Agenda item

To consider a joint report by the Divisional Director of Planning and Transport Development and the Planning and Environmental Law Manager

Referring to the Minutes of the meeting held on 9^th May 2012, the Committee considered the joint report of the Divisional Director of Planning and Transport Development and the Planning and Environmental Law Manager which (i) informed Members of appeals lodged against the Enforcement Notices that had been served on 30^th May and which Notices were therefore now held in abeyance; (ii) attached a Timetable provided by the owner’s Agents for progression of an application for a Residual Waste Facility (RWF) on the site through to its implementation; (iii) stated that the owners had asked whether the Council would make a joint application to the Planning Inspectorate for the appeals to be held in abeyance pending the Council’s consideration of the application for a RWF in accordance with the Timetable; (iv) set out the Officers’ comments on the request; and (v) recommended that, in the circumstances, the Committee agree to making such a joint application to the Planning Inspectorate with the Council reserving the right to reinstate the appeals if there was any failure on the owner’s part to comply with the Timetable for implementation of a RWF or the outline planning application was refused.

The Planning and Environmental Law Manager reported on the issues in the Report stating that, if the Timetable set out in Annex A of the Report was adhered to, the unauthorised development on the site would be resolved sooner than if the appeals were to go ahead. The Council would have a RWF on the land fulfilling the Council’s allocation in the Joint Waste Core Strategy (JWCS). She referred to representations received from the owner’s Agents, a local resident and from Harrison Grant, Solicitors acting on behalf of Protect Bath. The public speakers made their statements on the matter.

Councillor Bryan Organ considered that there should be no further delays in taking action and therefore moved that the request for the appeals to be held in abeyance be refused. There followed some questions and discussion by Members after which Councillor Nicholas Coombes seconded the motion.

Members debated the motion. There were differing views as to whether to agree to the request to hold the enforcement appeals in abeyance. Reference was made to the site being allocated for a RWF in accordance with the JWCS and concerns were expressed that there was no guarantee that permission would be granted. It was queried why the appeals and the application for a RWF could not be progressed at the same time ie in tandem. However, this was not on offer. The Divisional Director emphasised that the enforcement action was not being revisited and that the appeals would only be held in abeyance pending the Council’s determination of the planning application.  The recommended action was an opportunity to deliver a RWF on the site, which is the Council’s policy, and to achieve compliance with planning issues earlier than originally anticipated.

Some Members felt that the enforcement appeals should not be held in abeyance and that there should be no further delays. Councillor Coombes said that he felt the appeals would result in a certain outcome as opposed to an uncertain outcome if the appeals were held in abeyance. Other Members felt that agreeing to the suggested Timetable was a measured way forward and would save time and money for both parties and result in a RWF being provided in accordance with the JWCS which would resolve the situation at an earlier date. Councillor Les Kew considered that it would be useful to have regular reports to the Committee on progress.

The Divisional Director and the Planning and Environmental Law Manager reported on the issues and responded to Members’ queries. The Chair summed up the discussion.

The motion to refuse the request to hold the appeals in abeyance was put to the vote. Voting: 4 in favour and 7 against. Motion lost.

Councillor Les Kew moved the Officer recommendation but with the additional requirement that a monthly report go to the Committee on progress. This was seconded by Councillor Doug Nicol and put to the vote.

RESOLVED that (1) the Council make a joint application to the Planning Inspectorate that the appeals be held in abeyance pending the Council’s consideration of the planning application in accordance within the Timetable, with the Council reserving the right to reinstate the appeals if (i) there is any failure on the owner’s part to comply with the Timetable for implementation of the Residual Waste Facility as set out in the Annex to the report; or (ii) the Outline planning application is refused; and (2) monthly progress reports be submitted to the Committee.

(Voting: 7 in favour and 4 against)