Agenda item

The Committee considered

·  The report of the Development Manager on various applications for planning permission etc

·  An Update Report by the Development Manager on Item Nos. 2 – 4, a copy of which is attached as Appendix 1 to these Minutes

·  Oral statements by members of the public etc on Item Nos. 1 – 6, 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 Former Bath Press site, Lower Bristol Road, Bath – Mixed use redevelopment comprising 6,300sq m of retail (Class A1), 4,580sq m of creative work space (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)(Ref 12/01999/EFUL) – The Case Officer updated Members on this proposal including late representations from Crest Nicholson regarding the gas holders; and further representations from the applicant regarding the retail issues. She advised that there was no change to her recommendation as a result of these representations. A correction was made to the 3^rd line of the 2^nd reason for refusal of the Recommendation to Refuse permission, namely, that “in out data” should read “input data”. She gave a power point presentation on the scheme to the Committee.

The public speakers made their statements against and in support of the proposal. The Chair stated that the Ward Councillor June Player, if able to attend, would have objected to the scheme in its present form as would the other Ward Councillor Sharon Ball.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson opened the debate. She expressed doubt regarding benefits to the economy from this scheme and felt for a number of reasons that this was not the right site for this scheme. Traffic issues had not been properly addressed and, importantly, the proposal would have a significant impact on the nearby Moorland Road shopping centre. She therefore moved the Officer recommendation to refuse permission which was seconded by Councillor Martin Veal.

Members debated the motion. It was considered that the reasons for refusal were substantial with the Health and Safety Executive advising that there was a potential danger to human life by virtue of proximity to the gas holders. Traffic problems were still anticipated, the requirements of the sequential test had not been met and there would be an adverse impact on the Moorland Road District Shopping Centre. A number of Members indicated that they supported the motion. Councillor Martin Veal considered that the report was detailed and balanced but the lack of more detailed highway plans in the Officer presentation was an oversight. The highway implications of the scheme were a major issue particularly because the Council had its own highway improvement scheme and the implications of both schemes needed to be made clear for Members.

At the suggestion of the Chair, the Senior Transport Planner gave a detailed presentation using the application site plan which showed the proposed junction arrangement adjacent to the site. He explained the proposals being put forward by the applicant and the Council and explained the implications of both schemes at the junction and the wider highway network. He answered questions by Members on this aspect of the proposals.

Some Members considered that this was a good scheme which would clear a derelict site and help to regenerate the area. It would provide employment for a lot of people and funding for decommissioning the gas holders would be provided by the private sector. In response to a Member’s query, the Development Manager gave advice regarding the West of England LEP: Revolving Infrastructure Funding (RIF) and the Development Agreement with Crest Nicholson regarding a staged implementation of the Bath Western Riverside development. Reference was made by Members to the benefits from the Tesco store in Keynsham but the Development Manager advised that this was a different situation as that proposal was in accord with Local Policies and it was not a good comparison to this site where the proposal was contrary to Policy. The proposed development would impact on the viability of Moorland Road District Shopping Centre a short distance away.

Members generally supported the motion to refuse permission which was put to the vote. Voting: 9 in favour and 4 against. Motion carried.

Items 2&3 No 17 George Street, Bath – (1) Change of use of upper floors from offices (Use Class B1) to 7 residential units (Use Class C3) and associated works (Resubmission)(Ref 12/04296/FUL); and (2) internal and external alterations to enable conversion of upper floors from residential, and associated internal access alterations at ground floor level (Ref 12/04297/LBA) – The Historic Environment Team Leader reported on these applications and the recommendations to refuse planning permission and listed building consent. The Update Report commented on further representations received. The applicants’ agent made a statement in support of the proposal.

Councillor Brian Webber as local Member opened the debate. He referred to the possible conflict between conservation of a building and use for modern day needs. Residential use had been accepted by the Officers and there were various benefits from such use. It was not a Grade I listed building and there would be no external changes. He felt that, on balance, the benefits from conversion to residential use outweighed any possible harm to the layout of the interior of the building and, on that basis, moved that the recommendations be overturned and that permission and consent be granted. The motions were seconded by Councillor Bryan Organ. The other Ward Member, Councillor Manda Rigby, indicated that she agreed with Councillor Webber.

Members debated the motions. Some Members felt that fewer units would be better and that the proposal affected the grandeur of this Georgian Town House. Other Members felt that the proposal should be approved as the rooms were still a good size with no major alterations and the fireplaces unaffected.

The motions were put to the vote separately and were both carried, voting being 9 in favour and 4 against. It was clarified that the applications would be delegated to Officers for the imposition of appropriate conditions.

Item 4 Lloyds TSB Bank Plc, 2 Silver Street, Midsomer Norton – Erection of 4 terraced dwellings on land to the north east of 2 Silver Street (Ref 12/04456/FUL) – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to (A) authorise the Development Manager, in consultation with the Planning and Environmental Law Manager, to enter into a Unilateral Undertaking to secure a contribution of £7,387.55 for Education Services; and (B) upon completion of the Undertaking, authorise the Development Manager to Permit subject to conditions. She referred to the Update Report which amended the recommendation by adding conditions; also, a further representation about a fence.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the proposal which was followed by statements by the Ward Councillor Paul Myers, and also Chris Watt, speaking against the proposal.

Members asked questions about the proposal to which Officers responded. Councillor Eleanor Jackson referred to a previous refusal for residential development on this site and felt that retail or some form of employment use would be better. She made reference to another local site Gladys House where offices had been converted to residential use. Councillor Jackson also felt that the design was not good and furthermore the development would result in overdevelopment of the site; two semi-detached houses with front gardens would be better. Access and parking close to a busy junction was also a concern. For these reasons, she moved that permission be refused which was seconded by Councillor Doug Nicol.

The Development Manager gave advice regarding the proposal. The site was not protected for commercial use and was in line with housing policy. The policy position had been different in the Gladys House case.

Members debated the motion. Most Members supported the motion. However, one Member considered that for various reasons it would be difficult to refuse permission.

The motion was put to the vote. Voting: 11 in favour and 2 against. Motion carried.

Item 5 Beechen Cliff School, Kipling Avenue, Bear Flat, Bath – Alterations and extension to existing 6^th Form Block to form new Student Accommodation and Classroom Block (Ref 12/04515/FUL) – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to Permit with conditions. She referred to representations (previously circulated) from Councillor David Bellotti, Ward Member for the adjoining Ward, supporting 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 Ian Gilchrist objecting to the development.

Members debated the application. Councillor Les Kew considered that this was a good proposal that would enhance the site and commended the Officer for her presentation. He therefore moved the Officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Eleanor Jackson. The motion was then put to the vote and was carried unanimously. (Note: Councillor Nicholas Coombes subsequently declared an interest in this application as he used to work for the architects a number of years ago; however, he did not consider this to be significant.)

Item 6 Old Coal Yard, Marsh Lane, Clutton – Erection of steel framed building with external cladding to roof rear and two sides, front elevation to remain as open portal (Ref 12/05093/FUL) – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to Permit with conditions. The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the proposal.

Councillor David Veale as local Member stated that Marsh Lane was a single track road and this intensified use demanded a better access onto a sensibly constructed road. He considered that there would be more lorries and some form of study should be undertaken on lorry movements. Councillor Eleanor Jackson considered that the development would be screened and would not cause any harm to the area. She therefore moved the Officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Liz Hardman.

Members briefly debated the motion and issues raised in the applicant’s statement. The motion was put to the vote and was carried, 10 voting in favour and 2 against. (Note: Councillor Les Kew was absent for consideration of this Item in view of his declared interest earlier in the meeting.)