Agenda item

The Committee considered

• The report of the Development Manager on various planning applications

• Oral statements by members of the public etc on Item Nos. 2, 3 and 5, the Speakers List being attached as Appendix 1 to these Minutes

RESOLVED that, in accordance with their delegated powers, the applications be determined as set out in the Decisions List attached as Appendix 3 to these Minutes

Item 1 Coach House, Back Lane, Newton St Loe – Restore and convert the existing 2 storey Coach House into a 3 bedroom dwelling with the bedrooms on the ground floor and the living space and kitchen on the 1^st floor including access to a sunken courtyard to the south of the property, provision of a covered area with space for 1 vehicle and a bat roost on the loft space above (Ref No 11/00614/FUL) – The Case Officer gave a presentation on this application and his recommendation to Permit with conditions.

Councillor Brian Webber considered that this was an interesting building in a tucked away position on the edge of the village. It would provide an attractive house. The only issue was the access track to the property being classed as a public highway but this appeared to be covered by Condition 3 in the recommendation. He therefore moved the recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Bryan Organ.

Members discussed the proposal, its position within the housing boundary of the village and the access track. On being put to the vote, the motion was approved unanimously.

Item 2 Little Orchard, Ham Lane, Bishop Sutton – Provision of new vehicular access through land south of the site (Ref No 11/00539/FUL) – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to Refuse permission. The applicant’s Agent spoke in favour of the proposal.

Councillor Bryan Organ considered this was a satisfactory proposal. It would improve visibility and also serve as an access to grazing land. He moved that the recommendation be overturned and permission be granted. This was seconded by Councillor Martin Veal.

Members discussed the motion and asked questions to which the Officer replied. The motion was generally supported on the basis that there were very special circumstances relating to an improvement in forward visibility and improved highway safety as the existing access to the property on this reasonably busy lane was poor and it would prevent another access being formed to the adjoining agricultural land further down the lane. It was considered that it would not have a detrimental impact on the rural character of the village and therefore whilst this was inappropriate development in the Green Belt, there were very special circumstances to outweigh the recognised harm. The mover and seconder agreed to amend the motion to Delegate to Permit with appropriate conditions including the existing access being closed off and the replacement of the hedgerow. This was put to the vote and carried unanimously.

Item 3 No 5 Apsley Road, Newbridge, Bath – Installation of side and rear dormers (Retrospective) (Ref No 11/01266/FUL) – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to Refuse permission. The applicant and his Agent spoke in favour of the proposal. The Ward Councillor Caroline Roberts made a statement in favour of the application.

Councillor Gerry Curran considered that the size and siting of the dormers would not detract from the appearance of the house and the streetscene; also there were already some similar dormers on nearby houses. He therefore felt that the recommendation should be overturned and moved that the application be Delegated to Permit with appropriate conditions. This was seconded by Councillor Cherry Beath. After a brief discussion, the motion was put to the vote and carried unanimously.

Item 4 No 93 Rush Hill, Southdown – Erection of one 2 storey house and one single storey house (Revised proposal) (11/00773/FUL) – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to Permit with conditions.

Councillor Sharon Ball moved the recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Bryan Organ. The motion was put to the vote which was carried unanimously.

Item 5 Little Meadow, Bromley Road, Stanton Drew – Erection of a 2 storey rear extension and first floor extension over existing single storey annexe (Ref No 11/00805/FUL) – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to Refuse permission. The applicant spoke in favour of the proposal.

Councillor Malcolm Lees spoke in favour of the application considering that the recommendation should be overturned. He stated that the existing single storey extension and flat roof would be removed improving the appearance. He felt that this was originally a modest property in a large plot and the size, design, scale and siting of the proposal would not be disproportionate to the existing dwelling or harmful to the openness of the Green Belt. The proposed development would also make the property similar in size to existing properties in the locality. He therefore moved that permission be granted which was seconded by Councillor Martin Veal.

Members debated the motion which was generally supported. The Development Manager gave advice on development in the Green Belt and stated that Officers considered that the proposed extension was disproportionate to the existing house and was harmful to the openness of the Green Belt. The extension represented a 119% overall increase from the original dwelling and a 49% increase in the existing dwelling. She advised the Committee that, notwithstanding the advice in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document “Existing Dwellings in the Green Belt”, the Planning Inspectorate were generally dismissing proposals where the proposed increase in volume exceeded 60% over the volume of the original property. She felt that the design did make an improvement to the appearance of the house but this did not amount to a very special circumstance to justify granting permission.

On advice, the mover and seconded amended the motion to Delegate to Permit to enable appropriate conditions to be imposed. The amended motion was put to the vote and carried unanimously.