Agenda item

The Committee considered

·  A report by the Development Manager on an application for planning permission at Paulton Engine, Hanham Lane, Paulton

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

RESOLVED that, in accordance with their delegated powers, the application be determined as set out in the Decision List attached as Appendix 2 to these Minutes.

Paulton Engine, Hanham Lane, Paulton – Extension and alteration of existing 3 bed house to provide 2 further bedrooms and dining room and demolition of 1960s single storey bathroom 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 referred to late representations received from residents of Hanham Lane. There was also further information submitted by the applicant relating to the bats on the site as a result of which Officers were now satisfied that Natural England were likely to grant a bat licence. Accordingly, the recommended Refusal Reason 6 could be deleted. An archaeological report had also been submitted which included works of mitigation and therefore Refusal Reason 5 could be deleted. The applicants had also submitted further financial details in support of their claim that the holiday cottages were required in order to make the restoration of the historic site viable. However, the Case Officer advised Members that no detailed breakdown of costs had been provided and there was no reliable evidence to suggest a financial need for the holiday cottages.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the proposals. The Ward Councillor John Bull then made a statement supporting the scheme in principle but with reservations.

The matter was opened up for debate. Councillor Liz Hardman supported the proposals in principle as they would restore a derelict site, preserve industrial heritage and enhance the area. However, she could not see the justification for the holiday cottages which were outside of the development boundary.

Councillor Nicholas Coombes referred to his interest in the application declared earlier in the meeting. He stated that, due to his previous work with the applicants, he was not open-minded because he considered that the applicants had good credentials for undertaking this type of scheme and would do it very well. At this point, the Chair expressed some concern that Councillor Coombes might have given the impression that he had pre-determined the application and asked the Senior legal Adviser to advise. The Senior Legal Adviser advised that, in view of his statement that he did not have an open mind, it was advisable for Councillor Coombes to leave the meeting for the consideration of this Item because there was a risk of a perception of pre-determination. After some discussion, Councillor Coombes left the meeting for the consideration of this application.

Councillor Bryan Organ supported the scheme which would preserve these buildings and therefore moved that the recommendation be overturned and that authority be delegated to Officers to grant permission subject to appropriate conditions, including the use of the holiday cottages to make the scheme viable. The motion was seconded by Councillor David Martin.

Members debated the motion. Most Members considered that the scheme was of a good design meeting environmental standards and restored our industrial heritage. It was located a relatively short distance from a bus route and with the holiday cottages and restored buildings, it could provide a form of tourist attraction in the area. Some Members however expressed concern regarding possible commercial use and the car park providing spaces for numerous cars. One Member felt the development would spoil the tranquil nature of this rural location in the Conservation Area.

The Senior Professional – Major Development informed the Committee of some procedural requirements of the motion. Reasons had to be provided for overturning the Recommendation and granting permission, the holiday cottages should be tied to the development so that they could not be sold off separately and there was an issue as to whether this should be done by an operational statement, condition or a S106 Agreement. He advised that conditions might include operational statements in respect of the holiday cottages and the studio. In addition, as the proposal was contrary to the Local Plan, if permitted, it would need to be advertised as a Departure for any further representations to be submitted. Councillor Bryan Organ stated that, in terms of reasons, the development would improve and enhance the appearance of the site and this part of the Conservation Area, it was legitimate for the applicants to rely on income generated by the holiday cottages to fund the scheme, and the site was not remote because it was within walking distance of Paulton village. He queried whether a S106 Agreement was necessary to tie in the holiday cottages and felt that a Condition was all that was required. Following advice from the Senior Professional, it was agreed that a S106 Agreement was probably the best way of securing the future use of the holiday cottages; however, ultimately, it was a decision for Officers. Authority was also delegated to Officers to impose appropriate conditions.

The Chair summed up the discussion and put the amended motion to the vote. Voting: 9 in favour and 3 against. Motion carried.

(Notes: (1) Councillor Nicholas Coombes was not present to vote; and (2) after the vote, there followed a short natural break)