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, the Speakers List being attached as Appendix 1 to these Minutes

·  an Update Report by the Development Manager on Item 2, a copy of 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

Item 1 Former Bath Press site, Lower Bristol Road, Bath - Mixed use redevelopment comprising 6,300sq m of retail (Class A1), 4,580sq m of creative workspace (Class B1), 2,610sq m of offices (Class B1), 220sq m of community space (Class D1/D2), 10 residential houses, basement car park, landscape and access (including realignment of Brook Road) - The report on this application was withdrawn by the Development Manager as a result of further information being received which could not be assessed in time for this meeting.

Item 2 Parcel 0006, Maynard Terrace, Clutton - Erection of 36 dwellings and associated works (Revised resubmission) - The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to (A) authorise the Planning and Environmental Law Manager to enter into a S106 Agreement as detailed in the report to the Committee; and (B) upon completion of that Agreement, authorise the Development Manager to permit the application subject to conditions. He referred to the Update Report where 2 further conditions were being recommended and which also referred to a recent appeal decision in which an application for residential development had been allowed by the Inspector who had attached significant weight to the fact that the Council could not demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land. The Case Officer stated that recent evidence suggested that, nationally, Inspectors appeared to be allowing appeals in respect of residential development outside of housing development boundaries where local planning authorities could not demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land. He also referred to some of the highways issues relating to the proposal.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the proposal which was followed by a statement by the Ward Councillor Jeremy Sparks.

Members asked questions and commented on the proposals stating that there had been no change to the previous application. The Case Officer and the Senior Highways Development Engineer responded to some of the comments. Councillor Eleanor Jackson referred to paragraphs 14, 47 and 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Affordable housing was needed but this was a sensitive site in an unsustainable location with inadequate mitigation measures. It would have a significant impact on the rural aspect of Clutton and destroy its rural character. She also had concerns regarding highway safety. She felt Members should keep to their principles and, on this basis, moved refusal of the application for the same reasons as had been moved at the Committee’s September meeting, namely, that the proposal was unsustainable and outside the housing development boundary; and that insufficient information had been submitted with regard to ecology. The motion was seconded by Councillor Martin Veal who also had concerns about the proposed highway arrangements. Councillor Nicholas Coombes agreed and shared their concerns relating to highways. He suggested that a highways reason for refusal should be added.

Members debated the motion. It was felt that this site in the middle of the countryside was inappropriate for this development. Members discussed the highways issues. It was generally felt that the proposed junction was poor and that changing the direction of traffic flow would introduce a conflict which would impact on road safety contrary to Policies T1 and T24. The Senior Highways Development Engineer responded to the queries raised regarding change of direction of traffic flow which would culminate in a cul de sac.

The Chair referred to the new requirement with effect from 1st December to provide a statement setting out how the local planning authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner. He considered that this could be based on the fact that there had been a site visit, the application had been considered by the Committee on 3 separate occasions, and there had been extensive correspondence by the local planning authority with the applicants and objectors. Other Members added that comments from the applicants had been welcomed and that some Members had met with the Chief Executive of Curo and had weighed up his comments.

The Chair summed up the debate and put the motion to the vote. Voting: 10 in favour and 2 against. Motion carried (Notes: 1) Councillor Les Kew was not present for consideration of this application; and 2) Councillor Martin Veal considered that, should an appeal be lodged, Committee Members should attend any appeal hearing to put forward their views in support of the refusal against Officer recommendation).

Item 3 Crescent Office Park, Clarks Way, Odd Down, Bath - Erection of a residential care home (Use Class C2) with associated car parking and servicing - 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, or secure a Unilateral Undertaking, to relinquish the creche planning application permission ref 10/01532/FUL in the event that the approval hereby granted is implemented; and (B) subject to the above, Permit with conditions. The Officer recommended that a lighting condition be added together with the requisite positive and proactive statement.

The applicants' agent made her statement in support of the application.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson considered that this was a good scheme and therefore moved the Officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Liz Hardman.

Members debated the motion. Although a Member felt that the site should be retained as offices as per the Master Plan, most Members were supportive of the proposal as there was a need for care homes and this was a good location.

The motion was put to the vote. Voting: 12 in favour and 1 against. Motion carried.

Items 4&5 Automobile Services, 37 Coombend, Radstock - 1) Erection of 7 two-bed dwellings with parking, altered site access, landscaping and ancillary works and allotments following demolition of garage workshop (Resubmission); and 2) demolition of garage workshop - The Case Officer reported on these applications and her recommendations to 1) grant permission with conditions; and 2) grant consent with conditions. She reported the receipt of a request by Councillor Charles Gerrish for a contribution by the applicants to works at the nearby culvert - she stated, however, that the Environment Agency had considered the works to be unnecessary.

The applicants' agent made her statement in support of the applications.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson referred to some revisions to the proposals but still had some concerns about the proposal. However, the neighbours were in favour. She clarified that, although she was a Member of the Town Council, she played no part in any discussions relating to planning. Councillor Les Kew felt that this was a good use of a brownfield site. However, as this was a departure from the Development Plan, the proposal would need to be advertised as such and therefore he moved that the application for planning permission be delegated to Officers to Permit subject to the requisite advertisement and the conditions set out in the Report. This was seconded by Councillor Martin Veal. The motion was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.

Councillor Les Kew moved the Officer recommendation on Item 5 to grant consent to demolish which was seconded by Councillor Martin Veal. The motion was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.

Item 6 No 5 Bath Road, Peasedown - Erection of one pair of semi-detached dwellings on land at the rear of 5 Bath Road – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to refuse permission. He reported on the receipt of an objection from the adjoining property.

The applicant made a statement in support of the application which was followed by a statement by the Ward Councillor Nathan Hartley in favour of the proposal.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson opened the debate. She considered that, although there was a need for more housing, there were a number of issues against this application. A two storey building would be overbearing and impact on neighbouring properties. There would also be the consequent impact of noise and disturbance from 2 semi-detached properties in this location. She felt, however, that it was possible that a single storey dwelling might be acceptable. In view of the significant impact of this proposal, she moved that the application be refused as recommended. The motion was seconded by Councillor Liz Hardman.

Members debated the motion. Most Members agreed that this proposal was unacceptable but that one dwelling, preferably single storey, might be more appropriate in this location. The Chair summed up the debate and put the motion to the vote. Voting: Unanimously in favour of refusal.

Item 7 Parcel 5975 St Clements Road, Keynsham - Erection of a new sewage pumping station – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to Permit with conditions. He recommended an additional condition regarding the provision of landscaping prior to the use commencing.

The applicants’ agent made a statement in support of the proposal.

The Chair stated that the Recommendation should also be amended to Delegate to permit as this was a Departure from the Development Plan and would therefore need to be advertised as such.

Councillor Les Kew supported the proposal and moved the revised recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Eleanor Jackson. After a brief debate, the motion was put to the vote and it was carried unanimously.

Item 8 Hartley Barn Farm, Barn Lane, Chelwood - Refurbish existing barn into self-contained holiday accommodation with associated parking – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to refuse permission.

The public speakers made statements against and in support of the application which were followed by a statement by the Ward Councillor Jeremy Sparks who supported the Officer’s reasons for refusal.

Councillor Les Kew queried whether the proposal might require a Site Visit. Councillor Nicholas Coombes considered that this was inappropriate development in the Green Belt with no very special circumstances being demonstrated or attempts to find an alternative use. He therefore moved the Officer recommendation to refuse permission which was seconded by Councillor Neil Butters.

After some brief comments supporting the motion, it was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.