Agenda and minutes

Councillors Clucas, Fletcher and Stennett.

14/00415/FUL Devonshire House

Councillor Lillywhite – personal and prejudicial – is a neighbour of the application site.

14/00681/FUL 1 Malvern House, Malvern Street

Councillor Hay – personal and prejudicial – is a CBH board member.

14/00736/FUL The Council Depot

Councillor Hay – personal and prejudicial – is a CBH board member.

There were none.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 15^th May 2014 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections.

As new Chairman, GB reminded Members that they only need to speak if they disagree with the officer recommendation.  CL explained voting protocol, for the benefit of new Members, as follows:

-          if the officer recommendation is to permit, and a majority votes in support of this, the application is permitted; if a majority votes against the recommendation, the application is refused;

-          if the officer recommendation is to refuse, and a majority votes in support of this, the application is refused; if a majority votes against the recommendation, the application is permitted;

-          there is no requirement for a separate vote to refuse or permit in either of these cases;

-          if Members want to defer their decision, an express move to defer is required.

GB reminded everyone present that application 13/02174/FUL 86 Cirencester Road has been deferred and will not be considered at this meeting.

Introduction

MJC explained the background of the two applications at 25 Bennington Street, which are back at committee following deferral in April. 

The first application, for the removal of a shop front and replacement with a timber sash window and door, was deferred in April to enable the applicant to provide more evidence to justify the removal of the shop front.  MJC has had several constructive meetings with the applicant, to furnish Members with the additional evidence.  The applicant explained that suggested solutions as to how the shop front could be retained are unviable.  The recommendation remains to refuse, as officers don’t feel that the matter has been looked at in an exhaustive way, although the application before members tonight is better than the previous one, and includes more evidence.

Members will note from the blue update that Councillor Walklett is disappointed at the way these progressions have been discussed, but unfortunately cannot be at the meeting tonight.  If Members are minded to follow the officer recommendation and refuse, JW has asked that they consider a deferral instead to the he can address the Committee next month. 

Public Speaking:

Mr Burnett, applicant, in support

Was under the impression that he and the officers were going to talk to address a compromise over what could be done, and also that enough information had been provided to iron out the details.  For the meeting today Cllr Ryder became aware application going back on Monday, but Cllr Walklett knew nothing about it then and talks with him never took place.  Regarding 25 Bennington Street, this was a house until the 1930s, and as no permission has ever been given for it to be classed as commercial premises, it still is a house.  Similar properties with shop fronts have been converted back into houses.  The cost and implications of saving  ...  view the full minutes text for item 122.

MJC introduced the application as above, explaining that the original 1988 planning application for five bed and breakfast units included a condition to prevent sole residential occupancy.  This application is at committee due to an objection from the parish council, which is included in the report.  The officer recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Member debate:

BF:  is perturbed by this.  We are being asked to remove a condition, but there is no evidence as to why the condition was included in the first place, and it shouldn’t be removed without a good reason why.  At the time of the original application, there were surplus farm buildings, and owners were encouraged to use them to boost employment and tourism – holiday lets encompasses both these things which, as a private dwelling, will be lost.  We need tourism and employment in the town, and five bed and breakfast units generates both.  Also, there is nothing in the report about access for dustbin lorries – Ubico staff will not drag bins more than 9m to be emptied– and this could become a problem.  The buildings are described as ‘redundant farm buildings’ but this is still called a farm, and if the agricultural land is sold in the future, it could become active again.  If this dwelling is in separate ownership, it could be a cause for concern.  Is also concerned that this site is in the green belt, and we have already fought an application to build on Hunting Butts Farm.  This is a back-door application to get a dwelling in the green belt.  The update suggests a condition to remove permitted development rights, but a planning application to expand the property could follow.  Does not consider good enough reasons have been put forward to remove the condition, and believes that this property in the green belt should remain as holiday lets.

MJC, in response:

-          could also flip this to say that the reason for the condition as stated in the 1988 planning permission could have been a lot stronger.  At the recent training session, members were told about the tests the conditions have to follow;

-          regarding bin collection, the current use as holiday lets already creates waste which has to be disposed of in a suitable manner.  This scenario will be no different with the change of use;

-          regarding the potential of the land coming back to farming use, yes this is possible though unlikely.  The current government position regarding agricultural buildings, allowing barns to be converted into dwellings without planning permission, so to refuse on these grounds would not carry much weight at an appeal.

