Agenda item

The Committee considered

·  A report by the Development Manager on various planning applications

·  An Update Report by the Development Manager on Items Nos. 1-3 and 5, the Report being attached as Appendix 1 to these Minutes

·  Oral statements by members of the public etc. on Item Nos. 1-4, the Speakers List being attached as Appendix 2 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.

Items 1&2 Gammon Plant Hire, Rock Hall Lane, Combe Down, Bath – 1) Erection of 1 Mining Interpretation Centre (rated BREEAM Excellent) 8 Eco Homes (rated Code 5 zero carbon), 1 apartment (rated Code 5 zero carbon) and all associated hard and soft landscaping following demolition of all existing properties with the exception of a portion of historic stone wall to Rock Hall Lane (Ref No. 11/04168/FUL) (Resubmission); and 2) demolition of all existing properties with the exception of a portion of historic wall to Rock Hall Lane (11/04167/CA) – The Historic Environment Team Leader and the Planning Officer reported on these applications and their recommendations to refuse permission/consent. The Update Report gave further information on the applications and recommended an additional reason for refusal on the planning application (Ref No 11/04168/FUL). The public speakers made statements for and against the applications and the Ward Councillors Cherry Beath and Roger Symonds made their statements in favour of the proposals.

Members asked questions about the environmental issues raised by one of the public speakers regarding the screening opinion. One of the concerns raised related specifically to the fact that the revised screening opinion had only been in the public domain 5 days before the meeting. The Planning and Environmental Law Manager recommended that, in the circumstances, it would be better to defer the applications to allow the revised screening opinion a longer period in the public domain given the period set out in the Regulations for adopting screening opinions. It was therefore moved by Councillor Martin Veal and seconded by Councillor Lisa Brett to defer consideration to allow further time for third parties to be able to comment on the screening opinion. Members briefly debated the motion and it was then put to the vote. Voting: 11 in favour and 0 against with 1 abstention. Motion carried.

Item 3 Land rear of Holly Farm, Brookside Drive, Farmborough – Residential development comprising 38 dwellings with associated access, car parking and landscaping – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation (A) that the application be referred to the Secretary of State as a departure from the Development Plan; (B) to authorise the Planning and Environmental Law Manager to secure an Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as detailed in the Officer’s Report; and (C) upon completion of the Agreement, to authorise the Development Manager to permit the application subject to various conditions set out in the Report. The Update Report informed the Committee that Conditions 3 and 4 in the Report were not required and therefore should be deleted from the Recommendation. Members of the public then made statements for and against the proposal which was followed by a statement from the Ward Councillor Sally Davis.

Members asked questions about the proposals to which Officers responded. Reference was made to an advertisement on the application giving 21 days to make representations but which expired after the date of this meeting. The Team Leader – Development Management replied that this was a “departure” advertisement and it was not unusual for such advertisements to appear later on in the planning process as representations could still be submitted and considered when the application was referred to the Secretary of State. Councillor Bryan Organ voiced various concerns regarding access, parked cars, impact of the development on the character of the village etc. He considered that Members needed to see the site and therefore moved that consideration be deferred for a Site Visit. The motion was seconded by Councillor Martin Veal. The motion was put to the vote, 8 voting in favour and 2 against with 2 abstentions. Motion carried.

Item 4 No. 153 Newbridge Hill, Newbridge, Bath – Erection of new single family dwelling on land at the rear of Nos. 153/155 Newbridge Hill – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to refuse permission. The public speakers made their statements for and against the proposal.

Members asked questions about the proposal. Councillor Martin Veal agreed with the Officer’s Recommendation and moved that permission be refused for the reasons cited. This was seconded by Councillor Neil Butters. Members debated the motion. It was generally accepted that this was backland development which would be detrimental to the character of the Conservation Area. There was also concern that this could set a precedent for other gardens to be developed in the area. The motion was put to the vote. Voting: 8 in favour and 2 against with 2 abstentions. Motion carried.

Item 5 No. 69 Haycombe Drive, Southdown, Bath – Erection of detached 2 storey dwelling on land to the rear of 69 Haycombe Drive – This application was withdrawn from the Agenda.