Morning, just apologies. We're just waiting for one more counselor to arrive. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you everybody, sorry for this slight delay at the beginning there. I'd like to welcome you to the Bath and Office Somerset Council Planning Committee. It's Wednesday the 8th of May, a nice spring morning. Apologies, I'm looking at one of the flustered. I'll explain why in a second. But if we introduce ourselves, I'm Counselor Ian Holsoil. I'm the Vice Chair of the Planning Committee. The Chair, Councillor Hansel, has stepped down from the role, so we will be electing a new chair and vice chair next month. Can I remind everyone to switch off all their electronic devices and keep them quiet? The meeting is being filmed, and the recording will be available on the Council's website, and I tend to watch it on YouTube. If nobody wants to be filmed, if they want to speak, just have a word please with our operator Ian, and we'll make sure that you're not shown. Okay, I'll ask the officers on the top table to introduce themselves. Hello, I'm Karina Huskins from Democratic Services. Sarah James, Deputy Head of Planning and Development Management. Simon Elias, Senior Law and the Council's legal team. Thank you, we have Planning Case Officer and Highway Officer in the corner there. If I could ask Karina to explain the emergency evacuation procedure please. Thank you. If the continuous alarm sounds, you must evacuate the building by one of the designated exits and proceed to the named Assembly Point. The designated exits are side-posted, so from this room you use the main door and then the main exit of the building. The Assembly Point for this building is in orange grove on the green outside friends. Thank you. Okay, are there any apologies for opposite sources of institutions? No, no apologies. Thank you. Just asking the members around the table, has anybody got any interest that they want to declare? No. Okay, thank you. If we go to item six, it's usually an opportunity for the chair to raise some urgent business. What I would like to do is just, I'm sure the committee would be happy to share with me their thanks for the service that Councillor Hansel gave over the past year. I think contrary to what some of the media reports said, Councillor Hansel didn't resign from the chair in protest at the decision that Suley's down. He just decided that after it was time for him to step down and move on to other things. But I think we can all agree that he was a very fair chair and very good at the discipline and I think that maybe comes from the fact that he was a teacher. So, yes, we like to formally thank him for the service he gave the committee. Okay, if we move on to item seven, I will ask Karina to reform about the speaking procedure. Thank you. So, speakers will be called immediately after the case officers made their presentation. And the order and speaking time is, as follows, parish town Councillors speak first and they will be allowed three minutes, objectors speak next and they will be allowed three minutes, supporters who have also allowed three minutes. All Councillors, not on the committee who have indicated they wish to speak, made you so for a maximum of five minutes. And the speeches are timed by the traffic light system you see on the paper next to me. At the start, the light will be green and will turn to amber when there is one minute of speaking time remaining. When the light turns red, speakers should immediately conclude their remarks. Thank you. Thank you. Item eight, we had meeting on the 10th of April. We have the minutes that have now been published. So, can we have someone forward, Councillor Jackson? I'll move on to the correct record, Chair. Thank you very much, and Councillor Warren is happy to second that. Right, site visit plans list, we didn't have any site visits last time, so we could just move on now to the main part of the committee, which is to determine the planning applications. I just need to point out if anybody has come here for items two and three, which is Shockawick Farm in Bathford. I'm afraid owing to an administrative error, the updated report only came out at 10 o'clock this morning. So, it has been deferred, and this is only advice for legal officer and the deputy head of planning. It's felt that the additional information that's been put forward is sufficient that it could potentially jeopardize the reasonableness of making a decision. So, it's going to be deferred until June, but it may well be that we might like to have an advanced site visit, perhaps, Councillor Jackson? Well, that's precisely the case, Chair, because I've studied these papers very carefully. Yeah, and I could see there would be benefit from more information, but more to the point, I don't know the area at all, and I would really appreciate a site visit. So, can I move that we have a site visit before the next committee meeting? Of course, I don't think we need to have a formal vote on that. I think we can just informly agree that we will have an advanced site visit. That's OK. OK. So, yes, so two and three have been deferred until June. It may well have been that we could have determined the application today or decided to have a site visit anyway. So, I don't think it's jeopardized the applicant in any way that it would be determined next month. I know it is a bit of a delay and it isn't convenient for them, and people who are making representations on that application, but it is what it is, I'm afraid. OK. So, if we go to the top of the list, we've got the application for Bathkeys North on Avon Street here in the City Centre. This is a Reserve Matters application following the outline approval, and our case officer, Goulam, can give us a presentation. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Yes, this is, excuse me, is a Reserve Matters application for part of the Bathkeys North. Bathkeys North Development Site for Phase 1. You've lost your sound. There we go. Sorry again. Thank you. Yeah, so this is Phase 1 of the wider Bathkeys North Development Site. The applicant is BQN Limited. In terms of the site itself, it's the area shown in red, which is the existing Avon Street car park and land immediately to the west. There's an area just... OK, having a few sound issues at the moment, so I do apologise to anybody watching online at the moment. Thank you. You're ready to continue. Thank you. Hopefully it's not me. Yeah, so the area shown in red is the current Reserve Matters application. The area to the north of Corn Street is the Phase 2 and part of the wider Bathkeys North Development Site. Just in terms of orientating, so we've got the river, obviously running through the site towards the south of site and the riverside park. We've got Avon Street car park, which is the development site which we're referring to now. And just putting the wider context, obviously, to the right is the Southgate Centre Development and further to the north, the Zebarth Abbey and the city centre. Just to put the application in context. In terms of the planning history on the site, Outline Planning Commission was originally granted in April 2019, the 180058 application. That was an Outline Planning Commission for development of the site. And there were a number of documents which were approved with that. There was then a process of pre-application discussion with the applicants and that identified that what was being proposed was slightly beyond the approved parameters. And therefore the application was an application for to vary that the original Planning Commission was submitted. And that was approved in December 2020, so that's the VAR application. So the reserve maths application we're dealing with today was submitted, subsequent to that in December 2020. And there has been a process of negotiation with amendments submitted in September 2021, which related to the design of the buildings in response to comments from various consultees. And then there's a more recent update to reflect the local plan, partial update in respect of things like cycle parking. The Outline Planning Commission allowed for a range of uses on the site with minimum and maximum floor areas approved. And the reserve maths application needs to fit within those parameters, bearing in mind there's another phase still to come. What was submitted with this reserve maths application is for a mix of offices, residential, hotel, retail and other food and beverage uses and a two level basement car park and landscaping. Those uses are within the parameters set within the Outline Planning Commission, and therefore it's in conformity. In terms of the residential, there's a mix of flat sizes from micro flats, which are kind of 24, 27 square metres in size, through to three bed flats as well. Those are all for sale or let there's no affordable housing in the scheme. That was part of the original 2018 applications of detailed viability appraisal submitted at that time. That was updated in 2020 and again in 2021 and identified that there was a viability gap which meant that the scheme itself was not able to support the provision of affordable housing. That said, there is a section one, a six agreement which goes with the Planning Commission, and that requires a review of the viability appraisal 24 months after commencement of development or practical completion of 50 residential units. So although at this stage there's no affordable proposed, there is a mechanism in place to review that in the future to see if the scheme is viable and is able to deliver affordable housing. Going through the various Reserve Matters access, the approved parameter plan here just identifies the principles within which a Reserve Matters application has to come forward. So that identifies there has to be certain routes north south through the site and also an east-west link through the site. It also identifies the location or general location of the car park access point on Ambery. The Reserve Matters application which has been submitted, this is the layout so it picks up on the principles of the north south routes through the site. So aligning with Avon Street, for example, onto the western part of the site and also what's called Back Street, the east-west route which links with Somerset Street to the east outside the application site boundary. This is the indication of the basement car park. The basement car park at level two has been amended to incorporate additional cycle parking in order to comply with the local plan partial update in respect of cycle parking. I should point out that as a Reserve Matters application, the principle of development and the mix of uses, the principle of a two-story or two-level basement car park matters which have been approved and not for a reconsideration as part of this Reserve Matters application. In terms of layout, this is the parameter plan which was approved so it shows that there's some flexibility for, so the lighter gray areas are zones where there could be a building, the darker areas where there needs to be a building of some sort. And that's, there's quite a lot of flexibility in terms of where those routes actually are aligned within the site. And what's emerged is this layout which again, as I mentioned earlier, in terms of access, complies with the parameter plans just in terms of the uses there. The right-hand blocks, plots one and two are offices on the upper floors, the ground floor is commercial space, some retail restaurant, plot three which is on Corn Street is the hotel and plots four and five are residential. So this is just a typical upper floor, so the large floor plate offices on plots one and two, the layout of the hotel, you can see in plot three on the northern part of the site, and then just a typical layout for the residential accommodation within plots four and five. In terms of scale, one of the other reserve matters, there are a number of parameters in terms of heights and where there are zones for different types of roof elements to be provided in terms of plan, for example. So this was what was granted an outline with a number of details in terms of, say, the upper zone of the buildings, and this is what has come forward in the reserve matters application. So this is a slice through plot five and to the left, plot six is the first outline which is outside of this reserve matters application, and then both college beyond that such as in terms of a slice to the site. In terms of the building heights, this just shows the zones within which the buildings can come forward, so this kind of beige outline of buildings, so in terms of the footprint of them, but also the variation in height across the site. As part of this reserve matters applications, as I mentioned earlier, there were amendments made to the application, and that resulted in some minor projections beyond the approved parameters. These relate principally to things like lift and staircase cause and a small area of residential accommodation in plots four and five, which projects just beyond the limits in terms of the overall parameters is considered that these don't amount to variation, which require a resubition of the original outline application. There's minor projections, and it's considered these are acceptable within the overall scheme. In terms of landscaping, this is a range of planting being proposed. In terms of the red line boundary, which you can probably just see on that plan, the riverside park next to the river is outside the application. That's to be retained as it is at the moment, and then there is planting within the application site, including around the perimeter of the site. At roof level, there are a range of a number of brown roofs, sorry, green roofs, so planted roof areas across the site. This was in response to the change in roof scape strategy in order to deliver significant level of biodiversity net gain on the site, and that's incorporated within both the landscaping being proposed, and also the green roofs. That also shows the photovoltaic cells on plots one and two in particular, and that's in order to provide on-site renewables and juice overall CO2 emissions from the site. The final one, a reserve matter, is appearance, and I've got a number of slides here just to kind of go around the site and provide some detail in terms of materials. This is looking from James Street West towards plot one, looking along Corn Street, so the main development, we've got the Forum building on the left, and then beyond that is the proposed development. And then beyond that, you can probably just make out this kind of shaded areas, that's for the future development within plots six and seven. This is the riverside elevation and the changes which were made as part of the application were to address issues, concerns raised about the original design, which was concerned about appearance as fairly squat. It gave the appearance being fairly squat, so the more vertical elements introduced to each of the buildings in order to break up the elevations and produce, provide more vertical emphasis to them. So this is the central part of plot two on the riverside, and just in terms of the materials palette, the basic frame of the building is in barstone, the balcony in the middle of the image are pre-cast concrete, and then mixed by the materials in terms of metal, for example, for the window frames. This is just the section of the building next to it, so again, barstone is the main framing material and a mix of metal and pre-cast concrete. In terms of ambre, so this is the eastern elevation, this is the car park entrance on the bottom left as you can see, and this part of that elevation is proposed as a pre-cast concrete on this part of a section of ambre, where it turns onto the river, it turns to barstone, and also where it turns down onto corn street, it's barstone, but this part is the section of the elevation is pre-cast concrete. This is the rear of plot one, and so in terms of, say, the pre-cast concrete framed this part, and also profiled metal panels within the elevation, so this is the internal street to the development, rather than the external face of the development. Most of the external elevation, so to ambre and corn street and riverside, evolve elements of barstone or brick, which I'll come onto in terms of plot four, and also the hotel, which I'll come onto in a minute. So this is the hotel elevation, so this is looking east towards the city centre along corn street towards the forum building, this is in terms of the details of materials, so this is the pre-cast concrete building and with panels, with bronze coloured metal window frame framing, and it's quite a different material, obviously, within bath, but considered as a case to be made for being used, I should point out that condition nine of the planning permission requires sample panels to be submitted for approval prior to any construction work, so that would allow the council to finesse and detail the particular colours on, for example, on the metal work, but also the colours of any pre-cast concrete elements within the building, so there is a separate step which the applicants would need to go through in order to deal with that. This is the view from the new bridge across look, as this is plot five in front of us, say in terms of the elevation changes, it introduces a more vertical emphasis with the four main bays being expressed more clearly, and then plot four to the right of that, and then looking along the river towards Churchill bridge. In terms of plot five, so again materials, this is riverside elevation, so bathstone, principal elements, the return elevation to Avon Street is a brick and proposes a light coloured brick, again, condition nine will allow the details of that material to be agreed. This is plot four, so this is a reddish brick, again, colour and precise details of that to be dealt with through condition nine. In terms of some long distance views, this is the view from the golf course, or the picture part on Sion Hill and the development, you can't miss it, but I don't know if my cursor is going to show on the screen, I don't think it is, but in terms of, it's almost in the centre of this view, is the development kind of nestled amongst the Bath College buildings, and on the other side of the river you might be able to make out. This is the view from Bathwick Field, so in terms of looking across to the church spire in the middle of the photograph, it sits to the left of that, and you can't really see it, but again, the building heights are broadly consistent with the other building heights in the area. This is the view from, as you come down Wellesway, just looking across the railway line, so the building, so the only on the left to the right is Carpenter House. This is the view with the gap in between Bath College and James Street West, so this is looking towards a beach and cliff in the distance, and this is just in terms of that plot one elevation, which I touched on at the beginning. This is the view from Church of Bridge, looking west along the river, so you've got the former industrial buildings on the left-hand side, then the Bath Keys north development on the right. Looking the other way from Green Park, riverside, again the building there, the shaded out areas with the blue dot is the future development of the Phase 2, and then this is just the view from beach and cliff looking down across the site, with the development in the centre of the photograph to the left with the blue star is the future phases of development with Bath College beyond that. So that's in terms of the presentation, as I was going to go about, just draw attention to the update report, there's a few items there. The amended provision of the cycle parking within the basement, even Somerset, designing out crime officer has been in contact saying that they consider the cycle parking ought to be further details required to make sure it's secure and broken up into smaller blocks, and that can be dealt with by condition. In terms of biodiversity net gain, this application achieves significantly above the 10% required by the current legislation, but we would need a management plan in order to secure that in long term, so that's also to be covered by condition. And finally, Natural England, who had raised concerns about lighting levels along the river, they've now been satisfied, that can be addressed by condition, but we do need to complete a Habitat Regulations assessment in a procedural process there, and that is something which would recommend that the scheme is permitted subject to the Habitat's Regulation Assessment and approval by Natural England. Thank you. Okay, thank you. We'll have some questions shortly, just to say that, I mean, I've lived in Bath for 20 years, and I know we often get criticised for the approach we take to architecture. What do we do in the Georgian style? Is it a pastiche, arguably like the Southgate Centre is? So we still need to ensure that, you know, what decision we come to today, is it good enough for the city? And is it going to really help regenerate that part of the river? And, you know, is it going to be something that we can be proud of and showcase? So I'll open, there's actually an interesting point here, we've got nobody speaking. So, you know, we haven't had any significant interest from the public in terms of the design. I'll ask a first question, if I may. Could you just give us a process of the representations we had from historic England and the Bath Preservation Trust? Where are they with this scheme, please? Yes, they have raised concerns about the original applications, it was, particularly in terms of the elevational treatment, and amendments have been made in the light of that, which have addressed some of their concerns. They still have reservations about the proposals for the flat roof across the site, and those still remain. And I think that's the balance there is, or the case for that is in terms of provision of the biodiversity net gain across the site, and also the reduction in CO2 emissions on cyberneurables, but their reservations are still in place. But they're not historic England have not formally objected. Okay, thank you. So, has anybody got any questions that would like to us the officer now start with Councillor Jackson, Councillor Gali, and then Councillor Crossley? Thank you. I was also concerned about the roofscape, and I wondered if you could explain in a bit more detail what exactly one will see on the roof, and if I've understood correctly, there is going to be access to the roof for residents. In terms of the what's on the roof, if just using this image, the right hand blocks, there would be access to that roof area for people who occupy the office buildings, and that would be a range of soft landscaping on the roof, and also the ground roof, the green roofs above that, where the underneath the photovoltaic cells, so there would be some soft landscaping. There was an original proposal to include trees at roof level, those are removed, it just felt that in terms of having kind of green roofs and some landscaping that might be acceptable, but the provision of trees at a high level was not, so those have been removed. In terms of plots 4 and 5, which are the residential blocks, there is access from flats at the upper level, kind of private access to roof space and balconies at that upper level, but there isn't general access for the public or other residents within those blocks. For the hotel, there is the potential for access to the roof area, but that's not been specified in these drawings. Okay, Chuck, second question. Second question, I mean, I've struggled with this one and with the briefings, and the question is what is our reference point, because this is to conserve and enhance the area, it's a World Heritage Site and so on. So, do we consider that this is appropriate when, for example, compared to the Bath College building on the right, or across the riverside with the western riverside development now, which I have to say I don't like and always voted against, but that's irrelevant. If it's not the right reference point, or should we be thinking or asking ourselves, is this sufficiently Georgian and appropriate in a Georgian city? So, could you sort of nail down what the design parameters should be to be congress with the context? If I could just flick back to the view from looking across the site and putting it in context. So, here we have, in terms of the different roofscape within the city, and so we have Southgate, which has perfectly false mansard roofs, so from St. Leve you see a mansard, but behind it, looking on the right-hand side, there is a plant kind of drop within that central area of the site, so that's effectively a flat roof. But with the false mansard, so that's one approach, another is simply a flat roof, so looking towards the top left of the diagram where the cinema is on James Street, again, that's just a flat roof with nothing else being provided. So, in terms of the context along the riverside, there is a range of different roof approaches to the roofscape, and in terms of the reference point, it was about seeking to provide a roofscape which achieves something different as it were, so rather than go for the false mansard approach, which might seem to be more in keeping. But actually, you're just hiding the roof plant, whereas this is more expressive in terms of saying this is a flat roof, it is providing biodiverse roofscape, it is providing photovoltaic cells on it, and so that was the rationale for it. But in terms of reference points, the Bath City centre, the scale of buildings is much smaller than we're dealing with on Bathkeys North, and the large footprints of the buildings, which is specific design intent in order to provide office floor space, trying to span those, you could either go for the Southgate approach, or potentially, or what they've adopted of this site, which is, say, being much more upfront about the flat roofs and accommodating the photovolta tags within that and green roofs. If you go off to the left, the next block, we approved a design for flats that's got a sort of hanging gardens of Babylon approach to it, it's stepped, it's flat roofed, and it's got lots of greenery, and I was just wondering why that hadn't been replicated here, because it's a very barren sort of area, that central part of Bath, isn't it, but a lack of trees and so on, Southgate is not exactly green. I'm not suggesting Southgate is green, it was just in terms of an alternative way of dealing with large floor plates and the roofscape, I think the building you referred to is probably on Bath, western riverside, again that's a different approach with the hanging gardens, this incorporates the landscaping within the roofscape itself. OK, thank you, so Councillor Gourley, and then I've got Councillor Crossley and Councillor Hodge afterwards. Straight forward one, what's a brown roof? Sorry, it's a provision of, well the green roofs are where you would have seed and et cetera, a brown roof might just be gravel or some other material, most of these roofs are proposed as green roofs, I'm sorry I dropped in the word brown as well. OK, that's one question. I don't have a problem with the roof actually, I think it's fine because most people can't see that, what I do have a problem is the view from the street, and I think the question is, I think going back to Councillor Daxson's reference, it seems to me the reference is either Bath, College or Churchill House, neither of which I think have much architectural merit. You have actually on the other side of the road, on the other side of the river, the new at works which we have preserved and I think it's been done remarkably well and it has, it has grace notes, as does the buildings on the corner of James Street West, as do obviously the area, the Georgian area and Green Park. I think that I do question about the blocking us, and I also wonder how they've come to that design when we're talking about something that's going to be here for, you know, 100, 200 years, is this really the best that can be done, it's a question. I also have a question about how it is that we can have come to the conclusion that we need to house cars rather than people. This area was historically always an area of low-cost housing until 70 years ago when it got bombed. I have a question about how we can get to this point that we're not providing any low-cost housing in something that really is an area which would be brilliant for it because of the access to jobs and so on. There is a question in that. Okay, well, obviously we can't consider the affordable housing, that's already been determined, there was a viability assessment and there is a one-hosted agreement that could follow up, and if it does become viable then we can still achieve that but we're here to discuss the reserve matters of the access here, which is where I would scale and do it landscaping. Yes? Can I just make a comment before the debate continues really about how the conversation around how we've arrived at this design. The design has come forward based upon what the applicant has proposed, obviously fitting within parameters, plans, there's some constraints to the proposals in terms of the uses because there are very large floor plates on these buildings, which wouldn't be the case in some of the buildings in the centre of town, some of the more historic buildings, so it does dictate almost a different design approach, but the actual design approach is obviously what has been brought forward by the applicant, not by the officers, it's really difficult for the officer to say how we've reached it, what the officer has done is work with the applicant to assess what's been brought forward and to negotiate improvements to what is considered by the officer to be an acceptable scheme. It's now obviously before members, it's for members to come to the conclusion to whether they think it's an acceptable scheme and obviously everyone's going to have their own opinion on that but it's very difficult for the officer to answer some of the questions about how it's reached this design because that's not what the officer has put forward, it's what he's assessed. Thank you for that, Councillor Crossley, you've got a question? Yeah, I've got a question. First of all, to pick up on Fiona's thing about the affordable aspect, I think one of the things we have to do before Christmas when we have a new Minister for Local Government is to get there and tell him that a value of land is the value of the local plan, so the problem we