AM:  a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 124.

EP said the proposed dwelling will have a single access between Keynsham Street and Hales Road.  Previous issues with the design have been resolved, there are no amenity or highways issues, and the recommendation is to approve.

Public Speaking:

Mr Iles, applicant, in support

Introduced himself to Members as the owner of the property in Keynsham Street – it was left to him by his father in 2010 and has been in the family since 1960.  All the family live and work locally.  Welcomes the positive recommendation for approval from officers, and notes a common thread from objectors, that it will set an unwelcome precedent and be the thin end of the wedge, that he owns other property in the street, and is likely to renovate and rent this out.  In fact, has no intention of putting in any further planning applications.  Originally considered two dwellings on the site, but realised this would be too much and withdrew the application.  Has revised the plans over six months, and has the approval of the Architects’ Panel and Civic Society.  Would not have done this if he was a greedy developer, out to maximise profits.  Has worked with an architect and planning consultant to create a sympathetic, modest dwelling.  This will not be the first house to be proposed on green land in Keynsham Street – the first was erected in 2006, has not been controversial, and in eight years has created no adverse impact on road safety.  His proposal will not mean any change to the level of vehicular access, and there are no highways objections.  The lane is tight but it’s possible for two cars to pass.  It’s true that refuse lorries don’t enter the lane and residents of the new dwelling would have to take their bins to the end of the lane, but this happens already, here and elsewhere in town.

Councillor Jordan, in objection

This application was originally for two houses, but has been reduced in number, improved in design, and he has no objection to it in principle.  However, is concerned about the unadopted road.  A similar application was approved at Victoria Terrace, but there the road was tarmac’d over and looked normal.  This is a narrow dirt track, near Hales Road traffic lights.  There is already one house there, and the question could be asked as to whether one more will make a lot of difference - the judgement must be based on what the tipping point might be.  The road is mainly used by residents of Hales Road to access the backs of the properties.  The biggest concern is refuse collection.  It may only be one more house but what is the tipping point?  Rubbish bins will have to be dragged to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 125.

Councillor Lillywhite declared a personal and prejudicial interest and left

the Chamber during this debate.

MJC introduced the application for planning permission and listed building consent as above – garage at ground floor, with ancillary living accommodation above.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Prince, due to concerns about the impact on the conservation area, the effect on neighbouring amenity, and highways concerns.  Officer recommendation is to permit/grant.

Public Speaking:

Mr John Cooper, neighbour, in objection

Has lived in the property next door for 11 years, and is speaking in objection to this application to turn a garage workshop into two-storey living accommodation.  There have been nine objections from neighbours, for whom this is the last chance to stop the construction of a modern building at the bottom of a garden in a conservation area, within the curtilage of a listed building, and adjacent to the house originally built by Joseph Pitt – Pittville House.  There was a similar application ten or 11 years ago, which was recommended for refusal and subsequently withdrawn, with the heritage and conservation officer describing it as a pivotal heritage site and highly sensitive.  The heritage and conservation officer now describes the application site as private and discreet.  The objections from neighbours have not been heard.  His family is unclear as to whether the 6m high building will overlook his kitchen, deck, daughter’s bedroom and guest bedroom – the plans do not make this clear and further information is required.  Neighbours feel that officers have not listened to their comments, and neighbours cannot understand the u-turn from the conservation and heritage officer, concerning this prominent dwelling in the Pittville Estate.  From a common sense point of view, it seems likely that this 1950s garage on a back wall is likely to be turned into a residential dwelling via a back door route.

Ms Lisa Shortland, applicant, in support

Thanked officers for their hard work and prolonged discussions resulting in the recommendation to grant permission.  Has lived at Devonshire House since 1999 and spent 15 years lovingly restoring the neglected building.  On site visit, Members will have seen that the house and gardens have been meticulously renovated and maintained to a high standard.  It is disappointing that some people have suggested that this proposal will have a negative impact on the conservation area, as they have sought professional advice at every stage, using an historical consultant to research the grounds and building, and working with CBC’s conservation officer and planning officers to design an attractive brick-built coach house and garage which will maintain the integrity of the original vision for the house and grounds, as confirmed by council officers and the Architects’ Panel. Have aimed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 126.

