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. 4 and 6-9, the Speakers List being attached as Appendix 1 to these Minutes

·  An Update Report by the Development Manager on Item Nos. 1,4, 5 and 7, 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.

Items 1-3 Nos. 14 – 16 Monmouth Place, Upper Bristol Road, Bath – (1) Erection of 7 three storey plus basement 3 bed houses following demolition of existing vacant shop units (Ref 12/01730/FUL); (2) demolition of existing vacant shop units (Ref 12/01731/CA); and (3) erection of 7 three storey plus basement 3 bed houses following demolition of existing vacant shop units (Ref 12/01741/LBA) – The Case Officers reported on these applications for planning permission, conservation area consent and listed building consent and their recommendations (1) to (A) authorise the Planning and Environmental Law Manager to enter into a S106 Agreement to cover (i) £6,000 for the improvement of local public transport infrastructure; (ii) £28,430.13 for education provision in accordance with the advice of the Education Officer; (iii) works to upgrade the paving in front of the site to match the adjoining pavements to a specification agreed in writing with the local planning authority in consultation with the Highway Authority; and (iv) a contribution £17,360.50 toward off-site open space provision/improvement; and (B) subject to the prior completion of the above Agreement, authorise the Divisional Director of Planning and Transport Development to Permit subject to conditions; (2) grant conservation area consent subject to conditions; and (3) grant listed building consent subject to conditions.

Councillor Les Kew considered that that this was a good proposal which gave consideration to light issues for the existing buildings situated at the rear of the site. He therefore moved the Officer’s’ recommendation for the planning application which was seconded by Councillor Doug Nicol.

Councillor Nicholas Coombes declared a non-pecuniary interest as he had worked with the applicants. He would remain and vote on the application.

Members debated the motion. The proposals were supported as they improved the street scene and provided much needed housing. It was noted that there would be loss of views for some flats at the rear of the site and some loss of light due to the height of the proposed development.

The Chair summed up the debate and put the matter to the vote. Voting: unanimously in favour.

Councillor Les Kew moved the applications for conservation area consent and listed building consent as per the Officers’ recommendations. These were seconded by Councillor Doug Nicol. The motions were voted on separately and approved unanimously.

Item 4 Land rear of 79 London Road West, Bailbrook Lane, Bath – Erection of 4 detached dwellings – The Team Leader – Development Management reported on this application and the recommendation to (A) authorise the Planning and Environmental Law Manager to prepare an Agreement under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure a contribution of £10,849.72 for Highways and £34,268.87 towards education provision; and (B) upon completion of the Agreement, authorise the Development Manager to Permit subject to satisfactory comments being received from the Council’s Ecologist and Urban Designer and to conditions.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the proposals. The Officer commented on late objections received. The Update Report referred to representations from the Ecological Officer and Urban designer and covered the issue of Ecology which culminated in the recommendation of a further Condition. He also commented that the proposed development was on a sloping site with no significant impact on the Conservation Area. The Senior Professional – Major Development acknowledged that there were no comments from the Conservation Officer; however, Officers were satisfied that there was already sufficient information in the Report concerning the impact on the Conservation Area. The Ward Councillor Dave Laming made a statement expressing concerns about the development.

Members discussed the proposals. One Member felt that the site was being overdeveloped and that the design did not match existing houses in the area whereas another Member considered that it was underdeveloped as the report stated that it could accommodate around 15 houses. Councillor Brian Webber did not support the proposals and therefore moved that the recommendation be overturned and that permission be refused on the basis that it was creeping suburbanisation that did not preserve or enhance the Conservation Area, and that the increased use of Bailbrook Lane - which is narrow and used as a rat-run - by further vehicular movements would create a hazard to pedestrians, cyclists and other car users. The motion was seconded by Councillor Vic Pritchard.

Members debated the motion. Various issues were discussed including density, the size of the site being 0.49 ha putting it just outside the scope for the Council to request that some affordable housing be included, design, topography of the site and water drainage. The Senior Professional – Major Development gave advice to the Committee regarding the proposals for the site and recommended that Members have a site visit (if they were minded to refuse the application) to familiarise themselves with the site and its location in case there was an appeal against a refusal. The Officer commented that the application had been considered in the light of the recent National Planning Policy Framework but that this did not raise any issues of concern.

The motion to Refuse was then put to the vote and was carried, 8 voting in favour and 5 against.

(Notes: (1) After the vote at 4.25pm, there was a 10 minute adjournment for a natural break; and (2) Councillor Les Kew left the meeting in view of his declared interest on the following application)

Item 5 Clutton Hill Industrial Estate, King Lane, Clutton – Approval of Reserved Matters with regard to Outline application 08/01709/ OUT (infill development of part of existing site with 6 small industrial buildings and revised access) – The Case Officer reported on this application for approval of Reserved Matters and his recommendation to Approve subject to conditions. He referred to late objections received and to the Update Report which gave Reasons for Approval.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson supported the application and moved the recommendation to Approve which was seconded by Councillor Liz Hardman.

Members debated the motion. Councillor Jeremy Sparks raised various concerns about alleged unauthorised uses of the site and stated that he would abstain from voting on the application. He felt that hours of operation should be considered as delivery times tended to disturb local residents. The Senior Professional – Major Development stated that this would have needed to have been considered when the outline application had been submitted.

The motion was put to the vote. Voting: 10 in favour and 2 against with 1 abstention. Motion carried.