have is that developers pay too much for land and then the first thing they chop is the social housing, so if there was a clear message from government that if the local plan says the 30% affordable, that will set the value of the land and if they overpay for it, that's their problem, not our problem. But my question is will any of this rooftop space be publicly available so that you could have perhaps a coffee bar up there and drink, particularly I'm thinking of the one on the hotel, you said that they, hopefully it's not specified but the residents might be getting there, would there be access for the general public to get up there if we have a rooftop garden area on the hotel? That would ultimately be down to the operator of the hotel that could be access to that area but that, including to the public, but that's not a specification within the application, but there is the potential. Everyone from that, I raised this every time we have an application down here about the desirability of getting access. When we get another scheme coming forward, can we just, from the officer point of view, from my perspective, I think we need public access to some of these roof spaces because it would be lovely to be up there having a coffee and just loving a view over bath and just seeing what's being developed and enjoying the view, but if we don't get that into the parameter when we have the initial negotiations, then it will never happen at all. Okay, thank you for that. Councillor Hodge, you've got questions, please. Sorry, I've got three questions. The first one is about the roofscape. I wonder, could we see the image again of the roofscape with the projections that you'd circled? What I'm thinking about in relation to this is that when we, I was on the committee, when the committee approved the 2020 variations to the parameters that were originally agreed and understood the more blocky parameters that were agreed were to, to some extent, to incorporate projections upwards, and we seem to now have another further design, sorry, the picture isn't up there actually. Yeah, is it possible to put the roofscape picture on? Thank you. So we've accepted the more parameters that allow for a more blocky structure, but we yet again have projections above the roofscape, and there seems to be 13 up there, well roughly. Yeah, about that. I just wondered if why they're acceptable and what their heights are, how you've come to the decision that they're acceptable, those 13 above the new level of parameters. And the second point I'd like to raise is in relation to the soft landscaping on the roof that is providing for the, contributing to providing for the 30% biodiversity net gain, and also the landscaping that is in the policy to run north south along the eastern cut through is all that that is shown in the pictures secured and secured in the landscape. I just want to be clear that we're not seeing pictures where some of that won't be delivered, or that there is a risk that it will be value engineered out at a letter point. How can we confirm that all the landscaping there that we are seeing is to be delivered? And a third point is that I recall that when we again, when the committee agreed, variation three, there was quite a lot of information given about the ground floor landscaping at the ground level landscaping at the end of the building. Have we got detail on that? We were shown it to look very attractive and I haven't seen it today. Have that changed or is that not something that is part of these reserve matters anymore? So there's landscaping at the end of the building, I think, on the curves, and I do recall some to the front, and policy SB4 puts quite a lot of weight on the additional landscaping gain in that area. So I suppose there's three points, the high projections that the landscaping on top, the roof and the landscaping at the ground level. I just want to make one final point looking at the views. The view from the approach golf course, the photos that I think is the golf course hasn't last in that condition in about 2019. So I just wondered how there's been a planning, there's been variation since then. How is that? Few constructed, I just wondered. Are you okay there? In terms of the projections, which is this image on the screen, the approved parameters drew very clear lines about where the building edge would be. And the original reserve matters application was within those parameters. As part of the negotiation in order to deal with concerns about the elevations, so for example on plot five, which is the one in the left hand side of the image. There was more vertical elements were introduced, so some of those vertical bays on that building. So if you looked at it within the parameters, it just so happens that the next one along is slightly outside it. But in terms of the overall height, it's within the parameter. You can see that based on the way you've got the red star as it were, just that that bay in front of it, that's fully within the parameters. The one just to the right of it is slightly outside, but the height is within the parameters. It's just the forward projection of that particular bay takes it beyond the parameter plan. In terms of the circle to the north of that, that is a lift core, which projects slightly above the height. I don't have that dimension to hand. But that's probably going to be, it might be a couple of meters beyond the height, but it's a small area of extension in terms of just the front print and the overall parameters of this plan. The area just to the east of that with the kind of yellow dotted circle just flags two things. One is that again, the overall height is within the limit, because that's the set. That's the bay being extended through the elevation. The orange bit is just that there is some residential accommodation in that area, which the parameter plans said that there's a limit to where the residential accommodation could extend laterally. So it doesn't project above, it projects laterally, and that's just the consequence of the design changes to the scheme in order to get to an acceptable scheme, because the original was not acceptable in the view of officers and other commentators. So I've just used that as an example in terms of what those actually amount to. So it's not increasing the height, just the lift cores. You mentioned about the landscaping. So the landscaping served the area to the bottom of the diagram, beyond the red line, the rivers had parked, that's unchanged. The landscaping within the red line is, there are detailed plans have been submitted for that, so I haven't included them, including that area towards the western part of the site, where the bridge lands, bridge place, and there's landscaping proposed in that, and there's details, there are detailed drawings showing the types of planting, the hardened, soft landscaping materials, seating areas, et cetera, and so there are full details being provided that, and that would be, that's considered to be an acceptable space there, and also the other landscaping across the site. There is some tree planting proposed within the highway, so on the north side of Corn Street, so plots five in front of plots five and six, that would need to be agreed as part of a section two, seven, eight agreement for works to the highway. And so those, where all those trees get planted, not that something which will be covered through the section two, seven, eight agreement, in terms of the overall biodiversity net gain, even if those are excluded, it's still achieving the level required by the planning condition, and way above, or significantly above for other, the, the temps end required nationally. I think those were the points. Okay, thank you. No, do they do the image with that? Oh, sorry. Sorry, yeah. So the golf course, is it, did you just see if you're imposed on an old photo? In terms of development, which in that view, which is a good difference, if you can see, see where the, the flag for the golf courses, so to the right of that, you can see some cranes in the kind of middle distance, that is Bathke South, where there are, there's a new office building has been constructed. So that's the, we're change in that location. Beyond that, you wouldn't see, there's the, the old Pinkford site that, I don't think you'd see that in this view, looking to the west or to the left of the view, in terms of other developments, there is the new hotel on James Street, but again, that, that wouldn't project, that wouldn't be highly visible in within this view. So I think the only change would be Bathke South. I think my concern is that that picture doesn't show the buildings, does it, that are proposed? It, it does, so I'd have to zoom right in. Okay, they are in there. So basically, it sits in where the cranes are, Bathke South, you then got the red brick building to the left of it, which is Maritime House, then kind of diagonally across is where the development is sitting. And you can just see the curve, I think, of the plot five in that image. Lovely, thank you. And I've just got one follow up question from the first one. Can I just be clear how many of the lift shafts are of the order of two metres higher than the parameters? Is it just one or is all of them? There's two metres is, yeah. I've estimated the two metres, so there's one, two on plot five. There's two on plot four, one on plot three, which is the area there. And then there are the stair cores on plots one and two. So one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, potentially in terms of just the stair cores projecting beyond the parameter. Lovely, thank you. Okay, so we're still asking questions of the officer, Councillor Simon. When you get the big projects like this, roofscapes tend to multiply after planning permission. And I've known things bits of plant up here, which weren't in new drawing and downpipes and things like that. Do they retain permitted development rights on adding things to the roof and the exterior? Or can we negative permitted development rights to make sure that nothing that isn't in the drawings we're going to approve, or not approve, is added? In terms of this application, it does include the plant within the scope of the application. If you're concerned about any external vent pipes, for example, being added then to cubic condition, controlling that. But in terms of the way this has been designed, the main roof elements in terms of plant, for example, are already shown within the scheme. Thank you, Councillor Hughes. Thank you. Just a very quick question. Am I safe to assume that UNESCO are involved, actively involved in the process of this design? It's not something that we're going to involve UNESCO when it's too late to incorporate their concerns. UNESCO haven't commented on this application and had not flagged it as one, which they would want to be involved in. Obviously, there's other applications at the moment in terms of Bathwestern Riverside and Recreation Ground where they have expressed a view, both the UK, ICOMOS and the international panel. But there hasn't been comment from them on this. So, when you say there haven't been comment, have we approached UNESCO and shown them this and said, are we going the right way with this? We haven't. The process for this site started in 2018 and there have been various permissions granted. So, this is a reserve matters within those approved schemes. So, there are already a set of parameters within which the reserve matters can come forward. And that is what is being shown here in terms of consulting with UNESCO. It's not quite how it works. There's a process by which you have to kind of go a slightly secure route to approach them through historic England, DCMS, and then they approach ICOMOS. ICOMOS haven't, sometimes the UK body will come forward with their own views, like they have done on Western Riverside, for example. They haven't expressed a view on this and we haven't approached them on it. Okay, sorry, I'm just trying to understand this then because we're told, we're looking at various developments. We're told that there isn't an issue with the BMW size in terms of UNESCO having concerns. There is concern about developing the west of Bath site, which is two miles away from the centre. Here we have a developments right in the centre. And I would have thought perhaps UNESCO's opinion is probably more important than mine in terms of whether this is an acceptable design for a UNESCO World Heritage site. Okay, thank you for that. Anybody else got any more questions for the office? Obviously, Will has been very thorough in his explanation and also in the questions about the design. Is there anybody else who wants to raise anything? Okay, so in that case, thank you for your presentation. I guess this is the interesting part where we start having a debate and discuss the merits of the scheme. Can I just ask, sorry, one procedural question, given the scale of the development, does this need to be referred to the Secretary of State or is it exclusively our decision to make? No, it reserved matters application. We wouldn't need to refer it. The original application was covered by its EIA development and it was referred to the Secretary of that stage. That's fine, thank you for that. Okay, who wants to open the debate up? Anybody who got a view to express? Can I just issue? I've always got a view. Okay, so it's a strange one. But there are certain aspects of this design. I quite like it. Personally, I agree. If you don't know, I'm not particularly worried about the roof. It's not something that the majority of people are going to see. I like the fact that there's some greenery up there. And it's trying to make the most of the facilities and stuff. I do have concerns with certain aspects of the design. I mean, the riverside side of the design has a very sort of Lego-like appearance to it. And I'm not sure, other than the use of barf stone in amongst the concrete, I'm not sure where the design references are for towards barf within that side. I don't know, it just sort of only seems designed by committee. I'm not quite sure where that design's going and whether it actually truly reflects the city we're in. The other side, where we've got the hotel side, I don't mind it. It looks very similar to the Hampton in some respects, the Hampton hotel just around the corner, which I found quite a bland design. So, over all, I'm not very inspired by the design, to be perfectly honest. So, I do have reservations. Thank you, Ken Slawren. Yeah, the roofs are a bit of a funny one, really. Like Sean says, you're not going to walk away looking up, you just get a stiff net, you'd be looking at the shop and all of that nice, or you get a nice smooth. I think it's one of those things we had to sum up. Barf has been in desperate need, a great one office space for a long long time, for a lot of years and goes right back. It probably lost a little bit of calm lockdown, because obviously everyone is at home, but I think it's going back towards that now. It's the fact that somebody actually is happy to build this on spec. I actually don't mind the design. Some marks aren't Georgian, but in Georgian times, they say you can't build up, because it's not Roman. So, you know, we do move on. We move on to the insulation, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And I think it's greatly needed, I honestly do. OK, there's little bits that I wouldn't particularly like. However, the bits I don't particularly like, somebody else probably will. I think sometimes we get a little bit excited by Rick and Moss. The world here, which is slightly fantastically to be proud of that. However, we are still a living city, and we can't turn it just into a museum, or otherwise it's just mothballs and nothing happens. And to move onwards, and it's also when you're thinking about the amount of people in the bar city that travel to Bristol, travel to Swindon, because there isn't the office space in Bath. So, this can actually save a lot of time for them. So, I'm actually quite happy to move the office's recommendation with this. And with the conditions that are listed. OK, I think given the size of the development, I think we should carry on debating for a bit longer. But, Councillor Crossley? I'm quite happy to second that. And speak, if you like, no? So, I think what we've got here, and I'd like to congratulate the officer team for the hard work they've put in. It was that we've seen sort of years and years of work over this and developing this. And any design of this scale in these modern times is never going to suit everyone's needs, and never going to meet all our demands and expectations purely because we have a situation where the value of land is far too high in our area. And that requires government changes to address that issue. But given where we are, we've got the value of land, we've got what we've got here. I think it's something that is reflecting a lot of the modern design that's coming in at the moment. It's not out of place, it's got a mix between stone and brick. If I am absolutely honest, I prefer that the concrete at the back was not concrete. But, you know, we can't design everything here. I think what we've got, therefore, is a good mix of uses, a good mix of design that fits and is in keeping with a lot of the modern design that's going on. It's right in the centre of Bath. So, unlike Sean, I'm quite happy that there is car park provision in the basement because with the best will in the world, people are not currently giving up their cars at a very great rate. So, you know, even three car families are not going down to two car families, let alone two car families going down to one car family. So, we are where we are. I think we've had these empty sites for a long time. So, it is good that they are now being developed. I can remember years ago at one of these meetings saying there are no cranes over Bath. Luckily, now there are permanently cranes over Bath, which means we are developing and we are delivering a future. If there's no cranes, you're not developing and you're stagnating. And this is an area that needs redevelopment, and I think the offices are to be commended on the level of work. But going forward, I would like to see a stronger commitment to social inclusion, and I would, you know, because we can't forever say, Ah, the value of the land means we can't have any social houses. I would, going forward, like to see a much stronger throwback from the offices that clearly says to developers, If you ain't got 30% affordable, don't even bother talking to us. Thank you there. Okay, so we have had a motion put forward and seconded to support the office's recommendation, but again, I would like to carry on having a little debate before we take a vote. So, Councillor Jackson, Councillor Gourley. Well, thank you very much. There used to be a joke in Birmingham in the 1970s that the developers had done more damage to the city than Hitler's bombs. And I just don't feel this is a very high standard of design, but what do I know? What I would really like a bit of clarification from the offices about, were we to think that this design was not appropriate? Would we be able to refuse the application? Or is it the case that being a reserve matters question and it fitting within its context? We wouldn't have the ground, so just for clarification and future reference. Brilliant, would you want to respond to that question? Yeah, slightly difficult. There was a scheme which was submitted for reserve matters applications, and that was considered unacceptable, and that wouldn't have been recommended for approval. There were amendments made to the scheme, which is the one before you now, and it's considered that this is acceptable. But in terms of that process you described, if I understood it correctly, there was a scheme and it was considered unacceptable, and that wouldn't have been brought forward for the recommendation for approval. The amendments were made to the scheme and a number of different elements. I just picked up on some of them in terms of the introducing more verticality to the elevation in order to overcome those concerns, and we are now at a position where this is considered acceptable and has been recommended for approval. Okay, thank you. I suspect I've shown my hand already. I mean, I totally agree that this needs redevelopment. I mean, I've lived in Bath 60 years, so I've slightly longer history of this than Council has. And I agree with Council more, and we need offices. I agree with Council closely that we should have had and need to have affordable homes, but I'm concerned that English heritage don't think it's good enough. That they think it's not in keeping with other bits of Bath. And I said, I think it is too lucky and too plain, and it's going to be around a long time, and I think it's taken its inspiration from some of the other less meritorious buildings in the area when there are others from which it could have had inspiration. So I think that's my concern, that it could be anywhere, not just Bath. Thank you. I mean, I am in agreement a little bit. It's an international style, it could be anywhere, but it's regeneration. And I'm all right, did I hear earlier that we haven't actually had a formal objection from historical England, they just gave advice? Yeah, they've raised concerns, particularly about the roofscape. They did raise more serious concerns about the regional submission, hence the amendments, and where we've got to is they still have concerns, and it's focused on the roofscape and whether that's appropriate for the centre of Bath, but there's not a formal objection. Okay, thank you. I do want to emphasise this application has received very little representation from public. It's not really generating any sort of strong use either way. Maybe that is actually reflected in the fact that we all think it could be anywhere. But Councillor Hodge. Yes, thank you. I do agree with the importance of developing the land, the concerns about the lack of affordable, but the viability has negated that at the moment. I would like to make the point in the office space that Key South has taken a long time to sell, but I understand your point about the office space. What I feel is I agree with the points made by Historic England, and I think they were very clear that the potential for this site isn't being realised with this design, and I feel that this feeling that's coming out from every once we go around the room is not too bad. But I don't think we should accept second best for this site, and where we have gone back and not accepted something on design, such as the mineral hospital or the Bath press site. We've come back with an improved application. It's near to a beautiful bridge, listed buildings, the industrial heritage across the river, and I don't think it enhances in either direction, and I agree it doesn't reflect the keys, it doesn't reflect, it doesn't enhance the river, and I feel like it is nowhere architecture, and we can do better than this. Specifically, I've got concerns about the nine lift shafts that are two metres higher. Two metres is roughly two metres is quite a big height, and if this motion falls, I would move to overturn the office recommendation for various planning reasons, which I'm happy to elaborate on. Okay, anybody else got anything to add, Councillor MURPHY? I can remember as well when this last came up, and there was a forest of negative comments, and it seems to me that the officers have worked hard to get rid of this, and that we may not be presented with the most fantastic place, but we have a practical solution and we don't have a forest of complaints, where they've worked hard with it, and there are some nice things. The materials have to be presented and passed as part of the condition. I mean, the roofs, I thought people were going to complain, but it seems to me for the future of offices and hotels, roofs are going to be green and they're going to have solar on them. That's what it's going to be like, that's what we've got here. So I really don't see what to complain about, and in that regard I will support the motion. It's always difficult when you have a big comprehensive scheme like this. I mean, when we look at Southgate, obviously that's like one big composite form, it's all in the very same style. What this is achieving is more organic in appearance, and it's all going to get built at a very similar time. But I think there's enough variety. I think it does actually reflect, I think, Bathke's self. To this area was never George and it was always industrial anyway, or it was a poor neighbourhood before we had the Blitz, and it was replaced with some terrible car park afterwards and some other awful architecture. So I think I'm going to be supporting this. So we've had the motion put forward by Councillor Warren, seconder by Councillor Crossley. So that is to support the officer recommendation, to grant reserve matters approval. Does anybody else want to speak before we take the vote? Yeah, Councillor Jackson, Councillor Hodge, and then we'll go up to Sarah. I very much appreciated the form of Chairman's comments as a teacher very often. I was formerly a lecturer. If a student brings in an essay and you had expected him to bring in something that you could give an A to, you still can't fail it because it's a B, and this is what I feel with this application. It's a B, but that's not a reason for rejecting the application. Yes, Councillor Hodge. I just want to make a further point on the policy reasons why I would think we should overturn the officer recommendation, a MPPF paragraph 134, where I don't think it meets the high standards and doesn't achieve a well-designed, beautiful place. And the core strategy policy to that it should reinforce and contribute to the city's unique character. And then SB 4, which sets out quite a lot of detail for what the aspirations of this site are responding positively to existing and varied architecture. It's just for reference that the policy like that I'm considering as well. OK, thank you. Planning, Deputy Head Planning. Thank you. Just before members go to the vote, I just feel as though I may be able to just ask members, given the comments that are made in terms of the design and the concerns about what is before you today to ensure members give some thought to the situation on the ground. The situation on the ground being that there is a outline consent in place. There is a set of parameter plans that are approved. Anything that comes forward on this site has to fit within the parameter plans and the outline consent that is in place, a site from starting again from scratch, which is obviously always a possibility. We are also looking at a site where there are certain uses approved which will dictate certain designs, certain floor plates, and there will be large roof spans, which are very difficult to deal with in design terms in historic places. The case officer has already mentioned a couple of some of the examples that we already have in Bath. Southgate being one of those examples right in the centre, which has a similarly large floor span and that was dealt with with Mansards and hidden plan. This is a different approach. It is clearly up to members to determine whether they feel that this design is acceptable and to make a decision on this application, but I would urge members to be aware of the constraints of the site and of what design options might come forward and what potential there is for other alternative approaches on this site to come forward. They have to be viable. They have to be able to deal with the roofscape that will have a large floor span and the uses that are approved in order to bring the site forward at all. So I just want members to just be aware of the fact that we are not able to necessarily go away and achieve everything that might be sought in a historic city in terms of some of the approaches. We are going to be constrained to only certain approaches on this site when it comes to development and that is just something I would like members to be aware of. And also with regard to any reasons for refusal in terms of talking about how the development is fitting with character, et cetera. Of course, we do have those policies in place where we apply them in refusing schemes. It is important to firstly identify what we consider the character to be and then to go on and consider precisely why the development doesn't fit with those characters. We can't just refer to the policies we actually have to kind of drill into. What is the character and what is it about this development that does not fit with that character? And I think that we would need to be quite specific about that before going down the route of using this policy to refuse it on design grounds. Design is a very personal thing. Obviously everybody around the table, we have different views on design. So I just want everyone to be aware of how difficult it is to design by committee and to ensure that the decision that is made is based upon what is before you today and if it isn't approved, then obviously we will have to go back and start again from scratch possibly. Thank you, Sarah, for that advice. Councillor Gourley. Can I just, hopefully, a simple question. So this, for some, it's going to get the sun most of the time because it's facing south. What has been done to minimise thermal gain? No breathing, no breeze to lay or anything like that. The windows aren't set back. So in terms of global warming and all of that, what has been done to mitigate? There is a condition there about the microclimate and the environment to make sure that it is publishable and acceptable. In terms of the microclimate, that's particularly about the ground level in conditions external to the buildings and that condition was because of the prevailing wind from the southwest is that the conditions along there for people sitting out needs to be mitigated. There's proposals for planters or screens but we don't have that detail yet. So that's right into the microclimate. In terms of internally, the windows are recessed. It will be addressed through the glazing specification within the building. So that would be addressed and you can see on that image, the recessed, the level of the windows in that central part of the building. There are also blinds proposed although that's as much to do with dealing with light from the buildings and back mitigation as internal conditions within the offices. Do you want to have a follow-up question or point to make? Yeah, I was just looking at the building on the end and having worked in offices where it gets unbearably hot because there is no solution apart from putting blind and it seems to me a little bit. I see what you mean about the recessed on some of the buildings but not on all of them. I'm just slightly concerned for people who are working in those offices that don't get too hot. There'll be building regulations that will cover that hopefully as well. Councillor Hodge? I just want to thank you for the Deputy Planning Officer. I do want to make the, because we've been told about this about design before, and I want to make the point that the MPPF has been strengthened in terms of consideration of design and I think we're often told this objective, you know, there's a lot of hurdles put in front of us about design reasons and that I think there is a counter-argument to be made as well. Thank you. We've got a huge regeneration opportunity around the heart of the city. There is still potential scope for affordable housing but, you know, I did agree with Councillor Crossley that, you know, we do need to be more firm about this and shouldn't get sort of blackmailed over, you know, the value of land if they pay too much for it. Yeah, we should be saying, well, tough, you know, you should still be complying with the conditions with the policies. Councillor Simon? Just briefly, I agree with much of what the Chair said about the history of this area. I think that this is a better articulated scheme. It's got more variation than carp into house or south gate. I think it's a reasonable design and I don't have design problems. My only question is to the officer, should we be looking for further conditions to avoid proliferation post during the construction process of other things on the roof or the sides, or do you think the conditions are sufficient to control that? It would be possible to add a further condition in respect of additional plants to control any additional plants, which it went on. And the case officer could come up in a suitable condition, would you agree? In which case? In which case, I move that we include that condition if we approve. So, yes, do Councillor Warren, do you agree with that? Councillor Cressley? I honestly don't think we need it. I think there's enough conditions there to cover everything. And I was just going to sum up at the end that I find the negativity that is difficult, because you've got a tip in the middle of Bath, which has been like it for, I don't know how many years, but I'm 61 now to tell what I really forgot all of us. And it just needs doing. You're building an office spot, mainly, so you're not building the Royal Cressons. It has to be built. Well, it doesn't have to be built. We have something that wants to build it, but it has to add up. If you can't build an office spot like a Georgian mansion, because it just doesn't add up, it'll never get built. So, I'm quite happy with it like it is. I think the officers will obviously be happy with it like it is. They wouldn't recommend it for approval. And I think we are happy to recommend with the conditions that we have here. Okay, so, Councillor Simon, I think we're going to be going with the original recommendation there. So, I think we're ready to take a vote. I mean, the scheme has been with us for four or five years. It has evolved. I would probably say it was a B, maybe a name minus, perhaps. But let's take the vote then. So, we've got a proposal to support the officers' recommendation to approve. Seconded, can we now raise our hands in for in favour? And any against? And we've got no abstentions there, so that means the motion is in carried. Right. What time are we on now? It was 20 plus 12. We have deferred items two and three for the reasons I explained earlier. In fairness to people who are going to become related to speak, we can't really discuss any more of the items until two o'clock, so we've got a bit of an extended lunch time. So, we'll adjourn the meeting for now until two. Thanks. Let's just have a look. Yes, we do actually do. We have got a speaker on item four. Yes, he asked yesterday if he could speak. