Agenda item

The Committee considered:

·  a report by the Development Manager on various planning applications

·  an Update Report by the Development Manager on Item Nos 1, 4 and 6, a copy of which is attached as Appendix 1 to these Minutes

·  oral statements by members of the public etc on Item Nos 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7, 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 Town Hall, The Centre, Keynsham – Erection of new buildings to provide offices, library, one stop shop, retail with associated highway works; new public realm works and landscaping following demolition of all the buildings currently on site (excluding the multi-storey car park which will be extended) – In response to the Chair, the Senior Legal Adviser gave an explanation of why the Committee were determining this application by the Council and how Members should address the issue of declaration of interests. The Case Officer reported on the application and his recommendation to permit with conditions subject to £700K being put aside for off-site improvement works in terms of transportation improvements and public access/public realm improvements. He drew attention to the Update Report which amended some conditions and added 2 more conditions. He reported on the specific issues of Highways, Impact on the Conservation Area and Design. He stated that, although there were some disbenefits to the scheme, on balance it was worthy of approval.

The public speakers made their statements on the application which were followed by statements by Ward Councillors Brian Simmons and Charles Gerrish who raised concerns about the proposal.

Members asked questions about the proposal for clarification purposes to which Officers responded as appropriate.

Councillor Bryan Organ opened the debate. He considered that the existing buildings were in a very poor condition. Although major retail outlets had left the town, there was still a vibrant community. There were still some problems with the development but he felt that permission should be delegated to the Officers. Some Members raised concerns about the design of the buildings and felt that it needed to be revised. Councillor Bryan Organ considered that there should be some amendments to the design which could be brought back to the Committee. The Development Manager advised that, whilst it was clear from the debate that there was some concern about the design of the scheme, as with all applications, it was not appropriate for Members to attempt to redesign the proposals. Members needed to consider the right of the applicant to have their submitted proposals determined within a reasonable timeframe. However, the applicant was present at the meeting and had heard the debate regarding the design. It would be preferable for Officers to bring a report back to Committee following further discussions with the applicants which would outline any changes that could be agreed. In response to a query about an appeal against a refusal, she stated that the Council as applicants had no right of appeal.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson was opposed to the proposals on the basis that she did not like the block design and metallic cladding which did not fit into the context of surrounding buildings. After further comments by Members, Councillor Bryan Organ moved that permission be delegated to Officers with significant alterations being made to the design in consultation with Officers, the developers and the community focus group. This would include the mono pitch roof design, the flat roofing on the proposed library and the materials including the metallic cladding. The motion was seconded by Councillor Les Kew. Members debated the motion. Councillor Eleanor Jackson felt that the proposal did not preserve or enhance the Conservation Area and was contrary to Policies in the Local Plan. Councillor Les Kew considered that sample panels of cladding should be provided as part of Condition 8. The Development Manager and Senior Legal Adviser stated that the motion would need to be amended to Defer in order for these revisions to be made and resubmitted to the Committee. The mover and seconder agreed. The amended motion to Defer but on the same basis as previously moved was therefore put to the vote. Voting: 12 in favour and 1 against. Motion carried.

Item 2 No 28 Uplands Road, Saltford – Erection of a replacement dwelling – The Planning Officer reported on this application and the recommendation to permit with conditions. The applicant made her statement in support of the proposal,

In response to a Member’s query, the Officer clarified that the Parish Council had commented on, and not objected to, the proposal. Councillor Les Kew stated that he was well acquainted with the road which had a variety of house styles. He considered that the design was acceptable and therefore moved the Officer recommendation to Permit with conditions. On being out to the vote, the motion was carried unanimously.

(Note: After this application at 3.35pm, there was a 10 minute adjournment)

Item 3 No 11 Fairfield View, Ragland Lane, Fairfield Park, Bath – Provision of a loft conversion to include the installation of 1 rear flat dormer and front roof lights – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to refuse permission. The Ward Councillor Dave Laming read out a statement on behalf of the applicant and considered that there were good reasons for allowing the development.

