Agenda item

The Committee considered

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

·  Oral statements by members of the public etc on Item Nos 1-3, the Speakers List being attached as Appendix 1 to these Minutes

·  An Update Report by the Development Manager on Item Nos 1-3, a copy of which is attached as Appendix 3 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 4 to these Minutes.

Item 1 Former Bath Press, Lower Bristol Road, Bath – Mixed use redevelopment comprising 6,300sqm of retail (Class A1), 4,580sqm of creative workspace (Class B1), 2,830sqm of offices (Class B1), 10 residential houses, car park, landscape and access (including realignment of Brook Road) – The Case Officer, the Senior Professional - Major Developments and the Council’s Retail Consultant reported on this proposal which was the subject of an appeal against non-determination. The Recommendation was that, if the Council had been in a position to make a decision, the recommendation would be to refuse permission for the reasons set out in the Report. It was pointed out that the appellants had submitted an earlier application which was broadly similar to this proposal except for omitting some office accommodation (but including community space) and providing information regarding an approach towards addressing the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) objections regarding the proximity to the operational gas holder site. That application had not been appealed and is likely to be reported to Members at the February meeting of the Committee.

The Update Report gave Officers’ comments on various issues that had been raised. The Senior Transport Planner reported on the highway aspects of the proposal. The Senior Professional – Major Developments advised Members that, in the last 24 hours, Heads of Terms had been received from the appellants in connection with the earlier application and regarding a contract between various parties to secure the decommissioning of the gas holder site. He advised Members that, whilst the Heads of Terms were not legally binding and had been submitted in connection with the earlier application, they were material to the consideration of the appealed application as they did indicate that the parties were working to resolve the issue. However, at this time, the Officers were not satisfied that the gas holder issue was resolved and would continue discussions with the appellants and the HSE in this regard. The Council’s Retail Consultant provided responses to Members’ questions and explained the background to his advice to the Council on this proposal.

Members asked questions about the proposal for clarification to which officers responded. The public speakers then made their statements followed by a statement by the Ward Councillor June Player speaking against the proposal.

Councillor Martin Veal considered that there were many anomalies about the proposal and many issues had not been resolved. He felt that there should be continuing dialogue with the appellants and moved the Recommendation which was to refuse permission had the Council been in a position to make a decision. This was seconded by Councillor Liz Hardman.

Members debated the motion. Various issues were discussed including the retail impact on local shopping areas, the problems associated with the nearby gas holders and the impact on the already congested junction with Windsor Bridge Road. The Members agreed that these were complex major issues. It was hoped that negotiations could continue with the appellants and that these issues could be made clearer when Members come to consider the earlier application.

The Development Manager commented on permissions issued for other retail units and the impact on shopping areas. Regarding the appellants’ agent’s request to defer consideration of this report, she advised that the Council had to comply with the Planning Inspectorate’s timetable but Officers would continue negotiations with the appellants.

The Chair summed up the debate and the motion was put to the vote. Voting: 11 in favour and 1 against. Motion carried.

(Note: After this item at 4.32pm, there was a comfort break for 10 minutes.)

Item 2 Site of Alcan Factory, Nightingale Way, Midsomer Norton – Residential-led mixed use redevelopment comprising of the erection of 176 dwellings, community facilities, offices, town centre link, formal green space and associated works – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to (A) Authorise the Planning and Environmental Law Manager to secure an Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure (1) Affordable Housing; (2) On-site Employment; (3) Off-Site Employment; (4) Transport; (5) On-Site Green Space; (6) Off-Site Green Space and Play; (7) Education Contributions; and (8) Administration Fee; and (B) upon completion of the Agreement, authorise the Development Manager to Permit the application subject to numerous conditions. The Update Report made reference to the number of dwellings being altered to 169 and gave the Case Officer’s comments on consultation responses. Members asked questions to which Officers responded. The public speakers made their statements in support of the application which were followed by statements by the Ward Councillors Rob Appleyard and Robin Moss also in support.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson commented on the proposal which she supported and she therefore moved the Officer Recommendation. After a response by the Case Officer, the motion was seconded by Councillor Bryan Organ. Members debated the motion. Councillor Martin Veal raised issues of young apprenticeships being included within the scheme and contractors’ vehicles being kept on site. Councillor David Martin drew attention to energy issues and queried whether the photo voltaic panels indicated on the drawings could be the subject of a condition. Councillor Eleanor Jackson queried whether a contribution could be made to the No 782 bus and included in the S106 Agreement. The Case Officer responded to these queries. He considered that a condition could be imposed regarding the photo voltaic panels (the mover and seconder agreed), a condition had been included in the Recommendation for a construction management plan which could include controlling the parking of contractors’ vehicles, the youth apprenticeship issue would be raised with the applicants in the discussions over the S106 Agreement, and a bus subsidy could not, in his view, be requested at this stage.

The amended motion was then put to the vote and it was carried unanimously.

(Note: Councillor Lisa Brett left the meeting after this item.)

Item 3 Land at rear of Nos. 2 - 20 High Street, Keynsham – Erection of 3 storey building to provide 14 residential apartments and associated landscaping and car parking (including re-provision of car parking to existing High Street properties – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation, namely (A) subject to receipt of a Unilateral Legal Agreement being completed to the satisfaction of the Planning and Environmental Law Manager to cover financial contributions to (a) formal, natural and allotment green space provision, and (b) strategic highways; and (B) upon completion of the Agreement, authorise the Development Manager to Permit subject to various conditions. The public speakers made their statements on the application and the Ward Councillor Charles Gerrish made a statement against the proposal.

Councillor Les Kew stated that this was a brownfield site in a sustainable location and was an appropriate town centre use. The proposal included a typical town house design. He therefore moved the Officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Liz Hardman.

Members asked questions to which the Case Officer responded. Members supported the proposal and considered that this derelict site was an ideal location for residential development. There were no highway objections and it had a pleasing design which did not have an overbearing impact on adjoining development. The Development Manager commented that affordable housing was not included in the scheme but the development may appeal to first time buyers.

The motion was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.