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Great, can I come? Okay, we'll stick with each other. [BLANKAUDIO] Okay, shall we adjourn for ten minutes and then come back and we'll discuss the performance and appeals just to make use of the time. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [INAUDIBLE] [BLANKAUDIO] Okay, we'll resume, just skip to items 11 and 12. The appeals report and the quarterly performance report. And then after that, we'll adjourn until two o'clock. We'll determine the planning applications. So are there any questions or comments to make about the appeals reports? That's all, no. Have you got anything to say there about the quarterly performance? So we'll just take it as noted. Councillor Jackson. I just wanted to ask with reference to page 149, enforcement investigations. Is this the sum of what has come in in the last few months? And what about the historic appliqué enforcements? I mean, I sent a list of the ones which Richard started left behind. And I haven't heard back on whether the investigations are closed since he left, or what or not, or are they cumulative these figures? What's happening? And if award Councillor makes a complaint about an enforcement issue, could we get some information, some feedback? Sorry, normally all of the enforcement complaints that come in, whether they be from Councillors, members of the public, are noted and put into the system by the enforcement team, and then officer allocated, and liaison, in respect of that, will take place. Usually if it was a Councillor involved, the officer would contact you and have a discussion. But in this case, I'm not sure which scheme we are talking about or what development is talking about, but I can ask the enforcement management to contact you. I don't know about any Councillor Jackson about any particular enforcement complaints you've made. Well, as I said, I sent in a list. The unfortunate thing is when I'm rather stupid, I haven't kept a proper reference. Each enforcement, you get a reply and a reference number, and because some of these have been outstanding for two or three years, I lost the reference points. I can certainly resend. It may be best if it's been going back a couple of years to resend it, because it may be the case that various people have left during that time, and to resend it to the existing enforcement manager, possibly, and he may be able to then come back to you independently. I mean, one of them, I wouldn't call him the offender because that's prejudging matters. He has put in for a planning application. So that was the other thing I'd be very interested in. The number of places where we say, hey, you can't do that here, and then the applicant quite rightly puts in for a retrospective planning application, which I actually find quite useful because they've already built the thing, and you can see what it was going to look like. My other point is I had a complaint from a couple of residents that they hadn't known about a planning application because the notice had not been put on the highway. In other words, it had not been put on the nearest lamppost or anywhere where you might see it. Can we do something to try and make sure that planning, when an application comes in, the notice is appropriately displayed where people are walking past? In terms of site notices, they aren't always required. The legislation doesn't always require them in every case. Sometimes they are required, but in other cases, they are just required to send out letters to adjoining neighbors. So it might be the case that there was no site notices erected because the legislation didn't require it. But where the legislation does require it, they are erected immediately outside the property in as close proximity as possible. So if there's any particular case where there are concerns, we can obviously look at that particular case. But the general position is that those notices are erected outside the property where they are needed. Thank you, just for the purposes of the Councillor Hodge. We're just on item 11 and 12. Do you have any views or comments? No, I don't. So apologies. I wasn't listening properly and I went for lunch. That's fine. Okay. We'll adjourn now until two o'clock. Thank you. Next meeting, so item 13, we will be having -- I think we've agreed we will have a site visit at Shockerwick Farm. So that will take place on Tuesday the 28th of May. That's a Tuesday. Sorry, we had an email about a site visit from Bath River side west as well as a briefing. That's right. I believe that's the case. Yes. So we'll be two sites. Both ends of town. The site visits in this case only relate to visits that are voted upon here within the committee. So these are committee site visits or on that list there may also be cases that the officers have put in as a pre-site visit. But there won't be site visits from other developments. So I'm not sure if the email that you're referring to is a different case or whether that's come from. Well, it was an email from Samantha Mason saying that there was to be a briefing on Thursday next week followed by a site visit on Tuesday next week. Okay, so that would mean that the case officer is proposing that a site visit takes place? Yes. So we'll be at Bath River side west and at Shockerwick. If we could get that scheduled, yes. I guess it will be confirmed in due course by email for a result to be invited. Okay. Right. We will adjourn now. Thank you. Yeah. Planning committee. This is the second part of the planning committee. I have to adjourn this morning. My name is a Councillor in Wholesaw, I'm the vice chair of the committee and I'll introduce my colleagues here on the top table and then we'll go through the emergency evacuation procedure. I'm Karina Huskins from Democratic Services. So James, the deputy head of development management. Hello, Simon Elison, the council's legal team. Thank you. We've also got a planning officer and highway officer just in the corner there. Okay. Could I ask Karina to read out the emergency evacuation procedure, please? Thank you. If the continuous alarm sounds, you must evacuate the building by one of the designated exits and proceed to the named assembly point. The designated exits are sign posted. And from this room, you use the main door and then the main exit of the building. The assembly point is in orange grove on the green outside brands. Thank you. Thank you. Can I just ask everybody to make sure their electronic devices are all switched off? This meeting is being filmed and I look terrible because I'm really hot. If anybody is going to speak and don't want to be filmed, if you could just let Ian in the corner know our operator and he'll make sure that you're not shown on screen. The committee will be shown on our website and it's also available on YouTube. Okay. So we've covered all the other items from earlier. So we're going to go straight to the applications. So we've got item four, which is 2304190reg3 and it relates to a council planning application or the council's company, Aqueous. And it relates to land to the rear of Danes Court in Danes Lane, Kingship. So I'll pass over to the officer to present the application. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. There's just a quick verbal update with this scheme. There was a written update, but I understand that that. Yes. Is that better? Yeah? Sorry. I understand the written update may not have been seen, so I'll just read out the update again now. The following paragraph should have been in the Character Appearance and Heritage section of the report, so I'll read it in full. There is a duty under section 66 of the Planning Listed Building and Conservation Areas Act when considering whether to grant planning permission for developments which affect a list of building or its setting. That the local planning authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest, which it possesses. Here it is considered that the proposals are consistent with the aims and requirements of the primary legislation and planning policy and guidance. The proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the setting of the nearby list of buildings, excuse me, and would preserve the significance of the designated heritage assets. The proposal accords with policy HE1 of the placemaking plan and part 16 of the MPPF. Right, so now onto the main presentation, as said, the application relates to land at the rear of Dane's Court and is for about 10 affordable units and associated works. The site is located within Cangeham behind the High Street, I don't think the mouse is showing up actually, so I'll just explain it. It's behind the High Street and off of Dane's Lane, it's opposite the Tesco Superstore, it's marked in red and with the red dot on the aerial imagery. Either side of the site is the old dairy and Dane's Court, which are both existing blocks of flats. Next up is the existing site plan. You can see the existing site in the top corner, which is currently undeveloped, and then the proposed site plan. The units will be split across two blocks of flats, block one is situated along the street edge, and block two is set back into the site. A public footpath runs along the boundary, the units will be 100% affordable, split into six one bed flats in block one, and floor four two bed flats within block two. It's anticipated that the tenure of all the units will come forward as social rent as set out in the submission. A condition has been attached to curing affordable housing scheme be submitted prior to, sorry, I've lost my prior to commencement, and the scheme shall detail the tenure. So next we have the floor plans for block one, ground floor plan, the entrance, sorry, my mouse is not working, how do I, is it this one? Is that well? No, I'll just carry on, it's fine. So the entrance is taken centrally, hopefully you can see there's a stairwell, and then either side is one bedroom flat. The cycle parking also at the ground floor. The first floor also has a similar layout, it's comprised of two flats, each one bedroom. Okay, then we're on to the second floor, again, same similar layout, two flats, each one bedroom, and the roof plan showing the solar panels. Okay, so next are the floor plans for block two. Again, this is a three-story unit altogether, although you can see on the second floor that the rear end of the site is two-story. So there's a two-bedroom flat at ground floor with the stairwell and the car parking. At second floor, sorry, at first floor, there's two two-bedroom flats, and on third floor, one two-bedroom flat. Then we're on to the elevations, in the top corner it's the front elevation of block one. You'll see from the photos shortly that the design follows similar cues from the flats, either side, the old dairy and Danes court. Then we have the east elevation, which is the rear and then the two-side elevations. And then we're on to block two elevations, this is the block that sits further back into the flat into the site. We've got the front elevation in the top corner, rear elevation, where you can see the step down in height, and again shown here on the side elevations. And then some context, we've got the street elevations shown along the top. So again, block one and block two shown here, the old dairy and Danes court shown either side, so you can see the similar character cues that have been followed. Then some sections, this is through the width of the site, and section through block one, and then through the length of the site, and the section through block two. And then some massing drawings, so we can see here this is block one, the old dairy and Danes court either side, and then block two at the back, so similar forms and massing. And again, just from a slightly different angle, and you can see the buildings at the high street, and how they step down at the rear, and how block two has followed that step down at the rear. Sorry, just to say this is a 3D rendered image, the design has changed slightly in terms of detail since then, but it just gives you an idea of how that will sit within the context and the views of the church through the site sort of still maintained there. And then photos, so we've got in the top corner, I'm on Danes Lane here looking down towards the site, this is Danes court, and then the old dairy, and looking back in the opposite direction, down Danes Lane, and then views across the site, which you can see is currently undeveloped. So the application is recommended for permission for the reason set out in the officer's report. Thank you very much, Sam, I will just say the reason this application has come before planning communities, because it's a bathroom of the Somerset Council application, and obviously want to be as transparent as possible in the decision-making process. So we have got some speakers, well we have one speaker on this particular application, it's Chris Beaver, who is the planning agent, is he here? Hello, would you like to come and sit at the table? I understand Coon has already explained the speaker procedure, it's a three minute period of time you have to speak. Okay, so whenever you're ready. Yeah, thank you, Chair. Yeah, I'm Chris Beaver. Yeah, can you hear me okay? Yeah, I'm Chris Beaver, planning agent, and we're acting for AQUIS, the Council's housing company, although the application submitted in the name of Baines Council. The brief that we received for this project was to develop a scheme of high quality new build affordable housing on a vacant previously developed site, as you've seen from the site photos. The scheme has been informed by an initiative process of pre-application engagement, in fact two pre-application inquiries with Sam Mason of the local planning authority, and in addition, we undertook online community engagement process. As you've, as has just been described, the scheme is seeking permission for ten affordable flats arranged in two blocks. The design approach is contextual and seeks to reflect the transition between the traditional high streets, through to the more modern part of the town, which includes the adjacent Tesco store, and indeed adjacent to the more modern apartment blocks, so it's tried to sort of bridge the gap. The proposal has an element of off-street parking and EV charging, and a full provision of secure cycle and and bin storage. There's also a public right of way that runs adjacent to the site that will remain unaffected, but will benefit from enhanced levels of natural surveillance rising from the developments. The scheme has been designed in full compliance with the latest iteration of the Council's sustainable construction checklist, as high levels of insulation, solar PV panels, and air source heat pumps. This will provide lower energy bills for future occupiers and will contribute towards the sort of affordability in use. The proposal has been informed by two noise surveys that have assessed the compatibility of the site with the adjacent bank public house and other nearby entertainment venues in the high street. A planning condition has now been agreed with the environmental protection team, and we believe we can sort of design out any noise, noise issues. The proposal will introduce new green infrastructure that will exceed the 10% biodiversity net gain requirement and will be formed part of the hard and soft landscaping scheme. This will also contribute to general public realm enhancement. The proposed homes will contribute towards meeting the Council's general housing land supply, but more importantly will meet a clear and acute need for affordable housing in Cangean itself. On the basis that this proposal is fully compliant with the development plan policies, and there's been, you know, we urge you to recommend to endorse the officer's recommendation for permission to allow these much needed homes to come forward. Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Okay, I'll open up the committee to ask questions to the officers who got Sam and Dan moves highways. So is anybody who wants to ask a question, Councillor Johnson? Well, in the slide on the screen, it says the application is recommended for permission for the reasons outlined in the officer's report. We look at the officer's report page of 101, and it says, therefore, it is considered that this proposal complies with the relevant planning policies as outlined above, and the proposal is recommended for approval. So we've established that this application is policy compliant, but is that the only reason why it should be permitted? I might have deduced a few more. So I think that you're referring to the conclusion section, which has just summarized the above, but basically each section of the report, it sets out why it's policy compliant, and there's quite a number of sections. So basically, that's a very quick summary, it covers character and appearance, heritage, housing mix, housing accessibility, residential immunity, highways, drainage and flooding, landscape, trees, ecology and sustainable construction. And so for all those items are policy compliant, if that was your question. With the greatest respect to the officer, it is policy compliant, that has been amply demonstrated. But might it not also be argued that this application would conserve and enhance a historic part of Keynesian, and what I think is implied in the conditions is that it would do much to fulfil a housing need, particularly for people who are on the home search register. So there are additional positive reasons I would have thought might have been included. Yeah, I'm not sure if there's a question there, but I think I have covered that the heritage and benefits, or the enhancements of the site and the affordable housing contribution in the report. So I would agree with you. Okay, obviously, when we determine applications, if we're approving or refusing, we have to give reasons. So it's quite valid that you've put forward those reasons for recommending approval, if that's the way the committee wishes to go. Is there anybody else wants to ask any questions or the officers? Yes, okay. I saw Councillor Hodge's hand first. Thank you. It's really minor question that I didn't quite understand the wording of actually. In the tree replacement section, all existing trees would be removed. Only one is over the threshold for replacement planting to comply with section 3.6, a CPD. What does that mean? The only one is over the... So in order to trigger replacement tree planting, a tree has to be of a certain size and maturity, and that's based on usually the width of the trunk. So that one's the only one that's grown to a level that would be triggered to be replaced by the SPD. And I checked, obviously, there's a soft landscaping condition, and it doesn't use the word trees in the soft landscaping condition, but is that just taken as red? Yeah, it would be covered in that. There's also a condition covering the... the... our cultural condition. Let me just double check. I looked for trees specifically and couldn't find it, but I might have missed it. There's not a condition included on the art report. Obviously, an art report was submitted, but we could add a condition if needed to just to tighten that up. Okay, yeah, that would be great. Thank you. Mr. Galley. Yeah, a couple of questions. I think this is a great... I think this is a really good use of the space, and I'm really delighted this has come forward. I've got a couple of questions. What's actually behind the block? Is it the pub garden? I mean, there seems to be a space, and I'm just wondering what's there. So, you might be able to see on the aerial imagery, so this sort of bit of the site, as you can see, sort of on the red line plan here, you can see there's sort of the ad hoc kind of parking, which isn't currently accessible at the moment. So, it's just kind of like hard-standing, and then behind, yeah, there's the... It's like a bare garden for the old bank, and then it's sort of these, I don't know, sort of rear extensions of the high street buildings, really. I don't know if you might have to see a bit clearer in there. Yeah, so just here, this is the fencing. Behind that is the pub's bare garden. So the hard-standing that you can see in front of that is basically where the buildings will be. Yeah, in part that will be where block two is, yeah, and then we've got the car parking. And there's a blank wall facing onto that. A blank wall onto what is the pub garden, because I know there's so many issues. Yeah, yeah, block one has a blank rear elevation, but block two does, at the second, at the ground floor and first floor, it does have these windows which serve these two units here, this one and this one. And again, really minor domestic question, but do all of the flats have balconies so people can open up and hang washing out? Yeah, there are balconies on the side elevations for block two, as well as the front here you can see. So that's for those units, obviously the ground floor doesn't have a balcony, but they can access onto the community space. And then block one, they don't have balconies, but they do have, let me show you the elevations. They have sort of like these Juliet windows, right? Thank you. Okay, thank you. Councillor McPhee, did you want to ask a question? This is in your time. It was really the question on the trees that it wasn't clear, but if you're taking it, you will do a condition. Yeah, my advice would be to, if you were moving a positive recommendation to add an agricultural condition. Right. That was all. Can I just ask, I noticed from the report, there's quite a significant number of objections, you seem to be relating to issues of noise and amenity. That's not being addressed, does it? Yes, the objections related to the noise coming from the pub that we just sort of saw the beer garden of and adjacent. There's the old bank, and then there's the Conservative club, both which have outdoor space. So, yeah, there was some objections raised to the noise there, following that, a second noise assessment report was submitted, and the environmental protection team were consulted and were satisfied with the mitigation measures, which were put forward, which include things like acoustic glass being used. And a condition has been attached, recommended, to ensure that the British standards are met, and that includes the specified levels that the Environmental Protection Team have set. Okay, thank you for that, Sam. Anybody else got any more questions, Councillor Jackson? I'm just a bit worried about this level of noise and amenity, and the loss of amenity, as it were. What would happen if the residents of this new block were to find the proximity of the pub and the noise it generated intolerable, would that threaten, say, live music performances or the operation of said pub? Well, in the future, they would have to raise that with the Environmental Protection Team. There is that route, so that's something that is there to sort of control that process. But, as I said, it's been assessed that it's acceptable levels now. Anyone moving into the block, would I presume do some due diligence of assessing the area themselves and may be aware that there is a pub there, so that might factor in. But, again, that's just all hypotheticals. Really, the scheme for us has been found acceptable in terms of noise standards from the Environmental Protection Team. Okay, thank you. There's no more questions. I'd like to open up for discussion. Councillor Hodge. Yes, thank you. Thank you, so I feel very positive about this application, and I would like to move that we accept the officer's recommendation. Would you like that to be with the other condition as well? With the condition. Would that be delegate to permit, or can you with a condition with one replacement tree? Is that, yeah. Yeah, okay. So that would be delegate to permit with... Oh, of course. Has anybody got any views or want to express any points? As I'm close to the thing, I thought I'd just make a couple of comments. First of all, there are a number of benefits. We're using aqueous, which is owned by the Council, so any profits that we make will come into the Council. It's all affordable. As you've said, there's a need in beans. It's not just can't you need in beans. The objections were nearly all to do with the noise, and just to make the point that environment protection have looked at British standards, they've been quite strict about it, but they've even gone on. They've done a test and say that they can do that, but they've gone on to say that when it's built, they will do the test again and prove that it is within the standard. So I don't think they can do much more than that. I particularly like the fact that there were two pre-apps, and I think we should perhaps encourage other people to do that, because it means it's in good shape when it comes to us. The only other thing to mention is the renewable energy, and it's a small thing, really, but if you take the two roofs, then it works, but you need to take the two roofs. One of the roofs generates enough electricity, and the other one doesn't, but if you put them together, it works well. So I'm happy to second the motion. Okay. So we have the motion put forward to support the opposite recommendation by Councillor. I just seconded by Councillor Fade. Does anybody else want to say anything about their proposal before us? If no one does, we'll take a vote in that case. So all those in favour of recommending approval? Okay. That's an unanimous one, I think. Yeah, it's an awkward site, and it's great that we can see 100% the forward will deliver at the heart of Cane Shuntown Centre. The design of the building seems to fit in quite well with the context, and it's very clear that the noise concerns have been overcome, so yeah, that's been granted. Okay. Are we happy to move on to the next item, or do you want to take a five-minute break? Are we okay to carry on? Okay. So the next application is 23-0-4-3-8-0. It is for One Bath Road in Peas Don't St. John. I'll hand over to the officer when she's got herself settled. Yes. Okay. You can sit down there, sit back on there. Yeah. So this is item number five. Okay. You ready? Yeah. Thank you, Chair. So this is item number five, which is a proposal to change the use of the lands of residential coastlage and erection of a three-bed dwelling, which would be adjoined to One Bath Road. The site is in Peas Donne, which is cited within the housing development boundary. I do have a verbal update