Agenda item

The Committee considered:

·  A report by the Development Manager on a planning application at 12 High Street, Weston, Bath

·  An Update Report by the Development Manager on the matter, a copy of which is attached as Appendix 1 to these Minutes

·  Oral statements by public speakers on the application, the Speakers List being attached as Appendix 2 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 3 to these Minutes

12 High Street, Weston, Bath – Erection of rear ground floor extension (totalling approx. 206 sq m) to create an enlarged retail unit together with rear first and second floor extensions to create 6 two bed apartments and alterations to existing shop fronts at 12 – 20 High Street, Weston – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to (A) authorise the Planning and Environmental Law Manager to enter into a S106 Agreement to cover the provision of £18,000 for the improvement of local public transport infrastructure; and (B) subject to the prior completion of the above Agreement, authorise the Development Manager to Permit subject to conditions. The Update Report provided Officers’ comments on further information received and amended the reasons for granting approval as set out in the Report. She referred to a further letter of representation received that day.

The public speakers made their statements which were followed by a statement by the Ward Councillor Colin Barrett who spoke against the proposal. Councillor Malcolm Lees, as the other Ward Member, made a statement raising various concerns and then left the meeting.

Councillor Martin Veal opened the debate referring to various concerns including the problems of car parking, the loss of character and amenity to local residents and villagers and the impact of more cars and shoppers in the area. Councillor Eleanor Jackson considered that the objections were not significant enough to refuse the application - the development would tidy up the rear of the building and enhance the Conservation Area. She therefore moved the Officer recommendation but considered that a Parking and Construction Management Plan should be included in the conditions. The motion was seconded by Councillor Bryan Organ who felt that delivery times to the shop should be limited.

Members debated the motion. Some Members raised concerns regarding car parking, delivery times and problems during the construction period. It was also felt that the village would lose some of its historic character. Other Members cited examples of other similar stores that had been approved because a refusal couldn’t be defended on appeal. The development provided much needed housing and was of a good design. Issues regarding the highways were raised to which the Senior Highways Engineer responded that levels of parking were appropriate for the size of store and that its viability rested on good access and parking being provided. The Development Manager referred to the National Planning Policy Framework as applied to this application. She felt that no additional problems regarding parking were envisaged and that the appropriate authorities had the powers to manage parking in the area. The issue of parking and also noise from delivery vehicles were covered in the recommended Condition 7. Members considered that a condition needed to be included to secure a Construction Management Plan but that the details of delivery times could be left to Officers to decide.

After a thorough debate, the motion was put to the vote. Voting: 9 in favour and 3 against. Motion carried