Agenda item

The Committee considered

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

·  An Update Report by the Development Manager on Item Nos 3 and 8 which is attached as Appendix 1B to these Minutes

·  Oral statements by members of the public etc on Item Nos 1, 2, 7-11, 13 and 14, 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 4 to these Minutes

Items 1&2 Church Hall, School Lane, Batheaston – 1) Demolition of existing Church Hall; and 2) erection of a new single storey village hall building including multi-use main hall, activity rooms, kitchen, toilets and stores and associated external works to provide accessible access to the hall and fields following demolition of the existing Church Hall – The Case Officer reported on these applications and the recommendations to grant conservation area consent to demolish with conditions and to grant planning permission with conditions. She read out an Update Report and referred to further representations received.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the proposals. The Ward Councillors Gabriel Batt and Geoff Ward made statements on the proposals.

Councillor Martin Veal (Ward Member on the Committee) stated that he had not prejudged the applications. A replacement hall was needed as facilities were limited. There could be issues of noise and lack of parking that could impact on the amenities of the area. However, it was a good design, accessible and available for a number of uses. It was also not contrary to planning policies. On balance, he supported the proposals but would reserve judgment and listen to the debate.

Members considered the proposals and discussed various issues including the number and type of events proposed, the high number of objectors, the impact on nearby residents, the proposed increased size and capacity of the hall etc. The Team Leader – Development Management stated that Condition 7 could be amended to require a log of finishing times of all events finishing after 11pm. Any complaints raised by residents would be investigated in the normal manner. The Case Officer responded to various questions raised by the Chair.

Councillor Brian Webber moved the Officer’s recommendations. He considered that a replacement hall was required and this proposal was of appropriate size and design. It had a number of beneficial features such as including a theatre facility and would be acoustically protected. On the whole, it was a good scheme. However, he moved that a condition be imposed regarding keeping a log of the number and type of events that were held on an annual basis. Councillor Liz Hardman seconded the motion. She considered that parking was always a problem in this location but a Green Travel Plan would help. Local residents would no doubt assist in monitoring events held in the hall.

The Chair supported the proposal and summed up the debate. The motions were put to the vote separately. Consent to demolish (Ref 12/04654/CA): Unanimous. Planning application (Ref 12/04653/FUL): 11 in favour and 0 against with 1 abstention. Motions carried. (Note: Councillor Rob Appleyard left the meeting during consideration of these Items and did not return to the meeting).

Item 3 No 169 Newbridge Hill, Bath – Erection of an 11 bed care home to the rear of the existing care home and associated works – This application was withdrawn from the Agenda.

Items 4-6 Hinton Organics Ltd, Charlton Field Lane, Queen Charlton – 1) Variation of Conditions 13 and 16 of Planning Permission 97/02626/MINW dated 2/12/98 to allow permanent recycling of cardboard waste and increase in truck movements; 2) increase size of concrete storage area and variation of Condition 13 of Planning Permission 97/02626/MINW to accept wood waste; and 3) variation of Conditions 13, 16 and 19 of Permission 97/02626/MINW to extend composting operation, increase vehicle movements and permit cardboard and wood recycling (Temporary use of land for 10 years for manufacture of organic green compost as amended by revised drawings received 14^th April 1998 at land formerly Queen Charlton Quarry) – The Council’s Planning Consultant reported on these applications and her Recommendation that all 3 applications be approved for a period of 18 months further subject to the same conditions as were proposed when the 2005 applications were last considered (in February 2010) together with additional conditions suggested by consultees as set out in the report.

After the Planning Consultant had responded to a Member’s query, the Chair moved the Recommendations which were seconded by Councillor David Martin. On being put to the vote, the motion was carried unanimously.

Item 7 Yard adjoining 2 The Bungalows, Durcott Lane, Camerton – Erection of 2 live/work units – The Planning Officer reported on this application and the recommendation to refuse permission.

The public speakers made their statements in favour of the proposal.

The Ward Member on the Committee, Councillor David Veale, commented that there was an issue of sustainability involved and that people often use a room within their home as an office etc. He supported the proposal and, on the basis that it was a sustainable proposal and there were no traffic issues, he moved that the recommendation be overturned and permission granted. The motion was seconded by Councillor Malcolm Lees.

Members debated the motion. Some Members supported the Council’s policy position but most Members were in favour of the proposal as it would tidy up an untidy site and there was a bus route and shops nearby.

Officers advised that the motion would need to be amended to Delegate to permit with appropriate conditions which was accepted by the mover and seconder. The amended motion was put to the vote. Voting: 9 in favour and 3 against. Motion carried.

Item 8 Whiteways, White Cross, Hallatrow – Erection of 2 holiday cottages to expand existing B&B business following the demolition of existing residential outbuildings – The Planning Officer reported on this application and the recommendation to refuse permission.

The applicant made a statement in support of the proposal.

A Member reported that the Ward Councillor Les Kew supported the proposal. After a brief discussion, Councillor Brian Webber moved that the Officer recommendation be overturned and that permission be delegated to Officers to grant permission subject to appropriate conditions including that lets be no longer than 3 months. He considered that this was a local business with no particular sustainability issues being on a main bus route and close to the village. The design was inoffensive. The motion was seconded by Councillor Liz Hardman. Councillor Doug Nicol felt that a Personal Permission should be added so that the properties could not be sold as private properties later.

Members debated the motion. The Team Leader – Development Management stated that, if permission were to be granted, the application would need to be advertised as a Departure from the Development Plan. He reiterated the planning issues which led to the Officer recommendation to refuse permission. The Chair stated that he did not support the proposal as he had concerns regarding the holiday lets being situated a distance away from the existing B&B business. He summed up the debate and put the motion to the vote. Voting: 6 in favour and 6 against. The Chair used his second and casting vote against the motion. Voting: 6 in favour and 7 against. Motion lost.