to give. So some information was received this week from third parties, and this includes a petition from local residents. Which has 11 signatures to state that the occupiers of One Bath Road do not have access rights over the side lane. And to state that the width of the lane has gotten smaller over time with the garden of One Bath Road being enlarged. Plans and maps of original deeds have also been submitted to show the historic lane arrangement. The issues regarding land ownership and site and the side lane access are addressed in the officer report. The information provided does not affect the recommendation made. So this is the site outlined in red. The red outline indicates the development extent. So you can see that One Bath Road there are joining to form an assembly detached pair. And then on the right we just have a slightly more detailed existing site plan. So One Bath Road runs along the north of the site, and then we have the side access lane Bellevue close, which runs along the eastern side. So here are some existing elevations. This is just of One Bath Road. Just to show what the proposed dwelling will be adjoined to. Now we have a proposed site plan. So on the right you will see the additional dwelling. My coaster isn't working. So it does infill that corner plot creating a set of three dwellings in a terrace. So the proposed dwelling would be an end of terrace property. The garden space would be split with a garage at the bottom of the site with two parking spaces accessed off of the side lane. You'll note at the bottom, very bottom of the site there is a badger set. That is a live set. These proposals don't impact that set. It is to remain undisturbed. We've got some planting along that eastern boundary with a hedge row and some kind of soft landscaping throughout as well. Some proposed elevations. So you'll see that it's kind of a mirror image really of One Bath Road. Match of materials are proposed just to kind of replicate that terrace form. Just some proposed floor plans to show the three-bed unit. Moving on to some site photos. So the very left image is looking towards the site. You'll see a storage container behind that is One Bath Road and where the trees are located is the location of the proposed dwelling. The middle image is looking to the side of One Bath Road and that is the location of the new dwelling. That fencing would be the boundary line. And then on the rightmost image we are, we've got the other view towards One Bath Road. And then on the left we're still on Bath Road. It was that One Bath Road would just be cut off on the right next to that storage container and then on the left. We're further east looking towards the site. So this is the gap between One Bath Road and the properties to the east looking towards the side lane. So the large tree is within the ownership of One Bath Road and then the access lane runs down just adjacent. And then on the right is that side access lane as well. So on the left here we have the, what does currently show the existing pavement width. So to know works have commenced on site. But what that does show is what would be created by this proposal which is an increased pavement width which would be 2.5 metres. And then just the side of One Bath Road there as well. And some very similar images too. And now we're just looking towards Bath Road from the south. You can see the side there where the dwelling would be located and then where the fan is. That is the garden space at the moment. It should be noted that historically this site has been subject to a lot of storage of materials and rubbish. And then we moved down the lane so I didn't realise how many photos I had. So this is the existing garage which would be demolished. And just on the image on the right the vegetation and material that is where that live badger set is. It is understood that the badgers are using the material as opposed to the underground network. Officer recommendation is to permit. Happy to take questions. Thank you very much. Okay, we have two people speaking on this application. We've got Councillor Howard Hartley from Peace Down Parish Council. And they're followed by Delith Morris who's raising an objection. So hello. So you've got three minutes if you'd like to start whenever. Thank you chair and thank you team for allowing us to address you today. My name is Howard Hartley, parish councillor at Peace Down St John. We have a number of objections raised in the application. However, I wanted to note that both the Paris Council and the local residents are delighted this development is taking place. Because as you said earlier on, before this it was really a rubbish site and a course for many complaints. So the proposed development incorporates land that's actually not owned by the applicant. The previous owner encroached on what was a grass verge with a public bench on it. And the proposal is that that space should be used for car parking spaces outside. The boundary line of the property is also in dispute. The residents believe that in some places the contract would need to move the fence line back up to three metres. And the side road that leads up to the residents' accommodations. This also, the previous owner had encroached on that and it now makes it impossible for emergency vehicles to access the houses on the private road. It would also, the pavement would also need to be lowered. So that would, to be dropped to allow exit from the house to Bath Road. So we feel that Baines highways need to be involved in this and need to get permissions. And there's also some concerns regarding the proposed parking areas because the new owners would not have access to the present road. So they would need to have some provision to make that way out of their own property onto Bath Road. And those are the main objections that we have. Okay, thank you. Are you really good to stick to time there? Two minutes. We have Delif Morris. Would you like to call forward? Are you a neighbour of the site or are you living in the village? Are you a neighbour? I live down the lane. Okay. Yes, thank you. Delif Morris, objector. Objection to this planning application is on the grounds of location overcrowding right of way and maintaining the integrity of the public realm. I have eight points to bring to your attention. Points one to seven relate to location and right of way. Point eight to do with the core plan. A brief introduction first. The proposed location will intrude on private land. The lane owners have not been consulted or agreed to these changes. An additional new build squeezed between the original house and the road junction represents in our opinion overcrowding likely to have an adverse impact on traffic movement and safety. Access to garages relies on a legitimate right of way and turning room for vehicles considering traffic movement on the lane is estimated to be between 120 and 150 daily. The points that I refer to point one right of way. There is no legal right of way by one bath road to the private lane to anyone's knowledge and nothing has been gleaned from searches through the land registry. Number two former owners of one bath road believe that they owned the adopted highway on bath road Bellevue close and the private lane and expanded their fly tipping activities into these areas. They subsequently created a hole in the boundary fence between them and the private lanes and years ago that was later filled with mock gates to claim access rights. This resulted in changing the structure of the lane whereas it used to be a straight lane. It now bulges out on the south end due to the encroachment. Point three, percessory title. An application by the applicant's solicitor was cancelled by the land registry as it failed to prove ownership of the expanded boundary. Number four, sworn statutory declarations by myself and Mr. Mike Tucker of Orchard Lee who also lives down the lane represent the correct history of the lane. I submitted the statutory declarations to the planning officer and there is also a sign petition which I submitted signed by all the residents of the lane declaring that the former owners never use the lane for vehicles but did enter the lane for the purpose of ad hoc fly tipping. Number five, land survey reports these have been submitted to the council and the applicant showing the true and the applicant showing the true boundary of the lane with the rear guard and the one bath road. Number six, legal easement and utilities easement lane residents have prescriptive instruments. I'm sorry to disturb you. We've just got over three minutes. I'm coming to the end. You raised a lot of simple questions which we'll get behind. You did say you had one question or one point about the core policy. Yes, that's right, yes. So can I just finish this point also. Stone Lee which is a property situated at the entry to the lane adjacent to one bath road stated to us. And I quote, if we were to bring our boundary to the side of the property to the correct line, it is probably unlikely that the houses along the lane would be able to gain access by vehicles at all. So moving to the Baines core plan, policy D4 streets and spaces, D6 amenity, D9 public realm, we believe this proposed development is at odds with vision, strategic objectives and key principles of the core plan in maintaining public spaces for the benefit of the community through plans to change its use into private ownership. Thank you. Thank you. You did raise a lot of that. I was happy to let you go over time a little bit. Right. Thank you to the speakers. So this seems to be quite a lot of questions. Well, quite a lot of issues that have been raised. It seems to be related to the land ownership and also highways and access. And I think it'd be useful if we could ask questions of both Johnny and Dan, Councillor Jackson. Thank you, Chair. I wondered if I could ask the highways officer about the access to this garage area. Because I haven't quite grasped how cars would turn, assuming that under current regs, they would not be allowed to reverse back up the lane onto the main road. And I think as shown on the drawing there, there is sufficient width across the private lane for vehicles to do a turning manoeuvre at the proposed parking places. So I don't think we'd have a big concern about the risk of motorists choosing to reverse the long distance down the lane. Thank you. Any follow-up question there? Well, I'm not a driver, but I do think this is a challenging access. Okay. Anybody else got any questions? Councillor Crossley. I haven't got a question, but before you go to debate, I would like to move a site visit, which I'd very rarely do. But so just as if you've got that in your mind, that's noted, okay. Councillor Warren. Yeah, thank you. So it's the kind of elephant in the room. It's the ownership. Do we have any proof of ownership of who owns what and where we can go, where we can't go? So we've got two separate highways, ownership issues. I'll start with that side access lane. So that is a private lane. I have had received contradicting statements, one from a solicitor's letter from the applicant to say that the owners of one bathroom do have access rights, but also, of course, the third party comments to say that the owners do not have access rights. That is a private lane and any dispute over land ownership is a separate civil matter, separate from the planning process. So there's only a limited amount that we can assess and we can get involved in. Obviously, those parking spaces are reliant on the owners of one bathroom and the new dwelling having access rights. So in the event that any civil disputes result in owners not having access, we have taken a caution-based approach and have assessed that if those parking spaces cannot be delivered, that would not result in refusal of the application based on the sustainable location of the dwelling. So anything beyond that with regards to land ownership is a separate civil matter. Moving to the front of the site, the front is in highways ownership partly. So that includes the pavement. There is a dash line, a faded dash gray line, which shows a grass verge and historically a, or previously, a vegetated area that is within highways ownership. Separate to this application, the applicants would need to apply for a stopping up order, which would transfer ownership into the, into one bath road and the new dwellings ownership. That is a separate process, but highways are content that the increase width of the pavement would allow them to grant that stopping up order. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I know that there's a garage further down the plot. It looks from the pictures, so that garage is of some antiquity, certainly more than 20 years old. Does, having been on site, do you look over 20 years old to you? The point being that if it's over 20 years old, there was probably a writer by prescription to access the lane to park. So we can't really comment on rights of access issues, because that is a separate separate civil matter. That garage is very old. I imagine it is in a state of disrepair. But like I say, we can't comment on rights of access. Councillor Gourley then, Councillor Hughes. Yeah. Is, is there on street parking on bath road? So I believe bath road has got double yellows. In neighbouring kind of cul-de-sacs, I don't think it's restricted. I may pass over to you. Yeah, Danny's got that right. There are double yellow line waiting restrictions on the corner of bath road and Bellevue close. There isn't particularly much parking activity on bath road necessarily within, because of the restrictions, but there is parking availability on Bellevue close itself. So that's where it would occur. Do you want to follow up? Are you okay? Okay. Councillor Hughes, then Councillor Jackson, please. Thank you. I'm just trying to understand the layout for the garage. I can find various designs on the portal. I can see a three-door garage. I can find a two-door garage. I can find one with the cycle stories all on the side. So I can find quite a few different revisions of this garage on the portal. What's the actual design going to be and how far is it from the badger set? I have realised that I've forgotten to put proposed garage elevations in this site plan. I will probably be able to find them. It is a double garage. You can see it on the site plan. There's a cycle store which kind of comes out that north elevation. That's the timber cloud cycle store, bin store. It is not going to disrupt the badger set, which is to the very end, southern end of the site. Sorry, when you say it's not going to disrupt the badger sets, why are we saying they need a badger mitigation licence? So that mitigation licence, so at the moment we are confident that the proposals are unlikely to cause harm. However, the actual removal of the rubbish which is on site that may cause some harm, which is why a badger licence is required from Natural England, which is a separate process under separate legislation. We are requiring that as a condition, pre-commencement to any of that work to the south end of the site, as well as a mitigation and enhancement scheme. And that will kind of over well negate any potential harm. OK, and what form does the badger mitigation licence take? Are we talking about removal of the badgers or protection of the badgers? What are we planning to do with this licence? So there's no proposals to disrupt the badger set. It is purely, so the badger set would be retained. We're not planning on moving the badgers anywhere. Initially, as proposed, that was the proposal, but that has changed. So the badger set would be understood, but because there is so much rubbish around that badger set, it's the southern end of the site. And we cannot at the moment determine what the extent of the badger set is without some further work to kind of assess with ecological supervision. That's why we're taking this precautionary approach to ensure that there is no harm because we don't understand the extent of the set. OK, seems a cup for the horse, really, but thank you. OK, Councillor Jackson, please. Well, I was going to ask a similar question in relation to the badgers that I would have thought there would be a kind of statutory perimeter that you had to have or distance that you had to have. And I would also point out that if this is a badger set with a family in it, this is the time of year when they kick the teenagers out before the next day. So if they get disturbed, there could be quite a degree of chaos down there. I still can't see how you can turn a car without encroaching on that lane, but perhaps somebody can explain that to me. And the other point is I know the site extremely well because the bus keeps getting jammed up in front of it. The Bath Road is very narrow, and obviously people with a blue badger entitled to park on the double yellows, people without a blue badger frequently do. So it's quite congested area, but of course, I wouldn't think that was a grounds for refusing this. It's a narrow congested road through P's down St John. But I do wonder, seriously, if it's so difficult to get the cars in and out of that garage, if they won't be parked somewhere else. OK, that wasn't a question. I think you're sort of getting into a remit of making a view there. But we'll carry on with questions. Don't cancel the goal. You've got another one just to make. Yes, sorry, just a clarification. So if you look at 1B, the new extension, not quite the very bottom, but the right-hand corner, it looks like it's right against the boundary edge. So that means there's no way of getting around from the front garden to the back garden. You have to go through the house. And considering there have been issues about ownership of the land, is there going to be an issue with it being quite so close to the boundary? So officers consider that the distance between the boundary and the new house is not going to cause harm to the character and appearance of the site with regards to access to the garden. That would be through the house, which is quite standard for terrorist properties. OK, thank you. I just want to just be clear. We've had a number of comments from the Paris Council and from Maurice that there seems to be a lot of land ownership issues, and then that's not a planning consideration. It wouldn't preclude, if the committee was minded to grant permission, it wouldn't preclude third parties from preventing development from being implemented, if there were legal reasons not to allow that to happen. Yeah, that's correct. So, yeah, any land ownership agreements, disagreements would be a separate matter, civil matter for owners and neighbors to dispute following grant of consent. And were, yeah, well, back to us, actually. Just to sort of conclude on that, really, to say that we have assessed it on the basis that if, for some reason, those land ownership issues result in the occupy being unable to access the garages or be able to deliver the highway works. It's still, in our view, results in an acceptable development. So without those works taking place, the development would still be acceptable and we wouldn't be recommending it for refusal. So it's not necessary to complete an entire permission, if granted, but the works that are definitely able to be complete would be sufficient for us to be recommending approval. Okay, Dan, did you want to make a point? Yeah, just for clarification on the high authority point of view, and reflects what Danny said at the very beginning, there are two separate issues here. There are one issue relating to the private lane running alongside the property. The high authority does not have any comment on that because it's an issue between third parties. The other issue relates to the frontage on Bath Road, where there has been some dispute for a number of years about the extent of the adopted highway across the frontage. This application from a high authority point of view gives us the time to rationalize the area of highway on the frontage, widen the footway, make sure the services are within the highway itself, but that would require a separate process after any planning permission was granted. At that stage, the Secretary of State would consult the highway authority, or it would go to manage traits court, one of the two options. So the highway authority would have a chance then to discuss and agree the detail at that stage. There's two separate issues, I just wanted to clarify that. So that would lead to public betterment if the highway authority could take control of that area. That's our consideration at the moment, though it's actually improvement given the footway, additional footway from that corner, yes. Councillor Jackson's question about the turning, obviously if the third parties didn't allow access down that lane, as Sarah has already said, it wouldn't change the recommendation and it would still be fine without parking spaces. Yeah, at one point, Councillor Jackson raised the issue about the lane would have to be used for the turning, just to clarify. So the turning would have to be undertaken on the private lane, however, as you just stated, if there was an issue between third parties and that couldn't be used, then it wouldn't change our recommendation of the high authority. Okay, thank you so many more questions, Councillor Jackson. So it wouldn't be appropriate to have a sort of grampian condition that the consent was conditional on an agreement between the parties in dispute over the lane. Officers have not recommended a condition as such because the development would be acceptable without the parking spaces. Okay, there's no more questions, if you maybe want to start having a discussion about the proposal. We've not really touched on the actual dwelling itself, the design of it, the immunity implications of that. So that might be something that we can maybe touch on. Even though we've had quite a lot of comments raised about the access lane, they're not material planning considerations. I don't think if we were minded to refuse the application, we could refuse it on those grounds, what we would be having to refuse it on, of course, what our local policies say. And that is going to be based upon issues such as design, immunity, whether the scheme is actually acceptable, you know, within the context of the surrounding area. So does anybody want to stop the comments, Councillor Jackson, sorry. Okay. That's a very fair point. With works already been started, we've seen quite a lot of photographs. Is there a feeling in the room that a site would be helpful, or do you feel that we could make a decision here and now? I feel we've got enough to proceed to the decision. Okay, so, Councillor Cross, if that's for a site visit, would anyone want to second that? Councillor Pues, you would. Yeah, I think there's a lot of confusion on this, and I think boots on the ground would certainly enable us to make a more informed decision. Okay, so, Councillor Hodge, do you want to add something? Okay, so we'll take a vote as to whether we defer for a site visit and then bring this application back to June Committee. So all those in favour of a site visit? All those against? Okay, so we feel that we can make the decision today and we have enough information to do that. So does anybody want to, Councillor Jackson, you want to speak? This is just a comment. As I said, I know this site very well because the bus keeps getting held up outside it. And this is why I'm not so worried about this issue of the garage because there is a frequent bus service going past to most places in Somerset. But what I really wanted to say was the whole concept of extending this and making it a terrace instead of two semi-detached fits perfectly within P's down. It will fit the grain of the development along this. This is basically an Anglo-Saxon ribbon development with the Victorian houses added now. And I think it will work. If I didn't have this issue about the garage, I wouldn't be worried. I would be proposing to accept the officers recommendation. I'm in agreement in terms of the actual design of the house. It will fit in extremely well. To allay the concerns that have been raised, ultimately you and your lawyers have got the control. If we were minded to grab from the Planning Commission, we can't force that to happen. It's down to third parties like yourselves. So does anybody else want to speak on this application? Councilor Simon, then Councillor Crossley? Yes. I think that we've commented on the design of the housing that's okay. We've had assurance that even if parking cannot be provided and I'm confident the legal issues could probably be dealt with. But that's not relevant. If it isn't provided, it's still acceptable. The parish councillor said that this site's a mess and needs tidying up. And this proposal is a way to get that done. It will involve removal of the rubbish and creation of a nature area which will be the badger set. And it seems to me to be acceptable in planning terms. So I move the officers recommendation. Okay, you've moved it. Thank you. Councillor Crossley? Did you? Oh, I mean, do you want to say anything else before we get a seconder? I'm having some difficulty really visualising the spacing in this, particularly the garage and the garden division. And it seems to me that what we're doing is trying to squeeze a gallon into a pint pot. And so I think that this should be refused. So if the motion to permit is lost, I will move a motion to refuse with grants. Okay, thank you. Do we have a seconder for Councillor Simon? Councillor Jackson? I'm happy to second because on balance, I think you're gaining another house. But more importantly, the improvements that highways are proposing at the front of the dwelling will make a very considerable difference. There is a material advantage to having this happen. And as clearing the site, I don't think is a planning consideration. It would be good. But given the front half of the site, I think it would be so much better. I'm quite happy to second. Okay. Thank you. And again, outweighs the problems. Okay. Before we take a vote, anybody else want to comment? Councillor McPhee? Councillor Cues. Would you like us to go first? Okay. You go first, then. Thank you. I shan't be supporting this. I mean, if the application was purely for the house at the front, I don't think there are too many issues. I'm certainly not happy with this. Oh, well, it's better than the fly tipping that we're seeing at the moment. That's no reason to be accepting an application. I have concerns about this access. I have concerns about the garage. I have concerns about the effects on the sets. Regardless of whether it's compliance with or without the garages, the garages are there, so we have to consider them. And I've got too many concerns with that aspect of the design to support it, so I won't be supporting this. Okay. Councillor McPhee? I will be supporting it. It seems to me it's good for highways. The house is going to be a benefit, and the other things are going to take care of themselves. We need to think about that particular area, and it does seem to sort it out. Right. Mindful that Councillor Crossley would like to put forward a motion if the one that's been put forward by Councillor Syme and seconded by Councillor Johnson fails. We'll need to get a seconder for that and think about the reasons for refusal, so just have a quick think about that if this vote goes down. So the officer recommendation is to permit. We've had it first and seconded, and all those in favour. And those against? Okay. So that's carried over there. Yes, that's carried. So the mission's been grounded. Are we happy to carry on with the final application? Yep. Okay. Great stuff. So the final application of the day is 24, 0, 0, 1, 6, 3, 4. It's 19 Alexandra Road in Lincoln. Over to the officer. Thank you, Chair. So the application today is 19 Alexandra Road. It's for the direction of a rare side return in for the extension and loft conversion, including the addition of external render installation to the rare elevation. Here you can see the site location plan with the site indicated in red, and then an overview of the site as well. So you can see behind the site is Alexandra Park, and just north of that image would be the river and the train station. Here is the site itself, so the property is a two-story mid-terris dwelling. You've got the front and rear elevations there on the left. You've also got elevation showing the site and the property within its terrace, and a photo at the bottom just showing the topography of the gardens to the rear as well. In terms of floor of hands, we're existing and proposed here, so the proposed extension will provide an increase to the kitchen and steps up to a new level terrace at the back. And then a new bedroom and bathroom within the loft conversion. Existing and proposed front elevation, so the only difference here is the additional roof lights to the front roof slope. And to the rare, we have the two-story rare extension, the alterations to the roof of the outrigger and the dormer extension. There's also changes proposed to improve the energy performance of the building, which is render installation to the rare elevation, new windows, solar panels to the outrigger, and then internal installation to the roof as well. Here we've got the sections through the site, so it just shows the changes to the ground levels of the garden just to make it more usable in certain areas. And then this is a view of the street, so I appreciate we haven't done a site visit for this, so I've always good to share what the street looks like and what's there already. So the property is indicated by the red arrow, and then this is taken from the north, and then this indicates the existing dormer extensions which are built within the street already. And then again from the south, with the property indicated by the red arrow, and this is just circling the existing dormers and roof extensions in the street already. And then the officer's recommendation is refused for the reason outlined within the officer's report. Okay, thank you. Right, so it's a recommendation for refusal. We have an objector, we have someone who's supporting an application, and also a local war member, Councillor Deborah Collins, would like to speak. So, first of all, could we have a focus on McCormack come to the table? Afternoon, hi. Okay, if you want to put the microphone on, we'll give you three minutes. Thank you. Our statement is an objection to the size, shape and massing of the top story. I submitted a written