Agenda item

The Committee considered

• The report of the Development Manager on the applications

• Oral statements by members of the public, the Speakers List being attached as Appendix 2 to these Minutes

• The update report by the Development Manager, attached as Appendix 3 to these Minutes

RESOLVED that, in accordance with their delegated powers, the planning applications be determined as set out in the Decisions List attached as Appendix 4 to these Minutes.

NOTES: Decisions were made by the Committee as per the Officers’ recommendations set out in the Report with the Agenda, and were carried unanimously or without dissension unless stated otherwise. Where the Officer’s recommendation was overturned, or there were amendments whether lost or carried, or there were decisions on matters other than on planning applications, these are listed below.

Item 1, Street Record, Bath Spa University Campus, Newton St Loe, Bath (10/04747/EFUL) – the Senior Professional Major Developments informed Members that the application had been withdrawn from the agenda.

Item 2, 38 High Street, Keynsham, BS31 1DX (11/00407/FUL) – the case officer made a presentation on the application and the recommendation to refuse. The public speakers were heard. Councillor Organ said that he could not accept the officer’s recommendation to refuse. He did not believe suitable alternative premises were available on the High Street. The application premises had been vacant for eighteen months, so that occupation by the applicant would improve the appearance of the area. The applicant had occupied its present premises for forty years and had been a good tenant of the Council. Since the applicant proposed merely to move from one retail unit to another, there would be no net reduction in the number of retail units. He moved to permit the application. This was seconded by Councillor Veal.  Councillor Curran asked officers to comment on the argument put forward by the applicant’s agent that PPS4 would allow flexibility in the application of local plan policy S5. The Team Leader,Development Management said that the view of officers remained as set out on pages 54-55 of the agenda. Councillor Willcox said that although there were concerns about the loss of high street shops, there were estate agents mixed in with retailers on many high streets. He felt that it was necessary to accept changing economic conditions. Councillor Jackson noted that there was already an estate agency offering financial services nearby and that the post office offered financial services. The units on one long section of the High Street were occupied by charity shops. She could see no reason to refuse the application. Councillor Organ observed that there was also a building society not far from the post office. The Team Leader, Development Management advised that if the application were permitted it would have to be advertised as a departure from the development plan and if any objections were received that raised new issues, the application would be brought back to Committee. Councillor Organ said that he would therefore amend his motion from “permit” to “delegate to permit subject to appropriate conditions and no new issues being raised as a result of the advertising process”. The motion was put and it was RESOLVED by 8 votes in favour, 2 against with 1 abstention to delegate to permit the application as above.

REASONS

The applicant is an established local business. The application premises have been empty for eighteen months and currently detract from the appearance of the High Street. The change of use will not result in a net reduction of retail units in Keynsham town centre and would improve the appearance of the area.

Item 3, Council Depot, Upper Bristol Road, Clutton ( 10/04904/REG04) –  the case officer made a presentation on the application and the recommendation to permit. The public speaker was heard. Councillor Willcox, ward Member for Clutton, said that he currently had difficulties in his relationship with Clutton Parish Council and felt unable to comment on the application as he had not been asked by the Parish Council to support their objection. Councillor Veal asked officers whether it was correct, as stated by the public speaker, that 100 people had signed a petition opposing the application and, if so, whether they all lived locally. The case officer said that a petition had indeed been received, which had been signed by local residents and by people from surrounding villages. Councillor Crossley said that he was concerned that the development, if permitted, would lead to a change of use of the site to a waste processing facility. He was concerned that there would be an increase in the intensity of the use of the site, which would be detrimental to local residents, some of whom lived immediately opposite. He moved to refuse the application. This was seconded by Councillor Coombes, who did not agree that effluent from gulleys would not smell when left out to dry and this would be detrimental to the amenity of nearby residents. What was envisaged was clearly processing. Councillor Jackson was also concerned about the proximity of the site to residential properties. If the application was permitted, she thought that the trees adjacent to the site would eventually die. She feared that odours from drying waste would cause nuisance to local residents, particularly in the summer. Councillor Webber accepted the advice given by the Environmental Health Officer that the potential for nuisance from odour was minimal; the material would be left to dry for one or two days and then removed, not left to ferment. He also considered that the proposal for the site was an efficient way of avoiding extra road journeys. Councillor Coombes thought there was no evidence that the waste would dry out within a day or two. Councillor Curran thought that a waste services officer should have attended to provide further explanation. The motion was put, and it was RESOLVED by 6 votes in favour, 3 against with 3 abstentions to refuse the application.

REASONS

The Committee considered that the proposed development could lead to a more intensive use of the site to the detriment of residential amenity. The development would also have a detrimental impact on local residents by reason of odour from the drying bays.

Item 4, Church View, Packhorse Lane, South Stoke, Bath BA2 7DW (10/04317/FUL) – the case officer made a presentation on the application and the recommendation to permit. The public speakers were heard. The Chair moved that the application be deferred for a site visit. This was seconded by Councillor Veal. The motion was put and it was resolved by 8 votes in favour, 2 against with 2 abstentions to defer the application for a site visit to assess the impact of the proposal on the conservation area and on neighbouring residents.

Item 5, 36 Farmborough Lane, Priston, Bath BA2 9EH (11/00229/FUL) – the case officer made a presentation on the application and the recommendation to refuse. The public speakers were heard. Councillor Coombes noted that there was no agricultural tie on these dwellings. The Team Leader, Development Management responded that officers had not suggested to the applicant that he should accept an agricultural tie because the application was being recommended for refusal. He added that any application to construct a new dwelling with an agricultural tie in the Green Belt would be considered on its merits, though it would be proper to take into consideration any other properties in the area that were in the possession of the applicant. Councillor Willcox said that he thought agriculture in the Green Belt should be supported and that dwellings should have living space that was adequate by contemporary standards. He felt that these factors amounted to very special circumstances and moved to permit the application. This was seconded by Councillor Veal. Councillor Crossley said that account must be taken of the era in which the buildings were constructed. He believed that the removal of the existing lean to at the rear of the building would significantly improve its appearance and this would be a benefit to the Green Belt. He also felt that enabling agricultural workers to live near their place of work would benefit the rural economy. He believed these were sufficient reasons for departing from Green Belt policy in this case. He asked whether it would be possible to make the dwellings subject to an agricultural tie. The Team Leader, Development Management replied that officers would discuss this with the applicant, if the motion were amended from permit to delegate to permit with appropriate conditions. The proposer and seconder accepted this amendment. The motion was put and it was RESOLVED by 11 votes in favour with 1 abstention to delegate to permit the application with appropriate conditions.

REASONS

The Committee considered that the agricultural need for the development and the improvements to the appearance of the building amounted to very special circumstances which clearly outweighed the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm. The proposal would allow farm workers to live on site in modern conditions which would be beneficial to the rural economy.

Item 6, 4 Ellsbridge Close, Keynsham, Bristol BS31 1TB (11/00668/FUL) – the case officer made a presentation on the application and the recommendation to permit. Additional information was tabled, a copy of which is attached to these minutes as Appendix 1. Councillor Organ moved to follow the officer’s recommendation and permit the application. This was seconded by Councillor Veal. The motion was put and it was RESOLVED by 11 votes in favour with 1 abstention to permit the application.