Agenda item

To consider a joint report by the Planning and Environmental Law Manager and Development Manager

Mr Harwood, Planning Consultant, gave a power point presentation on this matter. He referred to the Officers’ Update Report (attached as Appendix 1 to these Minutes) which commented on further representations received and clarified aspects of the Main Report.

The public speakers made their statements on the matter (the Speakers List is attached as Appendix 2 to these Minutes). Councillor Tim Ball, Cabinet Member for Homes and Planning, addressed the meeting and requested that copies of comments and documentation that are not planning related be sent to appropriate Cabinet Members for consideration.

Councillor David Veale made a statement as Committee and Ward Member. He considered that little had been achieved in recent years and that, if meaningful negotiations did not achieve any progress, enforcement action needed to be considered.

At the Chair’s request, Members asked questions for clarification. They were centred on progress on the negotiations for the delivery of a residual waste facility on the site and the timescale by which enforcement action could be taken against what appears to be breaches of planning control set out in the Report so as not to fall foul of the 10 year rule after which no enforcement action would be possible. The Planning Consultant advised that, on the basis of the information available, it was considered that immunity would not arise until Spring/Summer 2013. Councillor Martin Veal felt that, if a specific date could not be provided at this meeting, it could, after further consideration by Officers, be posted on the Council’s website including all the unlawful activities covered by that date. However, the Development Manager, after liaison with Officers, considered that early Spring 2013 was the earliest possible date but if the Committee wanted a specific date, it was considered that 1^st February 2013 could be the date to work to. In response to another query, the Planning and Environmental Law Manager stated that Counsel’s advice had been sought and that Counsel had had input into the Committee Report. Councillor Martin Veal queried why there were no comments from the body in charge of the Cotswold AONB given its location to the site and considered that their views should be sought.

The Chair opened the matter up for debate. Councillor Les Kew considered that further information was required. He felt that insufficient detail was available for the Committee on the negotiations with the owner/operator on the delivery of a residual waste facility on the site. He considered that, without full information, it would be difficult to make a decision at this meeting regarding enforcement action. He therefore moved that the recommendations be accepted but that all the information regarding the negotiations for the delivery of a residual waste facility be provided at a meeting of this Committee by no later than 30^th March 2012 and that the Strategic Director for Service Delivery be asked to attend that meeting; and that a Site Visit be held prior to the Committee meeting. Councillor Lisa Brett considered that the motion needed to be more robust and felt that the opinion expressed by the Bath Preservation Trust in the bullet points of their previously circulated statement needed to be addressed. Councillor Les Kew agreed that the report should address the matters raised in the Bath Preservation Trust’s presentation set out in bullet points in their submission. The motion was seconded by Councillor Eleanor Jackson. Councillor Neil Butters reiterated the need for the Strategic Director for Service Delivery to attend the meeting to provide appropriate advice.

There was further debate on the motion to which the Development Manager responded. Councillor Martin Veal requested that all areas within the site be made accessible to Members on the Site Visit. The Chair then summed up the debate. He expressed sympathy for local residents but considered that more information on the detail and progress of the negotiations was needed to enable the Committee to be in a position to consider the matter further.

The following motion was put to the vote and it was resolved unanimously:

(1) to continue to work positively with the owner of the site to achieve delivery of a residual waste facility on the site;

(2) that the Committee Members make a Site Visit;

(3) that a further report detailing progress with negotiations towards achieving a residual waste facility on the site be submitted to this Committee on or before 30^th March 2012 and that the Strategic Director for Service Delivery if possible attend that meeting to give appropriate advice;

(4) that it was not considered expedient to take enforcement action before the matter is considered further by this Committee on or before 30^th March 2012 where the contents of a further report will be considered including further consideration of the expediency of whether or not enforcement action should be taken against what appears to be breaches of planning control as identified in the Report; and

(5) that the report addresses the matters raised within the bullet points of the statement provided by the Bath Preservation Trust; namely:

(a)  To make clear what the terms of negotiation are and at a minimum note that, if any breakdown in negotiations were to occur, including refusal for reasonable site access in order to plan for future uses, the decision on expediency of enforcement action would be reviewed;

(b)  To make clear in what timeframe a planning application for a residual waste facility should be brought forward; and given that the Officer’s report had suggested that such a facility may not now be needed at the scale envisaged, this could not be left as the reason to hold fire on the site as a whole; and

(c)  Enforcement proceedings may be initiated against all operational developments which do not have planning permission outside Site A and the process would be reviewed for progress on a regular (say quarterly) basis.