objection of the number of pages, and I stand by those comments. The reasons for objection are the same as those of the Council, and I make some other specific points. Firstly, primarily the proposed design is overscaled, and I return to that point at the end. Secondly, in the planning submission in the documents, the architects presented selected, cotailed views, photos of the rear elevation of the terrace, therefore failing to show the overall composition of the terrace dwellings. The choice of splitting the elevation of the terrace dwellings into two photos failed to allow full reading of the actual current sympathetic massings and current consistency in uniformity, particularly the horizontal eaves levels of the rear elevations of the dwellings. The existing properties do show uniformity. They all retain pitched roofs to the main roof, and they all have eaves raised to the same height above the second story. This consistency of the existing ease line creates the current lack of existing visual dominance of any one dwelling, which would be compromised with the proposals of number 19, which would create visual dominance. Thirdly, there is precedent by the Council, a pre-app of rejecting a smaller dormer roof volume, and that rejection has helped to maintain the harmony of the current tourist. The Council precedent shows good reason to reject this larger overscaled proposal for number 19. Fourthly, the document says that the agent suggests that reducing the dormer would not enable it to follow the passive house design principles. The officer state that only very limited weight and consideration can be given to this argument to justify the dormer extension, particularly as the measures are not dependent on the dormer being constructed. I would actually go a little further that a claim that the passive design can only be enabled with this submitted design is incorrect. I speak as a fellow of two engineering institutions. Certainly, I support measures recognising the climate emergency. Certainly, I'm sure all of us do. But such support is not relevant to consideration of the need to reject the design proposal because of the inappropriate massing. Energy measures can be applied to an extension without the need for such overscaled massing. In summary, the design proposal is overscaled. It's not a contextual design to the existing composition. The proposal of Third Story and Flat Roof is an inappropriate composition to and disrespectful to the form and massing of the existing row of terraced dwellings, existing raised e-slides and existing pitched roofs. The design proposal is unsympathetic to the existing dwellings and would create visual dominance. Thank you very much. Can we have James Kuzic, who is the agent, supporting the application? Hi there. Okay, when you're ready? Thank you, committee chair. Thank you for allowing us to address you this afternoon. The application before you has two principal policy considerations, the first of which concerns heritage matters. Number 19 is not a listed building, but it is within the Bath Citywide Conservation Area that washes across the whole of Bath. The MPPF states, not all elements of the conservation area contribute to significance. Whilst the front of Alexandra Terrace does, sorry, Alexandra Sherode and this Terrace does, the rear elevation does not. It also can't be seen from the public realm. As per the listed Building Conservation Areas Act, we propose to enhance the rear elevation by referencing those buildings that are locally positive We create what appears as a two-story building at the rear. There is clearly no harm caused to the conservation area or the World Heritage Site because we make use of those design principles for which these areas are designated and Bath is internationally renowned. The second policy consideration is that of energy efficiency. The meaningful, meaningful retrofit of dwellings in Bath can be problematic. The status quo by repeating past designs with dorm windows, this or something, does not lead to truly energy saving design. Whether it be passive house, end of fit, letty, ACB, any measure of sustainable building design has, at their core, good insulative performance, lack of thermal bridges, simplified building form and increased air tightness through simplified construction. At number 19, we are mindful of the need for the rear elevation to counterbalance the thermal deficiencies of the front elevation where we must use relatively low performance internal insulation. This is to protect the existing front facade. If replicating past designs, we would become unstuck because increased insulation below the rafters would disproportionately decrease floor area. This is a geometrical factor of low pitched neighboring roofs. Thermal bridging would increase in length by about two and a half times versus our proposal. In our design, we propose a simple form where thermal bridging and air tightness can be better controlled. We've calculated that the heat loss from our proposed schemes loft is under half of that from a dormant style design and that there would be roughly 100 kilograms of CO2 saved each year from designing out thermal bridges at loft level and maintaining simple form. Imagine if we could achieve this cross bath. The design and buildings and extensions, not just the basic thermal performance of als and roofs as required by the building regulations is incredibly important, yet our building regulations do not address thermal bridging with the alteration of existing dwellings. This scheme does. By supporting this design, the committee will show that they sport meaningful retrofit that is of bath. Although this application represents only one of 65,000 retrofits that is local authority would like to see before 2030, retrofits are still so few and number, yet the planning policy has been in existence for some time. We see a step change in decision-taking is required. With the sport of four out of five neighboring households who have submitted their views to the planning department, we aim to positively meet these aspirations of the local plan. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Thank you for that. Yes, right, Councillor Collins, as board member, you get five minutes to address the committee. Thank you very much. Right. Okay. I'm making this submission on behalf of both board Councillors who support this application. In our view, the decision before you is essentially a judgement on where the balance should be struck between potential harm to visual immunity in a conservation area and the benefit of a loft conversion design which minimizes heat loss. The planning officer considers that the harm outweighs the benefit. We disagree. We consider the benefit outweighs the harm. The one issue that this is not about is simply the size of the extension. Although the report refers in the section on energy efficiency to the extension being excessively large, it also concludes that the extension sits within the existing roof and does not extend beyond the existing rear elevation so that there is no harm to neighbor immunity and that the design scale massing and citing create no significant harm to neighbor immunity and that the extension accords with policy D6. The harm that the planning officer identifies instead relates to the impact of this particular design on the visual immunity of the conservation area. We consider that not enough weight has been given to the improvements in energy efficiency that flow from this design. Energy efficiency wasn't even listed as a key planning consideration within the original reference to the chair instead being covered under other matters at the end. It is, however, a material consideration for this committee. As a matter of process, while more information on energy efficiency has now been added to the officer's report for the committee, that information was not included in the original reference. I'm not sure whether this is fair to the applicant, no doubt, the committee will want to see reassurance on this point. On the substance, in the recent local plan partial update, the council set out three key priorities to respond to the climate emergency, the first of which was the energy efficient improvement of the majority of existing buildings. The recent energy efficiency retrofitting and sustainable construction SPD states that the council will seek to encourage and enable the sensitive retrofitting of energy efficiency measures and the appropriate use of micro renewables in historic buildings and conservation areas. That same SPD reminds us that around 41% of the district's carbon emissions come from domestic properties and that the council has the goal of achieving 65,000 retrofits in banes by 2030. In these circumstances, we consider that significant weight should be given to the energy improvements proposed. The applicants architects have set out the technical reasons why not only the fabric, but also crucially the form at the extension provide the greatest energy efficiency compared with the more uniform style. The planning officer argues that the energy efficiency could be improved without a large extension, but her own conclusion is that the extension size is not contrary to policy D6, so it is the design that's the problem. And as the architect has demonstrated adopting the preferred design of the planners would make it less thermally efficient. The SPD that I've mentioned encourages principles of sustainable construction, which this application meets and the change one would not. In contrast, there's been a significant overestimation of the possible harm to visual immunity. The officer recognizes that there is no impact on the front of the terrace and that the back of the terrace is only visible from neighbouring gardens. She points out this would also be visible from Google Earth or a hotel balloon, but the photos taken by the applicants and the photos shown to the committee show there is considerable variation in the terrace itself between the houses and an even wider variation from the aerial view that the officer refers to. The design of this extension also reflects nearby Georgian designs. In summary, we consider there is very little uniformity in the rear of the properties along Alexander Road, especially when one considers the only wider aerial view that would be visible to the public. We believe the extension is attractive and well designed and that it will enhance rather than detract from the area. We note that four neighbors agree, although one household does not. However, we are not asking the committee to enter into questions of personal taste here, but to reach a judgment on the technical and objective facts. We consider the committee should take seriously the SPD's aims of encouraging and enabling retrofitting. We consider that this extension has been done sensitively and that very little harm would be done to the visual amenity and certainly not enough to justify refusal of the application. We ask the committee to grant the application. Thank you very much, Councillor Collins. We'll come to some questions. Now, the application is up for recommendation for refusal. Hopefully, Kirsty, you're okay to answer the questions with service help. So, Councillor Hodge, you've got a question, Councillor Jackson. Yeah, it's to do with the possibility of deferral, actually, because, you know, my questioning was going to be on the line, along the line of, obviously, the hugely supportive issue of retrofitting a property. But it's about the evidence, and I'm sure others will want to ask the same question, the evidence that a larger dormer will contribute in any way to the, have a separate contribution in any way to the positive energy benefits of the property, in all aspects, as well as the passive house principles. But I'm concerned that there isn't a consul team, there's only an informal response from the Bain's sustainable construction officer. So, we don't have a written, we have an opinion, but it's only informal, and it seems to me that it hinges on this opinion of, on those points. So, to answer that question, but maybe we feel we can answer it without the information. So, you feel that you were lucky to be deferred and ask the officers to go away and get further information, evidence to support... A written opinion from our sustainable... Okay, on that, rather than informal, would be the transcription of an informal consultation. So, we'd have to have the agreement with the applicant there, because if we did defer, we'll go beyond time, so we'd need to get an extension of time, and of course, the applicant would want reassurance or comfort that, well, the committee would look at it positively with the additional evidence. I'll come to Sarah in a second, but, I mean, my view is, you know, I think it's straightforward, is it too big? And does it have an impact on the conservation area as per the recommendation refusal? I think that's what we really need to be focusing on when we get to the debate, but Sarah will help now. Yeah, I think just to come back in on that, a couple of points, really. I think one of them is, if members did ask for deferral, we'd have to be clear what the deferral was seeking to achieve, and I think it's also important to be clear that any deferral would not then preempt the discussion or the decision that might be made at the subsequent committee, because then, at that point, you would have the application before you again with whatever information accompanied it, and you would be in a position where you'd have to debate and come to a view just like you are now, so we couldn't come to and give any sorts of assurances as to what any outcome of a deferral would be, and I think it's really important not to preempt or prejudge any subsequent discussions. Regarding the consultation response, it is fairly standard practice that we consult, I want to say informally, it's almost like we take a surgery with our consultees where they set aside time where officers can attend that time slot in order to bring applications to them just because it's an efficient way in which to use those consultation spaces, and so in terms of what additional information you would get from a deferral that then brought those comments back in a written form, I have to say I don't think you would be provided of anything more than you have now, because it would just be what the officer has said only in the written form of that officer. I think that the issue here really is that we only have the information that we've been provided with, and that's the information that's been assessed. And so the comments in the report are quite clear on, there is a section in the report, I've just read it regarding what the consultation advice was in terms of passive house and the emissions from the submission, and those emissions would still exist unless the applicant supplemented their application, which obviously we have no control over. So at the moment what you have before you is obviously the application as we are able to assess it based upon the information that we have now. Yeah, Councillor Hodge. Okay, so my question is, sorry, about that, just to be clear, so that we're just possibly thinking about the size of the dormer in the conservation area, you're able to explain why the dormer is not considered necessary to achieve the retrofitting benefits, the potential of this property. Of course, so the retrofitting they put forward in their Design and Access statement is external render installation to the rare elevation, which does not require the dormer extension. There's the solar panels which would be placed on top of the roof of the outrigger, so again it's not reliant on the dormer. There's new windows and there's internal roof installation, both of which could be carried out without a dormer extension. Thank you, Councillor Gawley. Yeah, I'm just wondering about this idea of it being too big. Is there an issue with it creating a precedent? Because there's lots of other different sorts of dormers and extensions. Why is this one objectionable as opposed to other forms? Do you want to use your microphone? There we go. So on the image I showed you a moment ago, the other dormers within the street are significantly smaller. So whilst this one isn't visible as such, it is significantly larger and is therefore at odds with the character of the other roof extensions within the street. Yeah, to kind of stare at the comment quickly. It's just quite useful if the officer can bring up the photograph with the dormers. And what you'll be able to see, the stand-out point is on that, is that what you have is dormers and roofs, but essentially everything is under a child's cover, essentially, where there are dormers. They sit within the roof, so they're kind of integrated and they have much more of a roofscape that is tiled. I think that's the stand-out point, whereas this is more akin to something that would be three-story effectively with a flat roof and no tiled roof on top. I believe that's correct, is it? Just a case officer to confirm that, that's correct. Yes, that's right. Yeah, I was just wondering, when you go back to that roof, the streetscape, there's loads of different sorts of houses, including garages with flat roofs. So I'm continuing, you can't see this from anywhere, except the hot air balloon. So I wonder about whether it's such a big issue, maybe, but it obviously is big issue, it's too big issue. OK, Councillor Jackson, obviously, you would have been able to see it from... I'm sorry, I have my cable card at one point. I do beg your pardon. What I was wanting to ask is, it seems to me, we've got... Am I right in thinking? We've got two issues here. We've got the size of the dormer, which is disproportionate to the scale of the roof and the shape of the roof, and it's not integrated into the roof in the way that the other dormers are, which are significantly smaller. And we've got the issue of the retrofitting and the improved... Can I say, the carbon footprint, the heating... There are very significant benefits in terms of energy consumption from this being, if this were to be permitted. But I'm unable to see, and I hope the officer can perhaps help us, the connection between the two things. Why do they need such a big dormer window? And how is it that the harm that would be done to the conservation area, the World Heritage Site and so on, would be justified by the... The heat bills would be lowered. That's my question. What's the connection between the two? Because as things stand on the evidence that the officer has given in her report, I would be minded to move the recommendation when you want somebody to do that. Okay, thank you. Do you want to be able to come back on those questions? So, just to be clear, we are supportive of the retrofitting measures that the external render installation, internal, windows, solar panels were supportive of all of those. The issue does come down with the scale of the dormer, and the argument was put forward that the energy improvement measures outweigh any harm of the big dormer. But ultimately, those measures can all be done without providing the large dormer. Therefore, we don't think on balance, it does outweigh the harm. Okay, thank you, Judge LaHodge. Just thinking about the conservation area and the requirement of the dormer to preserve and enhance those are the policy. I'd just like to see the dormer picture again. And I have a query. To the other side of it, to the kind of left-hand side, does it project out in the lining of the house in front of those? Sorry, on the right-hand side in the picture, there's a sash window and does it project out a little bit in front of those? It looks like a third story that possibly does project out. No, I don't have any side elevations. So, they are flush the elevations. And they've simply raised the roof up by raising the eaves up, which is similar to the dormer, but ultimately, they've kept a roof slate as well. So, it looks more of a roof extension as opposed to a whole new story without a roof. Okay, thank you. Okay, anybody else got any questions? Or shall we move to the debates and consider the merits? So, as I can see with this one, it's a simple case of, is the scale and design of the dormer excessive? Will it affect the character of the house? Could it cause any harm to the setting of the conservation area? My view on this at the moment is, it's on the rear of the house. Alexandra, well, yeah, the beach and cliff is right behind you. There's a very steep cliff. Whilst there are obviously reported benefits about the design, and it being retrofitted to improve energy efficiency, it is an individual benefit rather than, obviously, with the issue with conservation areas, if it's less than substantial harm, it's got to be in the public interest to support something. This is an individual interest, not the public interest. So, the question is, is that design unacceptable? Is it too big, and should we be refusing it? Councillor Jackson. Chair, I think it is. I think you've put it very succinctly, and I'm happy to move the officers' recommendation. Okay, thank you for that. No, is there anyone who wishes to second that motion at the moment, or shall we carry on discussing this? Yes, I'm happy to second. I think the dormer is too big in the conservation area. Thank you. Anybody else got a view to express before we take a vote on that? No. Okay, well, we'll go to the vote. So, all those in favour of supporting the recommendation to refuse planning permission? Can you raise your hands, please? All those against? Any abstentions? We've got one there. Okay, so that's not carried. We need to then get someone to put forward a motion to support the scheme. Councillor Simon. What I will move is that we delegate to permit. It will clearly need conditions and further work. So, my motion is to delegate to permit. Okay, thank you. So, that's a motion put forward to delegate to permit. Councillor HOWL, a second at that. We are happy to... What the touch is one. Yeah, so we just need to... Obviously, if we go in against the recommendation, we need to say as a committee why we don't think it's going to be harmful to the character and setting of the conservation area. Well, what we need to say is what we need to do. Delegated to do, effectively. I think that because of its location, the fact it's not visible from the public realm, the fact that it contributes to effective housing stock, it contributes to energy efficiency. It will be reasonable to grant this application. However, it does require appropriate conditions and that's why it's the right moving delegation so that any conditions that the officers think appropriate can be attached. Thank you. Yeah, okay. I mean, the area... I know the area is very well. It is a really eclectic mix of buildings and housing styles. You know, it's on the back of the property, it's the informal side of the property. It's not... I mean, you can see where the box storm goes, it's slightly below the ridge so it's not as if it is going to be a completely flat room, free story building. I'm happy with that, I'm concerned. I think it's a good contemporary design and there is a bonus if it is energy efficient, even though it's obviously for a personal gain of the applicants. Councillor Hodge. I'm sorry, I'm still confused about what we're delegating, why it's a delegate to permit. Okay, because we need condition... If we're going to overturn the officer's recommendation, we'll need to apply for appropriate conditions, so we need to delegate to permit... What will the conditions be? What are the conditions that we should... Will we be applying? I don't think materials... The standard time limit, the plant list condition, and materials would probably be the only conditions that we would be applying. Okay, and... The legal officers want us to just understand what is the effect or the effect... Or the effect. Sorry, are you saying it's having a neutral effect on the conservation area? You don't feel it will cause any adverse effect? Yes, I would say it has no adverse effect. No adverse effect? Neutral. Okay. Alright, so, Councillor Simon, you know, Councillor Jackson wants to say something else. Not having the benefit of a suitable computer or anything with me. I would like to know, and just possibly somebody might know the answer to this one, why this application is different from application 23 stroke 02 991 stroke full, 216 Bloomfield Road, Bloomfield Bath, where we've refused a loft conversion with a dorm or window. Well, I mean, we have to look at this application on its merits. We feel road is in the same... Well, in the adjacent ward, but we don't have the details in front of us on that one, so we have to still decide whether this scheme is acceptable to approve. Can I use comment on Councillor Jackson's point? Loft conversions, particularly ones that create a gable end, can look really odd. I've been wondering to myself whether that would be a problem in this case, and I think in this context, it's not going to be. But it's very likely that in some other occasion, moving from hip to gable is going to produce something that looks very odd. This is such a narrow house that I don't think is going to be such a problem. Thank you. Councillor Simon has put forth a motion to overturn the recommendation and the proof delegates to pit with conditions. That's been seconded by a Councillor McPhee. So can we have a vote in favour of that motion, please? Five of those against? Four. Okay, so that carries and the final information has been granted. Thank you. Right. We've covered the rest of the agenda items, because before lunch we did look at the appeals reports and performance reports, and we've noted those. We've confirmed the date of the next site visit, although that's not from deferred applications. That's a pre-site visit for the June Committee. So I think we are ready to close the meeting. So thanks everybody for attending. Councillor interjecting. Sorry, it's the first appeal lodged. We don't have the details of the level at which the decision was taken, the decision date or the rest of it. If we could just have that emailed round, I'd be grateful. [inaudible] Okay, we can officially close the meeting. Now there will be a new chair and vice chair appointed next week ready for the June Committee. Watch this space. Thank you. You You

