong deer fence, a single good community shed and clarification on who will be responsible for the upkeep of the allotments.
In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed:
2. The current Section 106 Agreement required the allotments to be managed by either a management company, the Council or a body nominated by the Council. This could be resolved at a later date.
3. If there was no demand for the allotments from residents of phase 1, they could be offered to the wider community.
4. The management plan would deal with issues such as the allotments becoming overgrown.
5. The original proposal for a kissing gate would be replaced by a swing gate to facilitate the use of wheelbarrows to carry compost etc.
6. The Section 106 agreement dealt with the management of the allotments as there may be a requirement for the transfer of land which was better dealt with by a legal agreement rather than condition. The condition to require an allotment management plan to be submitted would not be discharged until it was known who would be responsible for managing the land.
7. The use of the land would also be secured by the Section 106 Agreement, if the land was sold, the obligations would stand and there would be controls over who managed the allotments.
8. In relation to the Green Belt location, it was the view of officers that the facilities proposed would preserve the openness of the Green Belt and that the nature and appearance of the proposed allotments would not conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt.
9. A water supply would be secured as part of the Section 106 Agreement.
10.The Council’s Greener Places Team was satisfied with the proposal for one community shed and also that there were sufficient growing conditions which would not be adversely affected by the adjoining woodland.
11.Only one community shed had been proposed rather than a number of individual sheds to protect the openness of the green belt. The size of the proposed community shed was 14ft by 7ft.
Cllr Halsall opened the debate and acknowledged the concerns around the proposed location of the allotments but considered that, on balance, the benefits of providing allotments outweighed concerns about the location and he moved the officers recommendation to permit the application. This was seconded by Cllr Simon.
Cllr Hughes expressed concern around the siting in the Green Belt, Cotswold National Landscape and Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) and the impact on ecology. He also raised concerns about the timing before the submission of revised submission for phases 3 and 4. Cllr Jackson agreed with these concerns and also questioned if the application would work without additional facilities and whether there would be interest from local residents.
Cllr Warren raised concerns that the allotments had not been sited within the phase 1 development and questioned whether the application was fit for purpose.
On voting for the motion to permit the application, it was NOT CARRIED (3 in favour and 6 against).
Cllr Hughes moved that the application be refused for the following reasons:
2. the proposed development would fail to conserve or enhance the natural beauty of the Cotswolds National Landscape.
3. The proposed development would adversely affect the Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) and would result in a loss of habitat.
This was seconded by Cllr Warren.
On voting for the motion, it was CARRIED (6 in favour and 3 against).
RESOLVED that the application be refused for the following reasons:
1. the proposed allotments and associated infrastructure would fail to preserve the openness of the Green Belt and represent inappropriate development.
2. the proposed development would fail to conserve or enhance the natural beauty of the Cotswolds National Landscape.
3. The proposed development would adversely affect the Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) and would result in a loss of habitat.
Supporting documents:
PDF 376 KB