Agenda item
Main Plans List - Applications for Planning Permission Etc for Determination by the Committee
1. 25/04124/FUL - 26 Wedgwood Road, Whiteway, Bath,
Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1NX
2. 25/04650/FUL - 16 Alderley Road, Southdown, Bath,
Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1LB
3. 25/04242/FUL - The Coach House, Midford Road, Midford, 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. 25/04124/FUL - 26 Wedgwood Road, Whiteway, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1NX
The Planning Officer introduced the report which considered an application for the change of use from a single dwelling (C3) to 7-bedroom house in multiple occupation (HMO) (Sui Generis).
He confirmed the officers’ recommendation that the application be permitted subject to the conditions set out in the report.
Cllr Sarah Moore was in attendance as ward councillor and raised the following points:
1. She questioned whether figures were accurate in relation to the calculation of the number of residential properties and number of HMOs.
2. She was concerned that there were non-registered HMOs which had not been taking into consideration and would put the percentage over the threshold of 10% in the 100m radius.
3. The plans were of concern; the smallest bedroom and bathrooms were too small and there were no detailed plans for the kitchen.
4. The cycle store at the back was only accessible through the communal area of the house and this was not ideal for tenants.
5. Although the property was served by bus services, these were subsidised and could not be guaranteed to continue in the long term.
6. There was a lack of on-street parking in the area and this would be exacerbated if the tenants had cars.
7. She asked the Committee to refuse the application.
In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed:
1. This application would not result in sandwiching of a residential property.
2. There were no residents parking zones in operation in the area.
3. In terms of whether the heating system needed to be upgraded, the property was Grade C rated which was the requirement for HMOs and so there was no planning requirement to upgrade.
4. The figures for residential properties/HMOs were calculated using the Council’s mapping service and officers had no reason to believe these were inaccurate. If anyone was aware of HMOs operating without planning permission, this should be referred to the enforcement team for investigation. If the Committee required a further investigation of the figures, then a deferral was recommended.
5. In terms of the party wall and impact on the neighbouring property, building regulations would control construction.
6. The tenants would need to bring their bicycles through the communal area in the house to access the cycle store as the house was terraced and there was no separate access to the garden. It was considered that the rear garden was the safest location for the cycle store.
Cllr MacFie moved that the application be deferred to enable further clarification on the figures of residential properties and HMOs within a 100m radius of the application site. This was seconded by Cllr Simon who requested a list of all properties and their status in order to make an informed assessment.
Cllr Halsall spoke in support of the motion to defer as the concentration of HMOs in the area was close to the threshold of 10%.
On voting for the motion, it was CARRIED (9 in favour and 0 against - UNANIMOUS).
RESOLVED that the application be deferred to enable further clarification on the figures of residential properties and HMOs within a 100m of the application site.
2. 25/04650/FUL - 16 Alderley Road, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1LB
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. Chris Jones, agent, supporting the application.
Cllr Dine Romero was in attendance as ward councillor and read a statement summarised as below:
1. She expressed concern about the loss of an affordable family home and the impact on the community, such as the viability of local schools.
2. The increase in the number of adults living in the property could result in up to 6 cars and would have an impact on air quality in the area.
3. She was concerned about elements of the design such as the bathroom located next to the kitchen and that bins and bicycles would need to be transported through the communal area.
4. She asked the Committee to refuse the application.
In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed:
1. The bin store was located at the back of the house and bins would need to be brought through the communal living area to the front of the building for collection. This was not an unusual situation for terraced housing.
2. The location of the toilet would need to meet building regulations.
3. Officers did not consider that there was an unacceptable level of harm caused by overlooking.
4. The 3 parking spaces included in the plans did exceed the minimum requirement of 1 parking space.
5. It was not a planning consideration whether the dropped curves would prevent people parking on the road.
6. The development would be allowed under permitted development if it was not located within an area subject to an Article 4 Direction restricting
7. the conversion of residential properties into HMOs.
8. Officers did not consider there would be an impact on sewage/drainage as the increase was from a 5-bedroom dwelling to a 6-bedroom dwelling.
Cllr Crossley opened the debate as ward councillor. He agreed that the application complied with HMO requirements but expressed concern about the loss of amenity to neighbouring properties and the loss of on street parking. This was seconded by Cllr Hughes who expressed reservations about the feasibility of the design. The Deputy Head of Planning - Development Management advised against the loss of on-street parking as being a reason for refusal as there was no right to park on a public highway and it was agreed that this reason be withdrawn
Cllr Halsall spoke in support of the motion due to the impact on residential amenity. He agreed with the need to retain affordable family homes.
Cllr Leach spoke against the motion as he did not consider there was a defensible reason to refuse the application.
Cllr Gourley spoke in support of the motion as she considered the design would impact on amenity of future residents.
On voting for the motion, it was NOT CARRIED (4 in favour and 5 against).
Cllr Jackson moved the officers’ recommendation with an additional condition to ensure that the loft space could not be used for additional accommodation. This was seconded by Cllr Leach.
On voting for the motion, it was CARRIED (5 in favour and 4 against).
RESOLVED that the application be permitted subject to the conditions in the report and an additional condition to ensure that the loft space would not be used for additional accommodation.
3. 25/04242/FUL - The Coach House, Midford Road, Midford, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset
contemporary two-storey self-build dwelling in the green belt.
He confirmed the officers’ recommendation that officers be granted delegated authority to permit the application subject to:
1. the submission of a Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking to secure the property as a self-build dwelling.
2. the conditions set out in the report.
There were no public representations on the application.
In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed:
1. The existing building was not of historic interest or significance.
2. There was no requirement for a separate application for the demolition of the existing dwelling as the site was not in a conservation area.
Cllr Gourley opened debate as local councillor and stated that the proposed development would be more fit for purpose than the existing dwelling and would not be visible in the wider landscape. She moved the officers’ recommendation that the application be permitted. This was seconded by Cllr Halsall who stated that he was satisfied the existing dwelling was not a heritage asset and that the benefits of replacing the current dwelling with a sustainable building outweighed the loss of the building.
Cllr Hughes raised concerns about the proposed materials, particularly in relation to the roof.
On voting for the motion, it was CARRIED (7 in favour and 2 against).
RESOLVED that officers be granted delegated authority to permit the application subject to:
1. the submission of a Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking to secure the property as a self-build dwelling.
2. the conditions set out in the report.
Supporting documents:
PDF 535 KB