Morning, just apologies, we're just waiting for one more counselor to arrive. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you everybody, sorry for this slight delay at the beginning there. I'd like to welcome you to the Bath and Office Somerset Council Planning Committee. It's Wednesday the 8th of May, a nice spring morning. Apologies I'm looking at one of the flustered, I'll explain why in a second. But if we introduce ourselves, I'm Councillor Ian Holsoil. I'm the Vice Chair of the Planning Committee. The Chair, Councillor Hansel, has stepped down from the role. So we will be electing a new chair and vice chair next month. Can I remind everyone to switch off all the electronic devices and keep them quiet? The meeting is being filmed and the recording will be available on the council's website and I tend to watch it on YouTube. If nobody wants to be filmed, if they want to speak, just have a word please with our operator Ian. And we'll make sure that you're not shown. OK, I'll ask the officers on the top table to introduce themselves. Hello, I'm Karina Huskins from the Democratic Services. Sarah James, Deputy Head of Planning and Development Management. Simon Elias, Senior Law and the Council's legal team. Thank you, we have Planning Case Officer and Highway Officer in the corner there. If I could ask Karina to explain the notice of the evacuation procedure, please. Thank you. So if the continuous alarm sounds, you must evacuate the building by one of the designated exits and proceed to the named Assembly Point. The designated exits are sign-pasted, so from this room you use the main door and then the main exit of the building. The Assembly Point for this building is in Orange Grove on the green outside, friends. Thank you. OK, are there any apologies for opposite sorts of institutions? No, no apologies. Thank you. Just asking the members around the table, has anybody got any interest that they want to declare? No. OK, thank you. If we go to item six, it's usually an opportunity for the chair to raise some urgent business. What I would like to do is just, I'm sure the committee would be happy to share with me their thanks for the service that Councillor Hansel gave over the past year. I think contrary to what some of the media reports said, Councillor Hansel didn't resign from the chair in protest at the decision that Suley's down. He just decided that after it was time for him to step down and move on to other things. But I think we can all agree that he was a very fair chair and very good at the discipline and I think that maybe comes from the fact that he was a teacher, so we like to formally thank him for the service he gave the committee. OK, if we move on to item seven, I will ask Karina to reform about the speaking procedure. Thank you. So, speakers will be called immediately after the case officers made their presentation and the order and speaking time is as follows, parish town Councillors speak first and they will be allowed three minutes, objectors speak next and they will be allowed three minutes, supporters and also allowed three minutes. All Councillors not on the committee who have indicated they wish to speak made you so from maximum of five minutes and the speeches are timed by the traffic light system you see on the paper next to me, at the start the light will be green and will turn to amber when there is one minute of speaking time remaining. When the light turns red, speakers should immediately conclude their remarks. Thank you. Thank you. Item eight, we had meeting on the 10th of April. We have the minutes that have now been published, so can we have someone forward Councillor Jackson? I will move on to the correct record, Chair. Thank you very much and Councillor Warren, let's have a second that. Right, site visit plans list, we didn't have any site visits last time so we could just move on now to the main part of the committee which is to determine the planning applications. I just need to point out if anybody has come here for items two and three which is Shockawick Farm in Bathford, I'm afraid of owing to an administrative error. The updated report only came out at 10 o'clock this morning so it has been deferred and this is on the advice of our legal officer and the deputy head of planning. It's felt that the additional information that's been put forward is sufficient that it could potentially jeopardize the reasonableness of making a decision so it's going to be deferred until June, but it may well be that we might like to have an advanced site visit perhaps. Councillor Jackson? Well, that's precisely the case, Chair, because I've studied these papers very carefully. Yeah, and I could see that there would be benefit from more information, but more to the point, I don't know the area at all and I would really appreciate a site visit. So can I move that we have a site visit before the next committee meeting? Of course, I don't think we need to have a formal vote on that, I think we can just inform Lee agree that we will have an advanced site visit, that's OK. So yeah, so two and three have been deferred until June, it may well have been that we could have determined the application today or decided to have a site visit anyway. So I don't think it's jeopardized the applicant in any way that it would be determined next month. I know it's a bit of a delay and it isn't convenient for them and people who are making representations on that application, but it is what it is, I'm afraid. OK, so if we go to the top of the list, we've got the application for Bathkeys North on Avon Street here in the city centre, this is a reserve matters application following the outline approval and our case officer, Goulam, can give us a presentation, thank you. Thank you, Chair, yes, this is, excuse me, is a reserve matters application for part of the Bathkeys North development site, the phase one of the wider Bathkeys North development site, the applicant is BQN Ltd. In terms of the site itself, it's the area shown in red, which is the existing Avon Street car park and land immediately to the west, there's an area just... OK, I'm having a few sound issues at the moment, so I do apologise to anybody watching online at the moment. Thank you, you're ready to continue, thank you, hopefully it's not me, yeah, so the area shown in red is for this current reserve matters application, the area to the north of Corn Street is the phase two and part of the wider Bathkeys North development site, just in terms of orientating, so we've got the river, obviously running through the site, towards the south of the site and the river side park, we've got Avon Street car park, which is the development site which we're referring to now, and just putting the wider context obviously to the right is the south gate centre development and further to the north, the sea bath Abbey and the city centre, just to put the application in context. In terms of the planning history on the site, Outline Planning Commission was originally granted in April 2019, the 180058 application, that was Outline Planning Commission for development of the site and there were a number of documents which were approved with that, there was then a process of pre-application discussion with the applicants and that identified that what was being proposed was slightly beyond the approved parameters and therefore the application was an application for, to vary that the original planning commission was submitted and that was approved in December 2020, so that's the VAR application, so the reserve matters application we're dealing with today was submitted, subsequent to that in December 2020 and there has been a process of negotiation with amendments submitted in September 2021 which related to the design of the buildings in response to comments from various consultees and then there's a more recent update to reflect the local plan, partial update in respect of things like cycle parking. The Outline Planning Commission allowed for a range of uses on the site with minimum and maximum floor areas approved and the reserve matters application needs to fit within those parameters, bearing in mind there's another phase still to come. What was submitted with this reserve matters application is for a mix of offices, residential, hotel, retail and other food and beverage uses and a two-level basement car park and landscaping. Those uses are within the parameters set within the Outline Planning Commission and therefore it's in conformity in terms of the residential, there's a mix of flat sizes from micro-flat which are kind of 24, 27 square metres in size through to three-bed flats as well. Those are all for sale or let there's no affordable housing in the scheme. That was part of the original 2018 applications of detailed viability appraisal submitted at that time that was updated in 2020 and again in 2021 and identified that there was a viability gap which meant the scheme itself was not able to support the provision of affordable housing. That said, there is a Section 106 agreement which goes with the Planning Commission and that requires a review of the viability appraisal 24 months after commencement of development or practical completion of 50 residential units so although at this stage there's no affordable proposed there is a mechanism in place to review that in the future to see if the scheme is viable and is able to deliver affordable housing. Going through the various reserve matters access, the approved parameter plan here just identifies the principles within which a reserve matters application has to come forward so that identifies there has to be certain routes north-south through the site and also east-west link through the site, it also identifies the location or general location of the car park access point on Ambery. The reserve matters application which has been submitted, this is the layout so it picks up on the principles of the north-south routes through the site so aligning with Avon Street for example onto the western part of the site and also what's called Backstreet the east-west route which links with Somerset Street to the east outside the application site boundary. It's just an indication of the basement car park, the basement car park at level 2 has been amended to incorporate additional cycle parking in order to comply with the local planned partial update in respect of cycle parking. It should point out that as a reserve matters application the principle of development and the mix of uses, the principle of a two-story or two-level basement car park matters which have been approved and not for a reconsideration as part of this reserve matters application. In terms of layout, this is the parameter plan which is approved so it shows that there's some flexibility for, so the lighter gray areas are zones where there could be a building, the darker areas where there needs to be a building of some sort and that's, there's quite a lot of flexibility in terms of where those routes actually are aligned within the site and what's emerged is this layout which again as I mentioned earlier in terms of access complies with the parameter plans just in terms of the uses there. The right hand blocks, plots one and two are offices on the upper floors, the ground floor is commercial space, some retail restaurant, plot three which is on Corn Street is the hotel and plots four and five are residential. So this is just a typical upper floor so the large floor plate offices on plots one and two, the layout of the hotel you can see in plot three on the northern part of the site and then just a typical layout for the residential accommodation within plots four and five. In terms of scale one of the other reserve matters there are a number of parameters in terms of heights and where there are zones for different types of roof elements to be provided in terms of plant for example so this is what was granted an outline with a number of details in terms of say the upper zone of the buildings and this is what has come forward in the reserve matters application so this is a slice through plot five and to the left plot six is the first outline which is outside of this reserve matters application and then Bath College beyond that such as in terms of a slice to the site. In terms of the building heights this just shows the zones within which the buildings can come forward so this kind of beige outline of building so in terms of the footprint of them but also the variation in height across the site. As part of this reserve mass applications I mentioned earlier there were amendments made to the application and that resulted in some minor projections beyond the approved parameters. These relate principally to things like lift and staircase cause and a small area of residential accommodation in plots four and five which projects just beyond the limits in terms of the overall parameters is considered these don't amount to variation which require a resubition of the original outline application they're just minor projections and it's considered these are acceptable within the overall scheme. In terms of landscaping this is there's a range of planting being proposed in terms of the red line boundary which you can probably just see on that plan the riverside park next to the river is outside the application that's to be retained as it is at the moment and then there is planting within the application site including around the perimeter of the site. At roof level there are a range of a number of brown roofs sorry green roofs so planted roof areas across the site this was in response to the change in roofing roofscape strategy in order to deliver significant level of biodiversity net gain on the site and that's incorporated within both the landscaping being proposed and also the green roofs it also shows the photovoltaic cells on plots one and two in particular and that's in order to provide on site renewables and juice overall CO2 emissions from the site. The final one a reserve matter is appearance and I've got a number of slides here just to kind of go around the site and provide some detail in terms of materials. So this is looking from James Street West towards plot one looking along Corn Street so the main development we've got the forum building on the left and then beyond that is the proposed development and then beyond that you can probably just make out this kind of shaded areas that's for the future development within plots six and seven. This is the riverside elevation and the changes which were made as part of the application were to address issues concerns raised about the original design which was concerned about there was appearances fairly squat it would have gave the appearance being fairly squat so the more vertical elements introduced to each of the buildings in order to break up the elevations and produce provide more vertical emphasis to them. So this is the central part of plot two on the riverside and just in terms of the materials pallet the basic frame of the building is in Bathstone the balcony front so in the middle of the image are precast concrete and then mixed by the materials in terms of metal for example for the window frames. This is just the next the section of building next to it so again Bathstone is the main framing material and a mix of metal and precast concrete. In terms of ambre so this is the eastern elevation this is the car park entrance on the bottom left as you can see and this part of that elevation is proposed as as precast concrete on this part of a section of ambre where it turns onto the river it turns to Bathstone and also where it turns down onto Corn Street it's Bathstone but this part is this section of the elevation is precast concrete. This is the rear of plot one and so in terms of say the precast concrete framed this part and also profiled metal panels within the elevation so this is the internal street to the development rather than the external face of the development most of the external elevation so to Ambrean Corn Street and the riverside evolve elements of Bathstone or brick which I'll come onto in terms of plot four and also the hotel which I'll come onto in a minute. So this is the hotel elevation so this is looking east towards the city centre along Corn Street towards the Forum building this is in terms of the details of materials so this is the precast concrete building and with panels with bronze coloured metal window frame framing and yet this is quite a different material obviously within Bath but considered as a case to be made for being used I should point out that condition nine of the planning commission requires sample panels to be submitted for approval prior to any construction work so that would allow the council to finesse and detail the particular colours on for example on the metal work but also the colours of the of any precast concrete elements within the building so there is a separate step which the applicants would need to go through in order to deal with that. This is the view from the new bridge across look as this is plot five in front of us say in terms of the elevation changes it introduces a more vertical emphasis with the with the four main bays being expressed more clearly and then plot four to the right of that and then looking along the river towards Churchill Bridge. In terms of plot five so again materials this is riverside elevation so Bathstone principal elements with the return elevation to Avon Street is a brick and proposes a light coloured brick again condition nine will allow the details of that material to be agreed. This is plot four so this is a reddish brick again colour and precise details of that to be dealt with through condition nine in terms of the some longer distance views this is the view from the the golf course all the picture put on on sign Hill and the development you can't miss it but if my cursor is going to show on the screen I don't think it is but in terms of it's almost in the centre of this this view is the development kind of nestled amongst the the Bath College buildings and on the other side of the river you can might be able to make out the payer building and maritime house this is the view from Bathwick Field so in terms of looking across to the church spire in the middle of the photograph it sits to the left of that and just about probably just can't really see it but it is again the building heights are broadly consistent with the the other building heights in in the area this is the view from as you come down Wellsway just looking across the railway line so the building so the only on the left to the right is carpenter house this is the view is the gap in between Bath College and James Street West so this is looking at this is looking towards a beach and cliff in the distance and this is just in terms of that plot one elevation which I touched on at the beginning view from Churchill Bridge looking west along the river so you've got the former industrial buildings on the left hand side then the Bath keys north development on the right looking the other way from Green Park riverside kind of the building there the shaded out areas with the blue dot is the future development of the phase two and then this is just the view from beach and cliff looking down across the site with the development in the center of the photograph to the left with blue star is the future phases of development with Bath College beyond that so that in terms of the the presentation as it was going to go about just draw attention to the update report there's a few items there the amended layer a provision of the cycle parking within the basement even Somerset designing out crime officer has been in contact saying that they consider the cycle parking ought to be further details required to make sure it's secure and broken up into smaller blocks and that can be dealt with by condition in terms of biodiversity net gain that this application achieves significantly above the 10% required by the current legislation but we would need a management plan in order to secure that and long term so that's in also to be covered by condition and finally natural England who had raised concerns about lighting levels along the river and they've now been satisfied that can be addressed by condition but we do need to complete a habitat regulations assessment in a procedural process there and that is something which would recommending that the scheme is permitted subject to the habitat regulation assessment and approval by natural England thank you okay thank you Guillaume for that so we'll ask some questions shortly just to say that I mean I've lived in in Bath for 20 years and I know we often get criticized for the approach we take to architecture you know what do we do it in a Georgian style is it a pastiche arguably like the south gate centre is so we still need to ensure that you know what decision we come to today is it good enough for the city and is it going to really help regenerate that part of the river and is it going to be something that we can be proud of and showcase so I'll open there's actually an interesting point here we've got nobody speaking so you know we haven't had any significant interest from the public in terms of the design I'll ask a first question if I'll make could you just give us a a proceed of the representations we had from historic England and the above preservation trust where where are they with the scheme please yes they they have raised concerns about the the original applications it was particularly in terms of the elevation treatment and amendments have been made in the light of that which have addressed some of their concerns they still have reservations about the proposals for the flat roof across the site and those still remain and I think that's the balance there is the or the case for that is in terms of provision of the biodiversity net gain across the site and also the reduction in CO2 emissions and on-site renewables but their reservations are still in place but they're not they're not historic England have not formally objected okay thank you so has anybody got any questions that would like to ask the officer not start with coastal Jackson coastal goalie they cancel across sleep oh thank you I was also concerned about the roofscape and I wondered if you could explain in a bit more detail what exactly one will see on the roof and if I've understood correctly there is going to be access to the roof for residents in some of the blocks is that correct in terms of the what's on the roof if just using this image the right hand blocks there would be access to that roof area for people who occupy the the office buildings and that would be a range of soft landscaping on the roof and also the brown roof the green roofs above that where the underneath the photovoltaic cells so there would be some soft landscaping there was an original proposal to include trees at roof level those are removed it just felt that in terms of having kind of green roofs and some landscaping that might be that would be acceptable but the provision of trees at a time level was was not so those have been removed in terms of plots four and five which are the residential blocks there is access from flats at the upper level kind of private access to open to to roof space and balconies at that upper level but there isn't general access for the public or other residents within those blocks for the hotel there is the potential for access to the roof area but that's not been specified in in these these drawings okay so the second question second question I mean I've struggled with this one and with the briefings and the question is what is our reference point because this is to conserve and enhance the area it's a world heritage site and so on so do we consider that this is appropriate when for example compared to the Bass College building on the right or across the riverside with the western riverside development now which I have to say I don't like and always voted against but that's irrelevant if it's not the right reference point or should we be thinking or asking ourselves is this sufficiently Georgian inappropriate in a Georgian city so could you sort of nail down what the design parameters should be to be congruous with the context if I could just flick back to the view from looking across the site and putting it in context so here we have the in terms of the different roofscape within the city and so we have Southgate which has effectively felt false mansard roofs so from street level you see a mansard but behind it looking on the right hand side there is plant kind of drop within a that central area of the site so that's effectively a flat roof but with the false mansard so that's one approach another is simply a flat roof so looking towards the kind of top left of the diagram where the cinema is and on James James Street again that's just a flat roof with nothing else being provided so in terms of the context along the riverside there is a range of different roof approaches to rescape and the so that in terms of your reference point it was about seeking to provide a roofscape which achieved something different as it were so rather than go for the false mansard approach which might seem to be more you know more in keeping but actually you're just hiding the roof plant whereas this is more expressive in terms of saying this is a flat roof it is providing biodiverse roofscape it is providing photovoltaic cells on it and so that was the rationale for it but in terms of reference points the the bath city centre the scale of buildings is much smaller than we're dealing with on Bathkeys north and the large footprints of the buildings which is specific design intent in order to provide office floor space trying to span those you could either go for the south gate approach or potentially or what they've adopted this site which is saying being much more upfront and about the flat roofs and accommodating the photovolta text within that and green roofs if you go off to the left the next block we approved a design for flats that's got a sort of hanging gardens of Babylon approach to it it's stepped it's flat roofed and it's got lots of greenery and I was just wondering why that hadn't been replicated here because it's a very barren sort of area that central part of Bath isn't it but a lack of trees and so on south gate is not exactly green I'm not proposing I'm not suggesting that south gate is really just in terms of an alternative way of dealing with large floor place and the roofscape I think the building you referred to is probably on Bath western riverside again that's a different approach of with the hanging gardens this incorporates the landscaping within the roofscape itself okay thank you so Councillor Gourley and then I've got Councillor Crossley and Councillor Hodge afterwards straightforward one what's a brown roof sorry yes it's provision of what the green roofs are where you would have seed and et cetera a brown roof might just be gravel or some other material most of these roofs are proposed as green roofs I'm sorry dropped in the word brown as well okay that's one question I don't have a problem with the roof actually I think it's fine because most people can't see that what I do have a problem is the view from the street and I think the question is I think going back to Councillor Daxson's reference I mean it seems to me the references is either Bath College or Churchill House neither of which I think have much architectural merit you have actually on the other side of the road on the other side of the river the new it works which we have preserved and and I think it's been done remarkably well and it has it has grace notes as does the do the buildings on the corner of James Street West as do obviously the area rather Georgian area and Green Park I think that I do question about the blocking us and I also wonder you know how they've come to that that design when we're talking about something that's going to be here for you know hundred two hundred years is this really the best that can be done it's a question I also have a question about how it is that we can have come to the conclusion that we need to house cars rather than people this area was historically always an area of low-cost housing until 70 years ago when it got bombed I think it's I mean I have a question about how we can get to this point that we're not providing any low-cost housing in something that really is is an area which would be brilliant for it because of the access to jobs and so on there is a question in that okay well obviously we can't consider the affordable housing that's already been determined there was a viability assessment and there is a one use agreement that could follow up and if it does become viable then we can still achieve that but we're here to discuss the reserve matters the access appearance layout scale and landscaping yes can I just make a comment before the debate continues really about how the conversation around how we've arrived at this design the design has come forward based upon the what the applicant has proposed obviously fitting within parameters plans there's some constraints to the proposals in terms of the uses because there are very large floor plates on this bill on these buildings which wouldn't be the case in some of the buildings in the center of town some of the more historic buildings see it does dictate almost a different design approach but the actual design approaches obviously what has been brought forward by the applicant not by the officers it's really difficult for the officer to say how how we've reached it what the officer has done is work with the applicant to assess what's been brought forward and to negotiate improvements to what is considered by the officer to be an acceptable scheme it's now obviously before members it's for members to come to the conclusion to whether they think it's an acceptable scheme and obviously everyone's going to have their own opinion on that but it's very difficult for the officer to answer some of the questions about how it's reached this design because that's not what the officer has put forward it's what he's assessed okay thank you for that Councillor Crossley you've got a question yeah I've got a question first of all to pick up on Fiona's thing about the affordable aspect I think one of the things we have to do before Christmas when we have a new Minister for local government is to get there and tell him that a value of land is the value of the local plan so the problem we have is that developers pay too much for land and then the first thing they chop is the social housing so if there was a clear message from government that if the local plan says the 30% affordable that will set the value of the land and if they overpay for it that's their problem not our problem but my question is will any of this rooftop space be publicly available so that you could have perhaps a coffee bar up there and drink particularly I'm thinking of the one on the hotel you said that they hopefully it's not specified but the residents might be getting there would there be access for the general public to get up there if we have a rooftop garden area on the hotel that would ultimately be down to the operator of the hotel there could be access to that area but that including to the public but that's not a specification within the application but that there is the potential from that I raised this every time we have an application down here about the desirability of getting access when we get another scheme coming forward can we just from the officer point of view from my perspective I think we need public access to some of these roof spaces because it would be lovely to be up there having a coffee and just loving a view over bath and just seeing what's been developed and enjoying the view but if we don't get that into the parameter when we have the initial negotiations then it will never happen at all. Okay thank you for that Councillor Hodge you've got questions please. Yeah so I've got three questions the first one is about the roofscape I wonder could we see the image again of the roofscape with the projections that you'd circled so what I'm thinking about in relation to this is that when we I was on the committee when we the committee approved the the 2020 variations to the parameters that were originally agreed and I understood the more blocky parameters that were agreed were to to some extent to incorporate projections upwards and we seem to now have another further design sorry the picture isn't up there actually the one with the yeah is it possible to put the roofscape picture yeah so we've accepted the more parameters that allow for a more blocky structure but we yet again have projections above the roofscape and that there seems to be 13 up there well roughly and yeah about that I just wondered if why they're acceptable and what their heights are that you know well how you've come to the decision that they're acceptable those 13 above the new level of parameters and the second point I'd like to raise is in relation to the soft landscaping on the roof that is is providing for the contributing to providing for the 30% biodiversity net gain and also the landscaping that is in the policy to run north south along the eastern cut through is all that that is shown in the pictures secured and secured in the landscape I just want to be clear that we're not seeing pictures where some of that won't be delivered or that there is a risk that it will be value engineered out at a letter point how can we confirm that all the landscaping there that we are seeing is to be delivered and a sorry third point is that I recall that when we again when the committee agreed variation three there was quite a lot of information given about the ground floor landscaping at the ground level landscaping at the end of the building is have we got detail on that we were shown it to look very attractive and I haven't seen it today have that changed or is that not is that not something that is part of those reserve matters anymore so there's there's landscaping at the end of the building I think on the curves and I do recall some to the front and policy as before puts quite a lot of weight on the additional landscaping gain in that area so I suppose there's a three points a high projections that the landscaping on top the roof and the landscaping at ground level I just want to make one final point looking at the views the view from the approach golf course the photos that I think is the golf course hasn't was last in that condition in about 2019 so I just wondered how they there's been a planning it's been variation since then how is that few constructed I just wondered okay in terms of the projections which is this this image on the on the screen the the change the approved parameters