Planning Cttee Meeting

Join Zoom Meeting

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84220012192?pwd=YlBTTndseWhxbGs3WGtDSWY2RVZKUT09

Meeting ID: 842 2001 2192

Password: 225362

Bathford Parish Council
Planning Committee Minutes Tuesday 7th July 2020 at 6.30
Agenda: Meeting under Zoom.

Decisions be made under delegated powers after discussion with councillors

19.6.20

Application Type: Tree Works Notification in Con Area
Site Location: Bishop’s House Bathford Hill Bathford Bath Bath And North East Somerset BA1 7SW
Description of Proposal: T1- Beech (19m)- Crown raise to 6m. Excessive shading.

T2- Lime (14m)- Fell. Excessive shading blocking a large proportion of afternoon sunlight and an adjacent lime nearest the house (now removed) had blown over with no visible warning signs. Possible honey fungus attack on the roots.

T3- Lime (14m)- Crown raise to 5m. Excessive shading.
Name of Applicant: Mr Greg Tucker
Reference Number: 20/02107/TCA Case Officer: Jane Brewer

24.6.20
Application Type: Full Application
Site Location: The Manor Bradford Road Bathford Bath Bath And North East Somerset BA1 8EA
Description of Proposal: Retrospective application for extension and alterations following works completed on site.
Name of Applicant: Mrs Angela Mildon
Reference Number: 20/01721/FUL Case Officer: Anna Jotcham

2.7.20
Application Type: Full Application
Site Location: Conkwell Lodge Conkwell Conkwell Bradford On Avon Bradford-on-avon Wiltshire BA15 2JF
Description of Proposal: Demolition and replacement of existing garage.
Name of Applicant: Mr John Coghlan
Reference Number: 20/02264/FUL Case Officer: Isabel Daone

FOR INFORMATION

Application Type: Tree Works Notification in Con Area
Site Location: 110 High Street Bathford Bath Bath And North East Somerset BA1 7TH
Description of Proposal: Eucalyptus (T1) – Remove 2no. low limbs and shorten 2no. by 2m on side of crown facing 110A High Street.
Name of Applicant: Toby Sutcliffe
Reference Number: 20/01786/TCA Case Officer: Jane Brewer
BPC: No objection
BANES 24.6.20 No Objection

Correspondence received re The Manor
Reasons for original refusal by BANES 3.10.2019

Application Type: Full Application Application No: 19/03282/FUL Address to which the proposal relates: The Manor Bradford Road Bathford Bath Description of Proposal: Application for completed extension and alteration works (retrospective) Application submitted by: Mrs A MILDON The above development is REFUSED in accordance with the application, plans and drawings submitted by you for the reason(s) set out below: 1 The development as constructed represents a disproportionate addition to the original building and will harm the openness of the Green Belt. The development therefore constitutes inappropriate development within the Green Belt which is harmful by definition. No very special circumstances have been demonstrated to clearly outweigh the harm. As such the development is contrary to policies GB1 and GB3 of the Placemaking Plan, Policy CP8 of the Core Strategy and Section 13 of the NP
Email from Mr Simon Crowfoot
below are my comments
1. In the planning refusal it was clearly stated that the new building was 69% larger than the original building and this is a clear breach of planning regulations which these proposed changes do little to address. The overall size of the building including the height which was substantially increased above the roofline of the original building remains substantial.
2. As the building is located in the green belt where strict development restrictions apply it is clear from the NPPF that additions to the building must not be disproportionate (normally no more that a third of the original volume of the building as it was on 1st july 1948) yet they remain so in this revised application.
3. Throughout the recent development of this site over the last 3 or 4 years it is clear that plans submitted at the time did not take into account some of the additions as stated in the planning refusal.
4. As stated in the previous planning refusal the bulk and size of the property along with the increased ridgeline and deviations from the approved plans are not addressed in this retrospective application and therefore the building will continue to be harmful to the openness and visual amenity of the green belt.
5. As per the planning refusal the development has already harmed the green belt and its openness as well as the visual amenity and the fact that the building remains more that 50-60% bigger in this revised plan than the original combined with being 3 storeys rather than 2 is the main reason that this should be refused until the size and height of the building is restored to something within the planning guidelines.
6. To be clear I have no objection to the original property being restored and enhanced but it is also important that everyone following the planning rules and guidelines as laid out and that they are correctly enforced by the local planning authority to avoid unauthorised development blighting the green belt around Bath.
7. The development with its revised planning application remains contrary to policies GB1 and GB3 of the placemaking plan, Policy COP8 of the core strategy and section 13 of the NPPF.