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 1 and 2, a copy of which is attached as Appendix 1 to these Minutes

·  Oral statements by members of the public etc on Item Nos 1-4, 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 Gibbs Mews, Walcot Street, Bath – Erection of 4 dwellings (Retrospective amendments to Application 08/00591/FUL amended 11/03532/NMA) – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to refuse permission. She referred to the Update Report which commented on additional information received from the applicant.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the application. Councillor Manda Rigby made a statement against the proposals and then left the meeting in view of her pre-determination declared earlier in the meeting.

The Case Officer and the Team Leader – Development Management provided advice regarding use of materials.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson opened the debate. The development had been viewed at the Site Visit prior to this meeting. There was no problem with the principle of the development although she felt that the landscaping was poor. The use of artificial stone did not conserve or enhance the appearance of the development in this part of the Conservation Area or the World Heritage Site or when viewed from the River. She therefore moved the recommendation to refuse permission which was seconded by Councillor Les Kew.

Members debated the motion. Most Members considered that there was no blame on the Council’s part and that the applicants had proceeded using the wrong materials without due authorisation. The use of Natural Bath Stone was required for a good reason.

The motion was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.

Items 2&3 Charmydown Lodge, Charmydown Lane, Swainswick, Bath – (1) Conversion of Charmydown Barn to a 5 bed dwelling, alteration and reinstatement of Charmydown Lodge to a 3 bed dwelling, retention of new detached garage block, minor works to the walls of the former pigsties and associated soft and hard landscaping following demolition of modern barns, stables and lean-to (Revisions to permitted scheme 08/04768/FUL and 08/04769/LBA); and (2) Internal and external alterations for the conversion of Charmydown Barn to a 5 bed dwelling, alteration and reinstatement of Charmydown Lodge to a 3 bed dwelling, retention of new detached garage block, minor works to the walls of the former pigsties following demolition of modern barns, stables and lean-to (Revisions to permitted scheme 08/04768/FUL and 08/04769/LBA) – The Case Officer reported on these applications for planning permission and listed building consent and the recommendations to (1) refuse permission and (2) grant consent with conditions. She referred to receipt of a letter from the applicants’ Solicitors. The Update Report gave a further Officer assessment of the proposals. Councillor Martin Veal queried whether the walls of the Lodge had been deliberately demolished to which the Officer replied that they had been as the applicants had been advised that they were unsafe.

The applicants’ Agent made a statement in favour of the proposals.

Councillor Les Kew opened the debate. He observed that the proposal was substantially the same as previously approved and that the Lodge needed to be restored to retain the quality of the whole development. He considered that, as the stone had been stored for re-use and the building work was of good quality, the development should be allowed. Reinstatement with a small extension was the correct way forward. There were very special circumstances to warrant that the development should be allowed and he moved accordingly. The motion was seconded by Councillor Martin Veal. The Principal Solicitor advised that a new building in the Green Belt was inappropriate development and was therefore by definition harmful to the Green Belt. Members needed to consider whether they accepted the very special circumstances put forward by the applicants that were, in summary, that the Lodge building should be reinstated as it was a heritage asset and made an important contribution to the setting of the listed buildings. The mover and seconder agreed that those factors amounted to very special circumstances.

Members debated the motion. Councillor Eleanor Jackson disagreed and considered that this was an historic settlement in a stunning location. The building had not been inhabited for very many years. It had been demolished and, if rebuilt, it would be a new house and very special circumstances did not exist. Discussion ensued and most Members supported the motion for the reasons cited. Councillor David Martin stated that solar panels or photo voltaic cells should be considered.

The Team Leader – Development Management requested that the motion be amended to delegate authority to Officers to enable appropriate conditions to be imposed and for a S106 Agreement to secure that the Lodge remained ancillary to the main dwelling. The mover and seconder agreed.

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

Regarding the application for listed building consent, Councillor Les Kew moved the Officer recommendation to grant consent with conditions. This was seconded by Councillor Martin Veal and put to the vote and was carried unanimously.

Item 4 The Chase, Rectory Lane, Compton Martin – Erection of extensions including a first floor extension to create a 1.5 storey dwelling (Revised proposal) – 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. The Ward Councillor Vic Pritchard made a statement on the matter.

The Chair commented that the plans were not clear as regards context, that is, levels and relationship to the adjoining dwelling. Councillor Neil Butters agreed and moved that the application be deferred for a Site Visit. The motion was seconded by Councillor Martin Veal.

The motion was put to the vote and was carried, 9 voting in favour and 4 against.