EP introduced the application as above, adding that it is for use by Majestic Wine.  A retail consultant has confirmed that there will be no adverse affect on the town centre, and there are no highways objections.  The application is at committee due to an objection from the parish council.

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Member debate:

BF:  welcomes the application, but would like a condition included requiring a contribution to the TRO on Manor Road, where the 60mph speed limit and parking restrictions has impacted on Manor Road and Hayden Road, with Jaguar workers parking on Hayden Road.  The TRO will cost £5k, and a contribution should be conditioned.

EP, in response:

-          a contribution such as this would have to be required through S106 and it would need to be proved necessary to mitigate harm.  Highways officers do not identify any harm, and therefore there are no grounds to require such a contribution.

BF:  Highways officers are wrong.  They are aware of the impact the scheme is having, and have made a mistake.  This new retail unit will attract more people.  In is favour of the proposal but wants to do it properly.

EP, in response:

-          if the condition BF wants is attached to the decision and the applicant goes to appeal,  CBC would be severely criticised for attaching such a condition with no grounds.

BF:  all conditions are appealable.  This is much needed, and £5k isn’t much for a development on this scale.

CL, in response:

-          is very dubious about requiring such a contribution.  It would have to be through an S106 agreement, and this would have to be delegated.  If the applicant goes to appeal, and there is no evidence of any potential highways issues, costs against CBC could be awarded;

-          also, if BF wants to add the condition against officer advice, in order to avoid a potential situation where, under protocol, a majority of Members are opposed to the condition but otherwise support the application, and a vote against the recommendation with the condition would result in the application being refused, BF must move to amend the officer recommendation with the addition of this condition.  A separate vote can be taken on that first.

PT:  is it possible to include in the recommendation that the issue of a TRO is explored – to leave the gate open, and allow the issue to be looked at behind the scene after the vote?

KS:  has sympathy with BF’s comments but thinks it unfair on the applicant to impose this condition.  Would ask, however, that officers to take note of these concerns when considering the Local Plan.  This area is very different from ten years ago –  ...  view the full minutes text for item 127.

EP described the application, reminding Members that they refused an application for two dwellings at this site two months ago, primarily because they did not like the flat-roofed design.  The applicant has now altered this to a pitched roof design, which is acceptable to officers.  The application is at Committee due to an objection from the parish council.

Public Speaking:

Mr Gavin Hill, neighbour, in objection

Lives next door to the application site.  This is the third application for two dwellings of contemporary architecture on this site, which lies in the Cudnall Street Conservation Area.  The first was withdrawn due to overwhelming objection to its contemporary design; the second was refused by Committee in March.  The refusal reason stated that, while the Cudnall Street Conservation Area is generally characterised by traditional dwellings with pitched roofs, and the existing building contributes towards this character and makes a positive contribution, the proposed houses, by reason of design and roof form, would be incongruous and failed to preserve on enhance the character of the conservation area, contrary to Local Plan polices BE3 and CP7.  This gives a very clear steer on what is acceptable and what not, but the applicant chose to ignore the refusal reason, added mono-pitched roofs to the design and made a new application four working days after the previous one was refused – a sign of naivety or arrogance.  As one Member pointed out at the last committee meeting, this type of design would be more suited to the Costa del Sol.  Tellingly, the Heritage and Conservation Officer supported the previous application but recommends refusal of this one.  Has no objection in principle to the demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of two new ones, as the site can accommodate these, but he and his neighbours strongly object to the contemporary architecture proposed.  Generally likes contemporary architecture provided it is coherent, sits well in its setting and adds to it, but this application does none of these things.  The previous refusal reason is equally relevant here.  Urges Members to refuse the application on grounds of inappropriate design within the local context.

