Agenda item

The Committee considered

·  A report by the Development Manager on various applications for planning permission

·  Oral statements by members of the public etc on Items 1-3, 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 2 to these Minutes.

Item 1 Barton House, Barton Lane, Corston – Erection of a single storey front and side extensions and a rear orangery – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to Refuse permission. The applicant’s Agent made a Statement in support of the proposal.

Members asked questions regarding the proposed increase in volume to which Officers responded. Councillor Brian Webber referred to Green Belt policy and the high percentage increase in volume that was proposed. Although he sympathised with the applicant, he considered that the policy should be upheld. He therefore moved the Officer recommendation to Refuse permission. The motion was seconded by Councillor Eleanor Jackson.

Members debated the motion. Some Members supported the motion whereas others did not. It was considered to be a borderline decision as to whether permission should be refused or not. The Team Leader – Development Management gave advice on comments raised by Members. The motion was then put to the vote. Voting: 6 in favour and 5 against. Motion carried.

(Note: Councillor Sally Davis was not present for consideration of this item.)

Item 2 No 96 Entry Hill, Combe Down, Bath – Provision of loft extension with rear dormer – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to Refuse permission. The applicant made a Statement supporting the application and the Ward Councillor David Bellotti made a Statement in favour of the proposal.

Members discussed the proposal. The Case Officer responded to comments regarding the size and design of the proposal and a possible alternative design. Councillor Les Kew expressed concern with regard to dormers generally and considered that they do have an adverse impact on host buildings. Councillor Liz Hardman moved that the recommendation be overturned and permission granted on the basis that she considered that there was no significant loss of visual amenity, it was an acceptable design, there was already a dormer in the terrace, there were no objections from local residents and she did not agree that this proposal would have a detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the host building or the streetscene. This was seconded by Councillor Doug Nicol and the motion was put to the vote. Voting: 8 in favour and 3 against with 1 abstention. Motion carried.

Item 3 No 12 Bennett Street, Bath – Internal alterations to replace existing carpet with floating bamboo flooring in galleries – The Historic Environment Team Leader reported on this application and on the recommendation to Refuse consent. A representative of the Museum of East Asian Art made a Statement in support of the proposal.

Councillor Brian Webber opened the debate. He considered that a balanced decision was required as there was the need to preserve the building but also to maintain the cultural and tourist benefits to the City from the operation of the Museum. He referred to the destruction of the building during the second World War with the loss of original features. Also many buildings in Bath were now used as offices with the consequent loss of features or at least being hidden from view. On balance, he supported the proposal and therefore moved that the recommendation be overturned and consent granted on the basis that there was no material impact on the historic fabric or character of this listed building. The motion was seconded by Councillor Neil Butters.

Members debated the motion. Comments centred on the fact that this was a floating bamboo laminate floor which would be placed on top of hardboard which was already in place under the carpet. The process is reversible – the original flooring was not being removed and the laminate floor would protect the historic floorboards. The benefits of the building as a museum also shouldn’t be ignored. Some Members considered however that the character of this town house would be lost as a result of using a modern laminate and therefore could not support the motion. Before the vote, the Historic Environment Team Leader considered that the decision should be delegated to Officers to enable conditions to be added including details of how the materials would be fixed. Members considered that this was unnecessary and that standard conditions, together with the method of fixing to be agreed by the local planning authority, could be imposed. A Member suggested reasons for granting permission which were accepted by Members, namely, that it was considered that the proposal would protect the historic floorboards and preserve the character of the listed building. The motion was then put to the vote. Voting: 9 in favour and 3 against. Motion carried.