Members asked questions about the proposal to which the Officer responded. Councillor Malcolm Lees supported the proposal. On the basis that he considered that the dormer was not incongruous being situated at the rear and did not affect the street scene, he moved that the recommendation be overturned and permission be granted with appropriate conditions. This was seconded by Councillor Jeremy Sparks who considered that it was a good use of space in a house at a time when there was a lack of affordable housing.

Members debated the motion. Most Members were supportive of the proposal as it was a reasonable design, did not affect the street scene and was outside the Conservation Area. A Member expressed concern about it being a flat roof dormer and considered that there should be some policy or an SPD on dormers.

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

Item 4 Hampton Cottage, Tow Path, Kennet and Avon Canal, Bathampton – Use of 1 room of dwelling as a physiotherapy treatment room (Retrospective) (Resubmission) – The Planning Officer reported on this application and the recommendation to refuse permission. The Update Report referred to further representations of support for the scheme. The applicant made his statement in favour of the application followed by a statement by the Ward Councillor Geoff Ward who supported the proposal.

Members asked questions about the proposal to which the Officer responded. The Team Leader – Highway Development Control responded to queries regarding provision of local public transport and highways issues. Councillor Martin Veal as local Member provided some information for clarification. He felt that it was not necessary for this application to have been submitted to Committee – it was only a change of use of 1 room for a beneficial use by 1 person. The National Planning Policy Framework advised that there should be approval for proposals for economic growth within rural areas. He therefore moved that the recommendation be overturned and permission be granted on the basis that it was a small change of use in an area that was not unduly remote served by public transport and would therefore not result in increased dependency on private car journeys. The motion was seconded by Councillor Malcolm Lees.

Members debated the motion. Most Members supported the proposal. The Development Manager indicated that it would be appropriate to add an Informative regarding clients being encouraged to use public transport rather than private cars when travelling to the premises. The mover and seconder agreed. The motion was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.

Item 5 No 7 Bay Tree Road, Fairfield Park, Bath – Provision of loft conversion to include side and rear dormers and front roof lights (Revised resubmission) – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to refuse permission. The applicant made a statement in favour of the application which was followed by a statement by the Ward Councillor Lisa Brett who supported the proposal.

Councillor Dine Romero supported the proposal and moved that the recommendation be overturned and that permission be granted with appropriate conditions. This was seconded by Councillor Martin Veal. It was considered that the proposal would not be detrimental to the host building or the street scene and would not create any loss of privacy for adjoining residents. After a short debate, the motion was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.

Item 6 Sun House, Brassknocker Hill, Claverton Down, Bath – Erection of a bedroom extension to the west elevation and a conservatory to the east end of the house (Amendments to application 99/01228/FUL) – The Planning Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to permit with conditions. The Update Report gave the comments of the Council’s Arboricultural Officer.

Councillor Bryan Organ supported the proposal and moved the Officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor David Martin. After a short debate, the motion was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.

Item 7 Bubblers Dytch, High Street, Wellow – Erection of 2 detached two storey houses with attached garages following demolition of existing single storey house – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to authorise the Development Manager to permit subject to conditions. A representative of the local Parish Council made a statement against the proposal.

Members asked questions about the proposal to which the Officers responded. Councillor Neil Butters opened the debate. He welcomed proposals for the site and considered that there were some interesting features of the design. However, the Parish Council and local residents were opposed to the scheme. He supported those objections and moved that the recommendation be overturned and permission be refused on the basis of overdevelopment, inappropriate design, the high stone wall was out of keeping and would have an overbearing impact, the narrowness of the gap between the buildings would be out of keeping with surrounding buildings, and the glass walling on the southern elevation would form a large, prominent and incongruous element when seen from across the valley. The motion was seconded by Councillor Les Kew who considered that the development was not sympathetic to the traditional style of buildings in the village.

Members debated the motion. Most Members felt that the design was exciting and innovative but that it was in the wrong location, it was overdevelopment and did not bear any relationship to adjoining properties. Councillor Nicholas Coombes did not support the motion and considered that this fairly neutral design sought to lessen the impact on the area.

The motion was then put to the vote. Voting: 8 in favour and 2 against with 3 abstentions. Motion carried.