Member debate:

KS:  to her, the houses look a bit like angry frowning faces, though realises that this is in the eye of of the beholder.  Said at the previous meeting the flat-roofed dwellings were not appropriate here and were more suited to a Mediterranean setting than to our wet climate, but was not anticipating the pitched roofs as presented now, which are an insult to the intelligence.  This is very disappointing; is not happy to support this application.

HM:  was not at the March meeting, but looked at the minutes and at the refusal reason and notes that the flat-roofed design was considered inappropriate.  Also noted the Conservation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 128.

CS described the application as above.  It is at Committee due to an objection from the parish council.  Officer recommendation is to approve.

Public speaking:

None.

Member debate:

None.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

MJC introduced the application, which is at Committee due to a parish council objection as set out in the report.  Officer recommendation is to approve, and Members are reminded that they approved a similar application on an adjacent site a few months ago.

Public Speaking:

Mr David Jones, agent, in support

Is speaking on behalf of the applicant, and this application follows the committee’s approval of similar proposal at 17 Greenhills Road in October last year.  Officers concluded that that development complied with local and national planning policy, and nothing has changed since that permission was granted, making it a compelling recent precedent.  The scheme has been amended in line with the officer’s comments and those of the Architects’ Panel and is before Members with a clear and unequivocal officer recommendation to approve.  Regarding the neighbour objections:  the principle of development in rear gardens in this area has been clearly established with backland developments at Haymens Close, Charlton Gardens and 17 Greenhills Road; there is no common theme to existing development in the area, regarding styles and materials, so this proposal cannot be said to be out of keeping, backed up by Paragraph 60 of the NPPF; the proposal is not too large or high – in fact it is lower in height than the permitted scheme next door, and the floor area is comparable and urban grain consistent with developments already permitted in the area; regarding any impact on privacy, the scheme has been designed to ensure that no overlooking takes place, is 32m away from its nearest neighbour (the nationally recognised window-to-window separation is 21m), and properties backing on to the site have gardens over 50m long; and finally there have been no highways objections and the access has been designed to match that at 17 Greenhills Road.  In summary, the NPPF, Local Plan and Garden Land SPD do not seek to prevent appropriate development on garden sites, and the NPPF includes a presumption in favour of sustainable development.  This is sustainable development, and compliant with local and national planning policy.

Member debate:

PH:  is the local borough councillor and notes that there have been many comments from concerned local residents, all well-researched and including a wealth of detail to support their cases and urge us to consider them and the Development on Garden Land SPD.  Policy CP7(c) clearly states that any new building should complement local development.  At the previous meeting about the proposal next door, it was identified that since 2002 there has been a ribbon of development in this area, and the principle of building here has been established and may continue, which means that Policy CP7(c) is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 130.

Cllr Hay declared a personal and prejudicial interest and left the Chamber during this debate.

MJC described the application, which has been made to aid bin collection by Ubico. It is at Committee because CBC is the applicant.  The recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

AC:  who will pay for this to be done?  The tax payer?

GB:  that is not a planning consideration and officers cannot advise on it.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

11 in support

0 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT

Cllr Hay declared a personal and prejudicial interest and remained out of the Chamber

during this debate.

CS introduced the proposal, which will be installed at the back of the building.  It is at Committee because CBC is the applicant. 

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

None.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

12 in support – unanimous

PERMIT

LM explained that these two applications would be considered together as they are linked.  The applicant applied to fell the tree; the Tree Section considers it worth protecting so wish to confirm the preservation order.  The recommendation is therefore to refuse the application to fell the tree and confirm the TPO.  If Members don’t agree, they can vote to permit the felling of the tree and not confirm the TPO.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

KS:  wholeheartedly supports the officer recommendation.  This tree is very important to residents in the area, who do not want to lose it.

GB:  as ward councillor, fully endorses these comments from the chair.

CH:  notes that the tree has been hacked about a bit and looks a mess now.  Presumes that it will be tidied up, and the branches will be vertical.

Vote on officer recommendation to refuse felling of the ash and confirm order

13 in support – unanimous

REFUSE FELLING OF THE ASH AND ORDER IS CONFIRMED

6.  Any other business

There was none.                                                                                      

The meeting ended at 8.40pm.