Agenda item

The Committee considered

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

·  An Update Report by the Development Manager on Item Nos. 2-5, the Report being attached as Appendix 1 to these Minutes

·  Oral statements by members of the public etc. on Item Nos. 1-5, 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.

Item 1 Filers Coaches, Wick Lane, Stanton Wick – Variation of Condition 4 of application WC6174/E to increase number of coaches kept on site from 12 to 20 (continued use of land as a coach depot on land at Pensford Colliery, Pensford, Bristol) – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to refuse permission. The public speakers made their statements on the application which were followed by a statement by the Ward Councillor Jeremy Sparks who spoke in support of the proposal.

Members asked questions about the proposal regarding size of coaches, routes, other sites to be considered etc. The Case Officer responded. As a result, Councillor Doug Nicol felt that there was insufficient information to make a decision. He therefore moved that the application be deferred in order to allow the applicant to provide further information regarding routes served by the depot and the need for additional coaches, the size of coaches, the benefits to the local community and the suitability of other available sites for a depot for the additional coaches. The motion was seconded by Councillor Vic Pritchard who felt that the applicants needed to be given an opportunity to show that there were very special circumstances that existed that would allow the proposed increase in use. The benefits to the community needed to be specified. Members briefly debated the motion including whether there were other possible sites that could accommodate the extra coaches. The Chair summed up the debate and stated that very special circumstances should be provided in order to allow this proposal in the Green Belt. The motion was then put to the vote. Voting: 10 in favour and 2 against. Motion carried.

Item 2 Paulton Engine, Hanham Lane, Paulton – Extension and alteration of existing 3 bed house to provide 2 further bedrooms and dining room, and demolition of 1960’s single storey extension; reconstruction of roofless outbuilding to provide garage, workshop and studio over;  erection of a pair of semi-detached 2 bed holiday cottages; repair of derelict pigsties to provide potting sheds with bat loft; rebuilding of derelict stable; roofing and repair of 2 walls as open woodshed; lean-to greenhouse to replace kennels; rubbish clearance within site; and landscape improvements – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to refuse permission. He drew Members’ attention to the Update Report which added 2 further reasons for refusal. The public speakers made their statements on the application which were followed by a statement by the Ward Councillor John Bull who raised various issues and felt that a Site visit would be useful.

Councillor Liz Hardman opened the debate and considered that this was a good opportunity to preserve some industrial heritage. The proposal had a number of good points in its favour although there were also some concerns. She felt that a site visit would assist Members’ consideration. Councillor Bryan Organ felt that the site could be developed but that consideration should be deferred for a site visit in order to see the access to the site and assess the proposed layout in the context of its surroundings, and he so moved. The motion was seconded by Councillor Eleanor Jackson. The Chair summed up the debate and considered that a site visit would be worthwhile to assess this complex site. The motion was put to the vote. Voting: 11 in favour and 1 against. Motion carried.

Item 3 The Beacon, Mount Beacon, Beacon Hill, Lansdown, Bath – Erection of new dwelling within existing domestic curtilage with refurbishment of existing garage building – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to refuse permission. He referred to the Update Report which informed of an objection by the Bath Preservation Trust and that, as an ecology report had now been submitted, the second reason for refusal had been withdrawn. The applicants’ agent made a statement in support of the application.

Members discussed the design of the proposal and the implications for the trees. Councillor Nicholas Coombes, on the basis that the proposal was not detrimental to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, it would not be readily visible and was a good design, moved that the recommendation to refuse permission be overturned and that permission be delegated to the Development Manager subject to appropriate conditions. The motion was seconded by Councillor Vic Pritchard.

Members debated the motion. Issues of land stability, design and glazing were discussed. Members were fairly divided in their opinions of the proposal. It was felt that the issue of glazing could be covered by a specific condition to minimise reflection and light pollution. The mover and seconder agreed to this condition being included. After further discussion, the motion was put to the vote, voting being 7 in favour and 5 against. Motion carried.

Item 4 Farleigh House, 17 Bath Road, Peasedown St John – Change of use of public land to private garden and erection of a palisade fence – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to refuse permission. The Update Report provided Officer’s comments on further representations received from the applicant. The applicant made a statement in support of the proposal which was followed by a statement by the Ward Councillor Nathan Hartley who spoke in favour of the application.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson considered that the proposal would aggravate anti-social behaviour on a well-used footpath and that the site would benefit from some planting. She therefore moved the Officer recommendation to refuse permission. The motion was seconded by Councillor Vic Pritchard.

Members debated the motion and asked questions to which the Case Officer responded. Some Members considered that there were benefits to both the applicant and the community by the site being taken over as a private garden particularly as the fence could be moved back to the inside of the garden once new planting on the boundary had matured. Other Members felt that the fence would create an oppressive “tunnel” effect which would not be to the benefit of users of the footpath or to its appearance. The motion to refuse permission was put to the vote. Voting: 5 in favour and 7 against. Motion lost.

The Team Leader – Development Management advised the Committee that, if they were minded to grant permission, appropriate conditions would need to be imposed including landscaping, a time period of 5 years (unless agreed otherwise) following which the new fence should be removed, and the removal of permitted development rights. In this regard, another application would be required to erect another fence but, depending on its height, there would be no fee charged. Councillor Doug Nicol moved that permission be delegated to Officers accordingly which was seconded by Councillor Brian Webber. The motion was put to the vote and was carried, 7 voting in favour and 5 against.

Item 5 Breach Farm, Lower Bristol Road, Clutton – Erection of a two storey rear extension to enlarge the kitchen and add utility, wc, bedroom with en suite – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to refuse permission. The Update Report provided the Officer’s comments on further representations received from the applicants as regards increase in volumes. The applicants’ agent made a statement in favour of the proposal.

A Member felt that the extension would be an improvement to the property. Councillor Nicholas Coombes considered that the extension would have a detrimental effect on the adjoining property and would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and therefore moved the Officer recommendation to refuse permission. The motion was seconded by Councillor Liz Hardman.

After a brief discussion, the motion was put to the vote. Voting: 8 in favour and 2 against with 2 abstentions. Motion carried.