It was moved and seconded to approve the Officer recommendation to refuse permission. The motion was put to the vote. Voting: 6 in favour and 6 against. The Chair used his second and casting vote in favour of the motion. Voting: 7 in favour and 6 against. Motion carried.

(Note: After this item at 5.25pm, there was an adjournment for Tea and the meeting resumed at 5.50pm)

Item 9 Parcel 5900 Hunstrete, Marksbury – Erection of educational facility, store and office (Resubmission) – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to refuse permission.

The public speakers made their statements in favour of the proposal.

The Ward Member on the Committee, Councillor Sally Davis, considered that there was little reason to refuse the application and if any problems did arise, the residents would let Members know. She agreed with the Parish Council and supported the proposal.

Councillor Vic Pritchard considered that the building was not intrusive and was not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. He therefore moved that the recommendation be overturned and that permission be granted. The motion was seconded by Councillor Martin Veal.

The Team Leader – Development Management advised Members to consider the policies in the NPPF with regard to Green Belt as Officers’ view was that this was not an appropriate outdoor sports facility. If Members chose to allow the development, the Team Leader advised that they needed to consider whether they felt that this was an appropriate facility for outdoor sport in the Green Belt. If they felt that it was, then it was capable of being appropriate development subject to it not harming openness or the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. If they did not feel it was an appropriate facility, then very special circumstances would be required. If the development was to be permitted in such circumstances, the application would need to be advertised as a Departure from the Development Plan and therefore the motion would need to be amended to include this and to Delegate to permit for appropriate conditions.

Members debated the motion. Some Members considered that the proposal was acceptable as fishing was an outdoor sport and a training/educational use was closely related. Members did not therefore consider that the application represented inappropriate development and it did not therefore need to be advertised as a Departure from the Development Plan. The anglers, youngsters and families would benefit from the proposal. If there was no harm to the Green Belt, there was no need to demonstrate very special circumstances.

The Chair summed up the debate and it was clarified that the motion was to Delegate to permit with appropriate conditions. The motion was put to the vote. Voting: Unanimously in favour.

Item 10 No 1 Sycamore Road, Radstock – Erection of attached 2 storey dwelling – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to permit with conditions.

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

Councillor Neil Butters moved to approve the Officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Vic Pritchard.

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

Item 11 No 15 Livingstone Road, Oldfield Park, Bath – Change of use from mixed use comprising retail (A1) to ground floor and residential (C3) above to solely a C4 use and the erection of a small stone wall to the front – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to permit with conditions.

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

The Chair supported the proposal and moved the Officer recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Vic Pritchard. The motion was put to the vote and was carried, 11 voting in favour and 1 against.

Item 12 No 39 Grove Wood Road, Haydon, Radstock – Erection of a PVCu conservatory to the rear of the property – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to permit with conditions.

It was moved and seconded to approve the Officer recommendation.

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

Item 13 No 25 Pulteney Gardens, Bathwick, Bath – Change of use from B&B (C1) to holiday let (C3) (Retrospective) – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to permit with conditions. She informed Members of further representations received.

The public speakers made their statements against and in favour of the proposals.

The Ward Councillor Ian Gilchrist made a statement against the proposal.

The Officer responded to a Member’s query regarding the Use Classes. Councillor Martin Veal felt that it was unacceptable to use the house for hen/stag weekends but Members could delegate to Officers to Permit to negotiate with the applicants to achieve lettings being a minimum of 1 week, and he moved accordingly.

Members continued to discuss the proposal. The Team Leader – Development Management stated that adding conditions to the permission would change the application significantly and would not be appropriate and probably would not stand up to appeal. It would be preferable to defer the application for further negotiation. Members considered the noise issue and the loss of amenity to the adjoining resident and sought possible ways of ameliorating the impact. They posed various questions to which the Team Leader responded.

Councillor Vic Pritchard considered that this was a complicated matter but could see no reason to withhold permission. He therefore moved the Officer recommendation to permit with conditions which was seconded by Councillor Brian Webber.

Members debated the motion. The Team Leader responded to a Member’s query by stating that, if the use did not conform to the conditions of the permission, enforcement action could be taken.

The Chair summed up the debate and put the motion to the vote. Voting: 7 in favour and 0 against with 5 abstentions. Motion carried.

Item 14 No 6 Fairfield View, Fairfield Park, Bath – Provision of a loft conversion to include 1 rear dormer and front roof lights – The Case Officer reported on this application and her recommendation to refuse permission.

The applicant’s wife made a statement in support of the proposal.

The Ward Councillor Dave Laming made a statement in support of the proposal.

The Chair commented that applications had to be considered on their individual merit. There were different types of dormer and some were badly designed. The houses that were being extended by dormers had been there a very long time and these rooftop extensions were not always suitable. A Member raised a query regarding another property in the street having been allowed to install a dormer at the rear. It was suggested that this was probably because it was considered that it did not affect the street scene. It was then moved by Councillor Vic Pritchard to approve the Officer recommendation to refuse permission which was seconded by Councillor Brian Webber.

Members debated the motion. It was generally felt that the proposal had merit and that the benefits outweighed the harm; it would not affect the street scene. Some Members considered that it would be useful to Members if a Supplementary Planning Document or guidance note could be provided on dormers.

Councillor Vic Pritchard withdrew his motion. It was moved by Councillor Martin Veal, and seconded accordingly, to Delegate to Officers to permit with appropriate conditions on the basis that it was not detrimental to the street scene and the benefits outweighed the harm. The motion was put to the vote and was carried, 9 voting in favour and 3 against.