(Note: Councillor Les Kew was not present for this application)

Item 6 Fairash Poultry Farm, Compton Martin Road, West Harptree – Erection of 3 dwellings following demolition of existing poultry farm (Revised submission) – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to refuse permission. She reported the receipt of a late letter of support.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the proposals.

Councillor Nicholas Coombes reported the views of the Ward Councillor Tim Warren who was unable to attend the meeting. Councillor Vic Pritchard considered that the reasons for refusing the previous application to develop the site still applied to this proposal. It was in an isolated position and at a dangerous cross roads and he therefore moved the Officer recommendation to refuse permission. This was seconded by Councillor Les Kew.

After a brief discussion, the motion was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.

Item 7 Former Little Chef, Bristol Road, Farrington Gurney, Bristol – Change of use from restaurant (A3) to restaurant and takeaway (A3 and A5) – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to (A) authorise the Planning and Environmental Law Manager to agree with the applicant the submission of a Unilateral Undertaking to secure a financial contribution to the Council of £10,000 towards the cost of off-site transportation measures; and (B) on completion of the Unilateral Undertaking, authorise the Development Manager to Permit subject to conditions. He reported that late objections had been received relating to health issues and the nearby school. The recommendation included a contribution from the applicant of £10,000 towards the cost of transportation measures such as speed restrictions. The Update Report referred to the objections received from local residents and consideration of the National Planning Policy Framework as regards this application. The public speakers made their statements against the proposal.

Councillor Les Kew opened the debate. He raised various concerns about the proposal including noise, litter, impact on local residents, wrong location in a village, and a lot of objections with no one supporting. He therefore moved that permission be refused on the grounds of 1) sustainability, the proposed development being located outside of the town centre and the requirement for access would require excessive motor vehicle movements; 2) noise and disturbance to neighbouring properties; 3) objections by the Parish Council and over 200 residents of Farrington Gurney; 4) highway safety as the site is located on a busy A road often congested with a lack of pedestrian access from the village and no controlled crossing on the A37 together with poor visibility from the north; and 5) the inability to control the environmental impact of litter and noise through the inability to police these matters away from the premises eg local playing fields and parks. The motion was seconded by Councillor Vic Pritchard.

Members debated the motion. Members discussed various issues and concerns including access, the hours of operation and whether these could be amended, the exclusion zone around schools for takeaways, whether a refusal of permission on these grounds could be defended on appeal. The Senior Professional – Major Development responded to some of these issues by stating that hours of operation could be negotiated with the applicants - other matters could be dealt with by conditions or an operational statement. In his view, it would probably be difficult to defend on appeal.

Members continued to discuss their concerns regarding the application. There was a lot of objection by local residents being a fair percentage of the village. It was considered by Members that some of the issues could not be resolved by way of conditions or an operational statement. The Senior Professional considered that some of the reasons for refusal suggested by objectors in reason for refusal 3) were not valid reasons and could not be defended at an appeal. The Senior Legal Adviser emphasised the need for Members to be clear on the reasons for refusal. With the agreement of the seconder, Councillor Les Kew therefore deleted reason 3). The revised motion was put to the vote. Voting: 10 in favour and 3 against.

Councillor Brian Webber left the meeting. There followed a short adjournment after which the Chair informed the meeting that the reasons for refusal needed to be revisited in that, by deleting reason 3), the healthy eating issues had also been deleted which was not the mover’s intention. This aspect was therefore reinstated and the vote retaken. Voting: 8 in favour and 3 against. Motion carried.

Item 8 Land south of 73 Englishcombe Lane, Bath – Erection of a new dwelling – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to Permit with conditions. She reported on a further condition to be added to the recommendation as regards the inclusion of an obscure glazed screen for the balcony.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the proposal. Councillor Dine Romero made a statement expressing concerns about various issues and considered that a site visit would be advantageous.

Councillor Nicholas Coombes supported the proposal and considered that the building had a pleasing appearance. Some of the concerns raised were covered by condition and others would come under Building Regulation control.  He therefore moved the Officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Vic Pritchard. The Team Leader - Highway Development Control gave advice regarding access and turning circle requirements. The motion was then put to the vote. Voting: 10 in favour and 0 against with 2 abstentions. Motion carried.

Item 9 No 27 West Lea Road, Lower Weston, Bath – Provision of loft conversion and side and rear dormers (Resubmission) – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to refuse permission. The Ward Councillor Caroline Roberts informed the Committee that the owners’ Architect had not informed them of the facility of speaking at the meeting and therefore enquired whether one of the owners could do so as he was present. The Committee decided to allow the owner to speak on this occasion.

The owner then made his statement in support of the proposal which was followed by a statement by the Ward Councillor Caroline Roberts who also supported the application.

Councillor Malcolm Lees supported the application and considered that the recommendation should be overturned. He therefore moved that the application be granted permission which was seconded by Councillor Liz Hardman.

Members debated the motion. Some Members felt that the Officer’s assessment was correct as the dormer would be detrimental to the host building by virtue of its scale and design. Other Members considered that these issues were not significant enough to warrant refusing permission in this location a good distance away from the heritage part of the City. Also, dormers could be considered to be an economic use of space within a building.

Councillor Lees gave his reasons for overturning the recommendation, namely, the scale and design of the dormer would be subservient to the host building and would not be detrimental to the street scene. The motion to Permit was then put to the vote. Voting: 6 in favour and 5 against. Motion carried.

(Note: At this point in the proceedings (6.40pm), the Committee adjourned for 20 minutes for Tea)