drew very clear lines about where you know the building edge would be and this and the original reserve matters application was within those parameters as part of the negotiation in order to deal with concerns about the elevations so for example on plot five which is the one in the left hand side of the image there was more vertical elements were introduced so some of those vertical bays on that building so if you looked at it within the parameters it just so happens that the next one along is slightly outside it but in terms of the overall height there's this that it's within the parameter so that you can see that based on the the way you've got the red star as it were just that that bay in front of it that's fully within the parameters the one just to the right of it is slightly outside but the height is is within the parameters it's just the forward projection of that particular bay takes it beyond the parameter plan in terms of the circle to the north of that that is a lift core which projects slightly above the height I don't have that dimension to hand but that's probably going to be it might be a couple of meters beyond the height but it's a small area of of extension in terms of just the front print and the overall projections sorry the overall parameters of this plan the area just to the east of that with the kind of yellow dotted circle just flags two things one is that again the overall height is within the within the limit because that's the set this is that's the the the bay being extended through the through the elevation the orange bit is just that the there is some residential accommodation in that area which the parameter plans said could was that was a limit to where the residential accommodation could extend laterally so it doesn't project above it's it projects laterally and that's just the consequence of the of the design changes to the scheme in order to get to an acceptable scheme because the original was not acceptable in the view of officers and other commentators so that's what's just used that as an example in terms of what those actually amount to so it's is not increasing the height apart just just the lift cores you mentioned about the the landscaping so the the area to the bottom of the diagram that beyond the red line the rivers have parked that's unchanged the landscaping within the red line is there are detailed plans have been submitted for that so I haven't included them including that area towards the western part of the site where the bridge lands bridge place and there's landscaping proposed in that and there's details there are detailed drawings showing the types of planting the hard and soft landscaping materials seating areas etc and so there are full details being provided that and that would be that's considered to be an acceptable space there and also the other landscaping across the site there is some tree planting proposed within the highway so on the north side of Corn Street so plots five in front of plots five and six that would be need to be agreed as part of a section two seven eight agreement for works to the highway and so those where all those trees get planted not that's something which will be covered through the section two seven eight agreement in terms of the overall biodiversity net gain even if those were excluded it's it's still achieving the the level required by the planning condition and way above or significantly above for other the the temps and required nationally I think those were the points okay thank you how do they do the image with oh sorry sorry yeah so the golf course is it did you just see if you're based on an old photo in terms of development which in that view which is a good difference you don't know if you can see see where the the flag for the golf courses so to the right of that you can see some cranes in the kind of middle distance that is bath key south where there are as a new office building has been constructed so that's the way change in that location beyond that you wouldn't see there's the with the old Pinkford site that I don't think you'd see that in this view looking to the west or to the left of the view in terms of other developments there is the new hotel on James Street but again that that wouldn't project that wouldn't be highly visible in within this view so I think the only change would be bath key south I think my concern is that that picture doesn't show the buildings does it that are proposed it it does so I'd have to zoom right in okay yeah so basically it sits and where the cranes are the bath key south you then got the red brick building to the left of it which is maritime house then kind of diagonally across is where the development is sitting and you can just see the curve I think of the plot 5 in that image lovely thank you and I just got one follow-up question from the first one can I just be clear how many of the lift shafts are of the order of two metres higher than the parameters is it just one or as are all of them is two metres is yeah I've estimated the two metres so there's one two on plot five there's two on plot four one on plot three which is the the area there and then there are the stair cores on plots one and two so one two three four five six seven eight nine potentially in terms of the the the the stair cores projecting beyond the the the parameter lovely thank you okay so we're still asking questions of the officer cancer Simon when you get the big projects like this roofscapes tend to multiply after planning permission and I've known things bits of plant up here which weren't in the drawings and downpipes and things like that are do they retain permitted development rights on adding things to the roof and the exterior or can we negative permitted development rights to make sure that nothing that isn't in the drawings we're going to approve or not approve is adding in terms of the this application it does include the plant within the scope of the application if you're concerned about any external vent pipes for example being added then the cubic condition controlling that but in terms of the way this is as has been designed that the main roof elements in terms of plant for example are already shown within the scheme thank you council Hughes thank you just a very quick question I am I safe to assume that UNESCO are involved actually evolved in the process of this design it's not it's not something that we're gonna we're gonna involve UNESCO when it's too late to incorporate their concerns UNESCO haven't commented on this application and have not flagged it as one which they would they'd want to be involved in obviously there's other applications at the moment in terms of Bathwestern Riverside and recreation ground where they have expressed a view both the UK Ikamos and the the international panel but there hasn't been comment from them on this so when you say there haven't been comment have we approached UNESCO and shown them this and said are we going the right way with this we haven't the the process for this site started in 2018 and there'd been various permissions granted so this is a reserve matters within those approved schemes so they're already a set of parameters within which the reserve matters can come forward and that is what is being being shown here with in terms of consulting with Nescos it's not quite how it works there's a process by which you have to kind of go slightly secure to to approach them through historic England DCMS and then they approach Ikamos Ikamos haven't sometimes that the UK body will come forward with their own views like they have done on they did on Western Riverside for example that hasn't they haven't expressed a view on this and we haven't approached them on it okay so it's just I'm just trying to understand this then because we're told when we're looking at various developments we're told that there isn't an issue with the BMW sites in terms of UNESCO having concerns there is concern about developing the west of Bath site which is two miles away from the centre but yet here we have a developments right in the centre and I would have thought perhaps UNESCO's opinion is probably more important than mine in terms of whether this is an acceptable design for a UNESCO World Heritage sites all right okay thank you for that anybody else got any more questions for the officer obviously Guillard's been very thorough in his exploitation and also in the questions about the design is anybody else wants to raise anything okay so in that case thank you for your presentation I guess this is the interesting part where we start having a debate and discuss the merits of the scheme can I just ask sorry one procedural question given the scale of the development does it need to be referred to the sectorist state or is it exclusively our decision to make no it is reserved matters application we wouldn't need to refer it the original application was covered by its EIA development and it was referred to sector data that stage that's fine thank you for that okay who wants to open the debate up anybody got a view to express can solution I've always got a view okay so there it's a it's a strange but there are certain aspects this design I quite like I personally I agree if you know I'm not particularly worried about the roof that's not something that the majority of people are going to see I like the fact that it's that there's some greenery up there and that and it's it's trying to make the most of the solar facilities and stuff my I do have concerns with certain aspects of the design I mean the the riverside side of the design has a very sort of Lego like appearance to it and I'm not sure other than the use of barf stone in amongst the concrete I'm not sure where the design references are for towards barf within that side the I don't know it just all me seems designed by committee I'm not quite sure where that designs going and whether we whether it actually truly reflects the city we're in the other side where we've got the hotel side I don't mind it it looks very similar to the Hampton in some respects the the Hampton Hotel just around the corner which I found quite a bland design so overfall I'm done I'm I'm not very inspired by the design to be perfectly honest and so I do have reservations thank you Ken's Lauren yeah the the roofs a bit of a funny one really I mean like Shaun's he's not going to walk away looking up he's just a stiff net you'd be looking at the shop and all that nice or you get a nice meal I think it's one of those things we had to sum up but there's been in desperate need a great one office space for a long long time for a lot of years and goes right back it probably lost it a little bit come locked down because obviously everyone is home but I think it's going back towards that now as the fact that somebody actually is happy to build this on spec and I actually don't mind the design and some marks aren't Georgian but in Georgian times they say you can't build up because it's not Roman and so you know we do move on we we move on the insulation etc etc and I think it's I think it's greatly needed I honestly do okay there's little bits that I wouldn't particularly like however the bits I don't particularly like somebody else probably be will I think sometimes we get a little bit excited over I think we're world heritage site which is fantastically to be proud of that however we are still a living city and we can't turn it in just into a museum or otherwise it just mothballs nothing happens and to move onwards and it's also when you're thinking about the amount of people in the bar city that travel to Bristol travel to Swindon because there isn't the office space in Bath so this could actually save a lot of movement a lot of time for them so I'm actually quite happy to move the office's recommendation with this and with the with the conditions that are listed okay I think given the size of the the development I think we should carry on debating for a bit longer but Councillor Crossley I'm quite happy to second that and speak if you like so I think what we've got here and I'd like to congratulate the the officer team for the hard work they put in I mean we've seen sort of years and years of work over this and developing this and any design of this scale in these modern times is never going to suit everyone's needs and never going to to meet all our demands and expectations purely because we have a situation where the value of land is far too high in our area and that requires government changes to address that issue but given where we are we've got the value of land we've got what we've got here I think is something that is reflecting a lot of the modern design that's coming in at the moment it's not out of place it's got a mix between stone and brick if I have absolutely honest I prefer that the concrete at the back was not concrete but you know we can't design everything here I think what we've got therefore is a good mix of uses a good mix of design that fits and is in keeping with a lot of the modern design that's going on it's right in the center of Bath so unlike Sean I'm quite happy that there is car park provision in the basement because with the best will in the world people are not currently giving up their cars at a very great rate so you know even three car families are not going down to two car families let alone two car families going down to one car family so we are where we are I think this will we've had this empty we've had these empty sites for a long time so it is good that they are now being developed I can remember years ago at one of these meetings saying there are no cranes over baths luckily now there are permanently cranes over bath which means we are developing and we are delivering a future if there's no cranes you're not developing and you're stagnating and this is an area that needs redevelopment and I think the officers are to be commended on the level of work but going forward I would like to see a stronger commitment to to social inclusion and I would you know because we can't forever say the value of the land means we can't have any social houses so I would going forward like to see a much stronger throwback from the officers that clearly says to developers if you ain't got 30% affordable don't even bother talking to us thank you there okay so we have had a motion put forward and seconded to support the office recommendation but again I would like to carry and I'm in a little debate before we take a vote so we were Councillor Jackson think Councillor Gourley thank you very much there used to be a joke in Birmingham in the 1970s that the developers had done more damage to the city than Hitler's bombs and I just don't feel this this is a very high standard of design but what do I know what I would really like a bit of clarification from the officers about were we to think that this design was not appropriate would we be able to refuse the application or is it the case that being a reserve matters question and it fitting within its context we wouldn't have the ground so just for clarification future reference William do you want to respond to that question yeah it's slightly difficult the um there was a scheme which was submitted for reserve matters applications and that was considered unacceptable and that wouldn't have been recommended for approval there were amendments are made to the scheme which is the one before you now and it's considered that this is acceptable so in terms of that process you described if I understood it correctly there was a scheme and it was considered unacceptable and that wouldn't been brought forward with a recommendation for approval that amendments were made to the scheme and a number of different elements I've just picked up on some of them in terms of the introducing more verticality to the elevation in order to overcome those concerns we are now to position where this is considered acceptable and has been recommended for approval okay thank you I suspect I've shown my hand already I mean I totally agree that this needs redevelopment I mean I've lived in Bath 60 years so I've slightly longer history of this than and then council council and I agree with council more and we need offices I agree with council crossly that we we should have had and need to have affordable homes but I'm concerned that English heritage don't think it's good enough that they think it's not in keeping with other bits of bath and I said I think it's it is too lucky and too plain and it's gonna be around a long time and I think it's taken its inspiration from some of the other less meritorious buildings in the area when there are others from which it could have had inspiration so I think that's my concern that it could be anywhere not just both thank you I mean I am in agreement a little bit I it's it's an international style it could be anywhere but it's regeneration and I'm all right did I hear earlier that we haven't actually had a formal objection from historical England they just gave advice yeah they've they've raised concerns particularly about the roofscape they they did raise more serious concerns about the regional submission hence the amendments and where we've got to is they still have concerns and it's focused on on the roofscape and how whether that's appropriate for for the centre of Bath but there's not a formal objection okay thank you I do want to emphasize you this application has received very little representation from public it's not really generating any sort of strong use either way maybe that is actually reflected in this in the fact that we all think it could be anywhere but Councillor Hodge yes thank you I do agree with you know that the importance of developing the land the concerns about the lack of affordable but it's not for the viability has negated that at the moment I would like to make the point in the office space at Keys South it's taken a long time to sell but I understand your point about the office space what I feel is I agree with the points made by historic England and I think they were very clear that the potential to a potential for this site isn't isn't being realized with this design and I feel the where we've this feeling it's coming out from everyone once we go around the room it's not too bad you know it's but this is I don't think we should accept second best for this site and where we have gone back and not accepted something on design such as the mineral hospital or the Bath press site we've come back with a improved application it's it's near to a beautiful bridge listed buildings the industrial heritage across the river and I don't think it enhances in either direction and I agree it doesn't reflect the keys doesn't reflect doesn't enhance the river and I feel like it is nowhere nowhere architecture and we can do better than this specifically I've got concerns about the nine lift shafts that are two meters higher I think two meters roughly two meters is quite a big height and then I if this motion falls I would move to overturn the office recommendation for various planning reasons which I'm happy to elaborate on okay anybody else got anything to answer me I can remember as well when this last came up and there was a forest of negative comments and it seems to me that the officers have worked hard to get rid of this and that we may not be presented with the most fantastic place but we have a practical solution and we don't have a forest of complaints where they they've worked hard with it and there are some nice things the materials have to be presented and passed as part of the condition I mean the roofs I thought people were going to complain but it seems to me for the future of offices and hotels roofs are going to be green and they're going to have solar on them that's what it's going to be like that's what we've got here so I really don't see what to complain about and in that regard I will support the motion it's always difficult when you have a big comprehensive scheme like this I mean when we look at Southgate obviously that's that one one big composite form it's all in the very same style what this is achieving it's more organic in appearance I mean it's all going to get built at a very similar time but I think there's enough variety I think it does actually it does reflect I think Bathke's self you know to this area was never George and it was always industrial anyway or it was a poor neighborhood before we had the Blitz and it was replaced with some terrible car park afterwards and some other awful architecture so I think I'm going to be supporting this so we've had the the motion put forward by Councillor Warren seconded by Councillor Crossley so that is to support the officer recommendation to grant reserve matters approval is anybody else want to speak before we take the vote yeah it's Councillor Jackson and Councillor Hodge and then we'll go up to Sarah I very much appreciated the chair the former Chairman's comments as a teacher very often I was formerly a lecturer if a student brings in an essay and you had expected him to bring in something that you could give an A to you still can't fail it because it's a B and this is what I feel with this application it's a B but that's not a reason for rejecting the application. I just want to make a further point on the policy reasons why I would think we should overturn the officer recommendation a MPPF paragraph 134 where I don't think it meets the high standards and doesn't achieve a well-designed beautiful place and the core strategy policy to that it should reinforce and contribute to the city's unique character and then that's before which sets out quite a lot of detail for what the aspirations of this site responding positively to existing and varied architecture it's just for reference that policy like that I'm considering. Okay thank you. Just before members go to the vote I just feel as though I may be able to just ask members given the comments that made in terms of the design and the concerns about what is before you today to ensure members give some thought to the situation on the ground the situation on the ground being that there is a outline consent in place there is a set of parameter plans that are approved anything that comes forward on this site has to fit within the parameter plans and the outline consent that is in place aside from starting again from scratch which you know it is obviously always a possibility. We are also looking at a site where you know there are certain uses approved which will dictate certain designs certain floor plates and there will be large roof spans which are very difficult to deal with in design terms in historic places. The case officer has already mentioned a couple of some of the examples that we already have in Bath Southgate being one of those examples right in the centre which has a similarly large floor span and that was dealt with with Mansards and hidden plan this is a different approach it's clearly up to members to determine whether they feel that this design is acceptable and to make a decision on this application but I would urge members to be aware of the constraints of the site in terms of what design options might come forward and what potential there is for other alternative approaches on this site to come forward that have to be viable they have to be able to deal with the roofscape that will have a large floor span and the uses that are approved in order to bring the site forward at all. So I just want members to just be aware of the fact that you know we are not able to necessarily go away and achieve everything that it might be sought in a historic city in terms of some of the approaches we are going to be constrained to only certain approaches on this site when it comes to development and that is just something I would like members to be aware of and also with regard to any reasons for refusal in terms of talking about how the development is fitting with character etc. Of course we do have those policies in place where we apply them in refusing schemes it is important to firstly identify what we consider the character to be and then to go on and consider precisely why the development doesn't fit with those characters we can't just refer to the policies we actually have to kind of drill into what is the character and what is it about this development that does not fit with that character and I think that we would need to be quite specific about that before going down the route of using this policy to refuse it on design grounds. Design is a very personal thing obviously everybody around this around the table we have different views on design so I just want everyone to be aware of how difficult it is to design by committee and to ensure that the decision that's made is based upon what's before you today and if it isn't approved then obviously we will have to go back and start again from scratch possibly. Thank you Sarah for that advice. Councillor Gawley. Hopefully a simple question so this facade it's going to get the sun most of the time because it's facing south. What has been done to minimise thermal gain I mean there's no opening you know no breeze to lay that I can see or anything like that the windows aren't set back so I'm just in you know in terms of global warming and all of that what's been done to mitigate. There is a conditions there about the microclimate in the environment to make sure it is a publicable and acceptable. Yeah in terms of the the micro climate that's particularly about the ground level wind conditions external to the buildings and that condition was because of the just kind of prevailing wind from the southwest is that the conditions along there for people sitting out needs to be mitigated and there's proposals for planters or screens but we don't have that detail yet so that's right into the the microclimate. In terms of internally the windows are recessed it'll be dressed through the glazing specification within the building so that would be addressed and you can see on the that that image the the recess the level of the recess of the of the windows in that central part of the building. There are also blinds proposal though that's as much to do with dealing with light from the buildings and back mitigation as internal conditions within the offices. Do you want to have a follow-up question or point to make? Yeah I was just looking at the building on the end of having worked in offices where it gets unbearably hot because there is no solution apart from putting blind and it seems to me a little bit I mean I see what you mean about the recesses on some of the buildings but but not on all of them I just slightly concerned for people who are working in those offices that don't get too hot. There'll be building regulations that will cover that hopefully as well. Councillor Hodge. I just want to thank you for the planning officer I do want to make the we've been told about this about design before and I want to make the point that the MPPF has been strengthened in terms of consideration of design and I think we're often told this objective you know there's a lot of hurdles put in front of us about design reasons and that I think there is a counter argument to be made as well. Thank you we've got a huge regeneration opportunity throughout the heart of the city there is still potential scope for affordable housing but you know I did agree with Councillor Crossley that you know we do need to be more firm about this and shouldn't get sort of blackmailed over you know the value of land if they pay too much for it yeah we should be say well tough you know you should still be complying with the conditions with the policies. Councillor Simon. Just briefly I agree with much of what the Chair said about the history of this area I think that this is a better articulated scheme it's got more variation than carp into house or south gate I have I think it's a reasonable design and I don't have design problems. My only question is to the officer should we be looking for further conditions to avoid proliferation post during the construction process of other things on the roof or the sides or do you think that the conditions are sufficient to control that? It would be possible to add a further condition in respect of additional plants to control any additional plants which it went on and the case of circuits come up in a suitable condition would you agree in which case in which case I move that we include that condition if we if we approve. So yet do Councillor Warren do you agree with that and Councillor Crossley? I honestly don't think we need I think there's enough conditions there to cover everything and I was just going to sum up at the end that I find the negativity that is difficult was you've got a tip in the middle of Bath which has been like it for I don't know how many years I'm 61 now to tell what I nearly forgot all of us and it just needs doing and you're building an office spot mainly so you're not building the Royal Crescent has to be built well it doesn't have to be built and we have some it wants wants to build it and but it has to add up if you put you can't build an office spot like a Georgian mansion because it just doesn't add up it will never get built and so I actually really I'm quite happy with it like it is I think the officers will obviously happy with it like it is they wouldn't recommend it for approval and I think we happy to recommend with the conditions that we have here. Okay so I'm Councillor Simon I think we're going to be going with the original recommendation there so I think we're ready to take a vote I mean the scheme has been with us for four five years it has evolved I would probably say it was a B maybe a name minus perhaps but let's take the vote then so we've got a proposal to support the officer's recommendation to approve seconded can we now raise our hands in for in favour and any against and we've got no abstentions there so that means the motion is in carried right what time we are now is twenty past twelve we have deferred items two and three for the reasons I explained earlier in fairness to people who are going to become related to speak we can't really discuss any more of the items until two o'clock so we've got a bit of an extended lunch time so we'll turn the meeting for now until two thanks let's just have a look yes we do actually do we have got a a speaker on item four yes he asked yesterday if he could speak you right okay well we'll stick with the agenda okay shall we adjourn for ten minutes and then come back and we'll discuss the performance appeals just make use of the time yeah you you [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [INAUDIBLE] Okay, we'll resume, just skip to items 11 and 12, the appeals report and the court will perform this report, and then after that, we'll adjourn and then until two o'clock we determine the other planning applications. So are there any questions or comments to make about the appeals reports? That's all, no. Have you got anything to say, Sarah, about the quarterly performance? Or should we just take it as noted? Councillor Jackson. I just wanted to ask with reference to page 149, enforcement investigations, is this the sum of what has come in in the last few months, and what about the historic appliqué enforcements? I mean, I sent a list of the ones which Richard started left behind, and I haven't heard back on whether the investigations are closed since he left or what or not, or are they cumulative these figures? What's happening? And if award Councillor makes a complaint about an enforcement issue, could we get some information, some feedback? Sorry, normally all of the enforcement complaints that come in, whether they be from Councillors, members of the public, are noted and put into the system by the enforcement team, and then officer allocated, and liaison in respect of that will take place. Usually, if it was a Councillor involved, the officer would contact you and have a discussion, but in this case, I'm not sure which scheme we are talking about or what development we're talking about, but I can ask the enforcement manager to contact you. I don't know about any Councillor Jackson about any particular enforcement complaints you've made. Well, as I said, I sent in a list, the unfortunate thing is where I'm rather stupid, I hadn't kept a proper reference, you know, each enforcement, you get a reply and a reference number, and because some of these had been outstanding for two or three years, I'd lost the reference points. I can certainly re-send. It may be best if it's been going back a couple of years to re-send it, because it may be the case that various people have left during that time, and to re-send it to the existing enforcement manager, possibly a team may be able to then come back to you independently. I mean, one of them wouldn't call him the offender because that's pre-judging matters. He has put in for a planning application, so that was the other thing I'd be very interested in. The number of places where we say, hey, you can't do that here, and then the applicant quite rightly puts in for a retrospective planning application, which I actually find quite useful because they've already built the thing, and you can see what it was going to look like. My other point is I had a complaint from a couple of residents that they hadn't known about a planning application because the notice had not been put on the highway. In other words, it had not been put on the nearest lamppost or anywhere where you might see it. Can we do something to try and make sure that planning, when an application comes in, the notice is appropriately displayed, where people are walking past. In terms of site notices, they aren't always required. The legislation doesn't always require them in every case. Sometimes they are required, but in other cases, they are just required to send out letters to adjoining neighbours, so it might be the case that there was no site notices erected because the legislation didn't require it, but where the legislation does require it, they are erected immediately outside the property in as close proximity as possible, so if there's any particular case where there are concerns, we can obviously look at that particular case, but the general position is that those notices are erected outside the property where they are needed. Thank you. Just for the purposes of the Councillor Hodge, we're just on item 11 and 12. Do you have any views or comments? No, I don't, so apologies. I wasn't listening properly and I went for lunch. That's fine, I'm sorry. Okay, we'll adjourn now until two o'clock. Thank you. Next meeting, so item 13, we will be having, I think we've agreed, we will have a site visit at Shockawick Farm, so that will take place on Tuesday the 28th of May. That's a Tuesday. Sorry, we had an email about a site visit from the side west as well as a briefing. That's right, I believe that's the case, yes. So we'll be both sides of town. The site visits, in this case, only relate to visits that are voted upon here within the committee. So these are committee site visits, or on that list, there may also be cases that the officers have put in as a pre-site visit. But there won't be site visits from other developments, so I'm not sure if the email that you're referring to is a different case, or whether that's come from. Well, it was an email from Samantha Mason saying that it was to be a briefing on Thursday next week, followed by a site visit on Tuesday next week. The Tuesday of 28, sorry. Okay, so that would mean that the case officer is proposing that a site visit takes place. Yes, so we'll be at Bath Riverside West, and at Jockowick. We can get that scheduled, yes. I guess it'll be confirmed in due calls by email for a result to be invited. Okay. Right, we will adjourn now, thank you. [ Pause ] Yeah, Planning Committee, this is the second part of the Planning Committee, I have to adjourn from this morning. My name's Councillor Ian Halsall, I'm the Vice Chair of the Committee, and I'll introduce my colleagues here on the top table, and then we'll go through the emergency evacuation procedure. I'm Karina Huskins from Democratic Services. So, James, the Deputy Head of Development Management. Hello, Simon, Eli, and the Council's legal team. Thank you. We've also got Planning Officer and Highway Officer, just in the corner there. Okay, could I ask Karina to read out the emergency evacuation procedure, please. Thank you. If the continuous alarm sounds, you must evacuate the building by one of the designated exits and proceed to the named Assembly Point. The designated exits are sign posted, and from this room you use the main door and then the main exit of the building. The Assembly Point is in orange grove on the green outside brands. Thank you. Thank you. Can I just ask everybody to make sure their electronic devices are all switched off? This meeting is being filmed, and I look terrible because I'm really hot. If anybody's going to speak and don't want to be filmed, if you could just let Ian in the corner know our operator, and he'll make sure that you're not shown on screen. The Committee will be shown on our website, and it's also available on YouTube. Okay, so we've covered all the other items from earlier, so we're going to go straight to the applications. So we've got item four, which is 23-0-4-1-9-0-reg-3, and it relates to a council planning application, or the council's company, Aqueous, and it relates to land to the rear of Danes Court in Danes Lane, Kingston. So I'll pass over to the officers who present the application. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. There's just a quick verbal update with this scheme. There was a written update, but I understand that that. [INAUDIBLE] Yes. Is that better? Yeah? Sorry. I understand the written update may not have been seen, so I'll just read out the update again now. The following paragraph should have been in the Character Appearance and Heritage section of the report, so I'll read it in full. There is a duty under section 66 of the Planning Listed Building and Conservation Areas Act when considering whether to grant planning permission for developments which affect a list of building or its setting. That the local planning authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest, which it possesses. Here it is considered that the proposals are consistent with the aims and requirements of the primary legislation and planning policy and guidance. The proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the setting of the nearby listed buildings, excuse me, and would preserve the significance of the designated heritage assets. The proposal accords with policy HE1 of the placemaking plan and part 16 of the MPPF. Right, so now on to the main presentation, as said, the application relates to land at the rear of Dane's Court and is for about 10 affordable units and associated works. The site is located within Cangeham behind the High Street, I don't think the mouse is showing up actually, so I'll just explain it. It's behind the High Street and off of Dane's Lane, it's opposite the Tesco Superstore, it's marked in red and with the red dot on the aerial imagery. Either side of the site is the old dairy and Dane's Court, which are both existing blocks of flats. Next up is the existing site plan. You can see the existing site in the top corner, which is currently undeveloped, and then the proposed site plan. The units will be split across two blocks of flats, block one is situated along the street edge and block two is set back into the site. A public footpath runs along the boundary, the units will be 100% affordable, split into six one bed flats in block one and floor four two bed flats within block two. It's anticipated that the tenure of all the units will come forward as social rent as set out in the submission. A condition has been attached to curing a affordable housing scheme be submitted prior to, sorry, I've lost my prior to commencement and the scheme shall detail the tenure. So next we have the floor plans for block one, ground floor plan, the entrance, sorry, my mouse is not working, how do I, is it this one? Is that why? No, I'll just carry on, it's fine. So the entrance is taken centrally, hopefully you can see there's a stairwell, and then either side is one bedroom flat. The cycle parking also at the ground floor. The first floor also has a similar layout, it's comprised of two flats each one bedroom. Then we're onto the second floor, again, same similar layout, two flats each one bedroom, and the roof plan showing the solar panels. Okay, so next are the floor plans for block two. Again, this is a three story unit altogether, although you can see on the second floor that the rear end of the site is two story. So there's a two bedroom flat ground floor with the stairwell and the car parking. At second floor, sorry, at first floor there's two two bedroom flats and on third floor one two bedroom flat. Then we're onto the elevations in the top corner, it's the front elevation of block one. You'll see from the photos shortly that the design follows similar cues from the flats either side, the old dairy and Danes court. Then we have the east elevation, which is the rear and then the two side elevations. And then we're onto block two elevations, this is the block that sits further back into the flat into the site. We've got the front elevation in the top corner, rear elevation where you can see the step down in height and again shown here on the side elevations. And then some context, we've got the street elevations shown along the top. So again, block one and block two shown here, the old dairy and Danes court shown either side so you can see the similar character cues that have been followed. Then some sections, this is through the width of the site and section through block one and then through the length of the site and the section through block two. And then some massing drawings, so we can see here this is block one, the old dairy and Danes court either side and then block two at the back so similar forms and massing. And again, just from a slightly different angle and you can see the buildings at the high street and how they step down at the rear and how block two has followed that step down at the rear. Sorry, just to say this is a 3D rendered image, the design has changed slightly in terms of detail since then, but it just gives you an idea of how that will sit within the context and the views of the church through the site sort of still maintained there. And then photos, so we've got in the top corner, I'm on Danes Lane here looking down towards the site. This is Danes court and then the old dairy and looking back in the opposite direction down Danes Lane and then views across the site, which you can see is currently undeveloped. So the application is recommended for permission for the reason set out in the officer's report. Thank you very much. I will just say the reason this application has come before planning communities because it's a bathroom of the Somerset Council application and obviously want to be as transparent as possible in the decision making process. So we have got some speakers, we have one speaker on this particular application, it's Chris Bither, who is the planning agent, is he here? Would you like to come and sit at the table? I understand Karina has already explained the speaker procedure, it's a three minute period of time you have to speak. Okay, so whenever you're ready. Yeah, can you hear me okay? Yeah, I'm Chris Bither, planning agent, and we're acting for aqueous councils housing company, although the application submitted in the name of Baines Council. The brief that we received for this project was to develop a scheme of high quality new build affordable housing on a vacant previously developed site, as you've seen from the site photos. The scheme has been informed by an initiative process of pre application engagement, in fact two pre application inquiries with Sam Mason of the local planning authority. And in addition, we undertook online community engagement process. As you've as has just been described, the scheme is seeking permission for 10 affordable flats arranged in two blocks. The design approach is contextual and seeks to reflect the transition between the traditional high streets through to the more modern part of the town, which includes the adjacent Tesco store, and indeed adjacent sort of more modern apartment blocks. So it's tried to sort of bridge the gap. The proposal has an element of off street parking and EV charging and a full provision of secure cycle and and bin storage. There's also a public right of way that runs adjacent to the site that will remain unaffected, but will benefit from enhanced levels of natural surveillance rising from the developments. The scheme has been designed in full compliance with the latest iteration of the council's sustainable construction checklist has high levels of insulation solar PV panels and source heat pumps. This will provide lower energy bills for future occupiers and will contribute towards the sort of affordability in use. The proposal has been informed by two noise surveys that have assessed the compatibility of the site with the adjacent bank public house and other nearby entertainment venues in the high street. A planning condition has now been agreed with the environmental protection team and we believe we can sort of design out any noise, noise issues. The proposal will introduce new green infrastructure that will exceed the 10% biodiversity net gain requirement and will be formed part of the hard and soft landscaping scheme. This will also contribute to general public realm enhancement. The proposed homes will contribute towards meeting the council's general housing plan supply, but more importantly will meet a clear and acute need for affordable housing in Keynesian itself. On the basis that this proposal is fully compliant with the development plan policies and there's been, you know, we urge you to recommend to endorse the officer's recommendation for permission to allow these much needed homes to come forward. Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Okay, I'll open up the committee to ask questions to the officers who got Sam and Dan moves highways. So is anybody who wants to ask a question, Councillor Johnson, Jackson? Well, in the slide on the screen, it says the application is recommended for permission for the reasons outlined in the officer's report. So we look at the officer's report page of 101 and it says, therefore, it is considered that this proposal complies with the relevant planning policies as outlined above and the proposal is recommended for approval. So we've established that this application is policy compliant, but is that the only reason why it should be permitted? I might have deduced a few more. So I think that you're referring to the conclusion section, which has just summarized the above, but basically each section of the report, it sets out why it's policy compliant and there's quite a number of sections. So basically, that's a very quick summary, it covers character and appearance, heritage, housing mix, housing accessibility, residential immunity, highways, drainage and flooding, landscape, trees, ecology and sustainable construction. And so for all those items are policy compliant, if that was your question. So with the greatest respect to the officer, it is policy compliant, that has been amply demonstrated. But might it not also be argued that this application would conserve and enhance a historic part of Cane Shum? And what I think is implied in the conditions is that it would do much to fulfil a housing need, particularly for people who are on the home search register. So there are additional positive reasons I would have thought might have been included. Yeah, I'm not sure if there's a question there, but I think I have covered that the heritage and benefits and all the enhancements of the site and the affordable housing contribution in the report. So I would agree with you. Okay, obviously when we determine applications, if we're approving or refusing, we have to give reasons. So it's quite valid that you've put forward those reasons for recommending approval, if that's the way the committee wishes to go. Is there anybody else who wants to ask any questions or the officers? Yes, okay. I saw Councillor Hodge's hand first. Thank you. It's really minor question that I didn't quite understand the wording of actually. In the tree replacement section, all existing trees would be removed. Only one is over the threshold for replacement planting to comply with section 3.6, a CPD. What does that mean? Only one is over there. So in order to trigger replacement tree planting, a tree has to be of a certain size and maturity. That's based on usually the width of the trunk. So that one's the only one that's grown to a level that would be triggered to be replaced by the SPD. I checked, obviously there's a soft landscaping condition and it doesn't use the word trees in the soft landscaping condition, but is that just taken as red? Yeah, it would be covered in that. There's also a condition covering the arbucultural condition. Let me just double check. I looked for trees specifically and couldn't find it, but I might have missed it. There's not a condition included on the arb report. Obviously an arb report was submitted, but we could add a condition if needed to just to tighten that up. Okay. Yeah, that would be great. Thank you. Councilor Galley. Yeah, a couple of questions. I think this is great. I think this is a really good use of the space and I'm really delighted this has come forward. I've got a couple of questions. What's actually behind the block? Is it the pub garden? I mean, there seems to be a space and I'm just wondering what's there? So, you might be able to see on the aerial imagery, so this sort of bit of the site, as you can see, sort of on the red line plan here, you can see there's sort of an ad hoc kind of parking, which isn't currently accessible at the moment, so it's just kind of like hard standing and then behind, yeah, there's the, it's like a beer garden for the old bank, and then it's sort of these, I don't know, sort of rear extensions of the high street buildings, really, the sort of, I don't know if you might go to see a bit clearer in there. Yeah, so just here, this is the fencing, behind that is the pub's beer garden. So, the hard standing that you can see in front of that is basically where the buildings will be. Yeah, in part, that will be where block two is, yeah, and then we've got the car parking. Yeah, and there's a blank wall facing onto that. A blank wall onto what is the pub garden, because I know there's been issues. There's, yeah, block one has a blank rear elevation, but block two does at the second, at the ground floor and first floor, it does have these windows which serve these two units here, this one and this one. And again, really minor domestic question, but do all of the flats have balconies so people can open up, hang washing out, that's good stuff. Yeah, there are balconies on the side elevations for block two, as well as the front here you can see. So that's for those units, obviously the ground floor doesn't have a balcony, but they can access onto the community space. And then block one, they don't have balconies, but they do have, let me show you the elevations, they have sort of like these Juliet windows, right? Thank you. Okay, thank you. Councillor McPhee, did you want to ask a question? This isn't your time. It was really the question on the trees that it wasn't clear, but if you're taking it, you will do a condition. Yeah, my advice would be to, if you were moving a positive recommendation to add an agricultural condition. Right, that was all. Can I just ask, I noticed from the report, there's quite a significant number of objections, you seem to be relating to issues of noise and amenity. I've been addressed as it. Yes, the objections related to the noise coming from the pub that we just sort of saw the beer garden of, and adjacent, there's the old bank, and then there's the Conservative club, both which have outdoor space. So, yeah, there was some objections raised to the noise there. Following that, a second noise assessment report was submitted, and the environmental protection team were consulted and were satisfied with the mitigation measures, which were put forward, which include things like acoustic glass being used, and a condition has been attached or recommended to ensure that the British standards are met, and that includes the specified levels that the environmental protection team have set. Okay, thank you for that, Sam. Anybody else got any more questions, Councillor Jackson? I'm just a bit worried about this level of noise and amenity, and the loss of amenity as it were. What would happen if the residents of this new block were to find the proximity of the pub and the noise it generated intolerable, would that threaten, say, live music performances, or the operation of said pub? Well, in the future, they would have to raise that with the environmental protection team. There is that route, so that's something that is there to sort of control that process, but, as I said, it's been assessed that it's acceptable levels now. Anyone moving into the block would, I presume, do some due diligence of assessing the area themselves and may be aware that there is a pub there, so that might factor in, but, again, that's just all hypotheticals. Really, the scheme for us has been found acceptable in terms of noise standards from the environmental protection team, so. Okay, thank you. If there's no more questions, I'd like to open up for discussion. Councillor Hodge. Yes, thank you. Thank you, so I feel very positive about this application, and I would like to move that we accept the officer's recommendation. Would you like that to be with the other condition as well? With the condition. Would that be delegated to permit, or can you, with a condition with one replacement tree? Is that, yeah, yes. That would be delegated to permit with... Has anybody got any views on it? Want to express any points? As I'm close to the thing, I thought I'd just make a couple of comments. Now, first of all, there are a number of benefits. We're using aqueous, which is owned by the Council, so any profits that we make will come into the Council. It's all affordable, as you've said, there's a need in banes. It's not just Keynesian need in banes. The objections were nearly all to do with the noise. And just to make the point that environment protection have looked at British standards, they've been quite strict about it, but they've even gone on. They've done a test and say that they can do that, but they've gone on to say that when it's built, they will do the test again and prove that it is within the standard. So I don't think they can do much more than that. I particularly like the fact that there were two pre-aps, and I think we should perhaps encourage other people to do that, because it means it's in good shape when it comes to us. The only other thing to mention is the renewable energy, and it's a small thing, really, but if you take the two roofs, then it works. But you need to take the two roofs. One of the roofs generates enough electricity, and the other one doesn't. But if you put them together, it works well. So I'm happy to second the motion. Okay. So we have the motion put forward to support the officer's recommendation. By Councillor Harder seconded by Councillor Fade. Does anybody else want to say anything about their proposal? Also before us. If no one does, we'll take a vote in that case. So all those in favour of recommending approval? Okay. That's an unanimous one, I think. The one again. It's an awkward site, and it's great that we can see 100% the forward will deliver at the heart of Cane Shuntown Centre. The design of the building seems to fit in quite well with the context, and it's very clear that the noise concerns have been overcome. So yeah, that's been granted. Okay. Are we happy to move on to the next item, or would you want to take a five-minute break? Are we okay to carry on? Okay. So the next application is 23-0-4-3-8-0. It is for One Bath Road in Pies Don't St. John. I'll hand over to the officer. She's got herself settled. [ Inaudible Remark ] You ready? Yeah. Thank you, Chair. So this is item number five, which is a proposal to change the use of the lands of residential cross-slage and erection of a three-bed dwelling, which would be adjoined to One Bath Road. The site is in Pies Don, which is cited within the house environment by injury. I do have a verbal update to give. So some information was received this week from third parties, and this includes a petition from local residents, which has 11 signatures to state that the occupiers of One Bath Road do not have access rights over the side lane, and to state that the width of the lane has gotten smaller over time with the garden of One Bath Road being enlarged. Plans and maps of original deeds have also been submitted to show the historic lane arrangement. The issues regarding land ownership and site and the side lane access are addressed in the officer report. The information provided does not affect the recommendation made. So this is the site outlined in red. The red outline indicates the development extent. So you can see that One Bath Road there are joining, to form an assembly detached pair. And then on the right we just have a slightly more detailed existing site plan. So One Bath Road runs along the north of the site, and then we have the side access lane Bellevue close, which runs along the eastern side. So here are some existing elevations. This is just of One Bath Road, just to show what the proposed dwelling will be adjoined to. Now we have a proposed site plan. So on the right you will see the additional dwelling. My coaster isn't working. So it does infill that corner plot, creating a set of three dwellings in a terrace. So the proposed dwelling would be an end of terrace property. The garden space would be split with a garage at the bottom of the site with two parking spaces accessed off of the side lane. You'll note at the bottom, very bottom of the site there is a badger set. That is a live set. These proposals don't impact that set. It is to remain undisturbed. We've got some planting along that eastern boundary with a hedge row and some kind of soft landscaping throughout as well. Some proposed elevations. So you'll see that it's kind of a mirror image really of One Bath Road. Match of materials are proposed just to kind of replicate that terrace form. Just some proposed floor pans to show the three-bed unit. Moving on to some site photos. So the very left image is looking towards the site. You'll see a storage container behind that is One Bath Road where the trees are located is the location of the proposed dwelling. The middle image is looking to the side of One Bath Road and that is the location of the new dwelling. That fencing would be the boundary line. And then on the rightmost image we are, we've got the other view towards One Bath Road. And then on the left we're still on Bath Road. One Bath Road would just be cut off on the right next to that storage container. And then on the left we're further east looking towards the site. So this is the gap between One Bath Road and the properties to the east, looking towards the side lane. So the large tree is within the ownership of One Bath Road and then the access lane runs down just adjacent. And then on the right is that side access lane as well. So on the left here we have what does currently show the existing pavement width. So to know works have commenced on site. But what that does show is what would be created by this proposal, which is an increased pavement width, which would be 2.5 metres. And then just the side of One Bath Road there as well. And some very similar images too. And now we're just looking towards Bath Road from the south. You can see the side there where the dwelling would be located and then where the fan is, that is the garden space at the moment. Should be noted that historically this site has been subject to a lot of storage of materials and rubbish. And then we moved down the lane. So I didn't realise quite how many photos I had down the lane. So this is the existing garage which would be demolished. And just on the image on the right, the vegetation and material, that is where that live badger set is. It is understood that the badgers are using the material as opposed to the underground network. Officer recommendation is to permit. Happy to take questions. Thank you very much. Okay, we have two people speaking on this application. We've got Councillor Howard Hartley from Peasdown Parish Council and be followed by Delith Morris who's raising an objection. So hello. So you've got three minutes if you'd like to start whenever. Thank you Chair and thank you team for allowing us to address you today. My name is Howard Hartley, parish councillor at Peasdown St John. We have a number of objections raised in the application. However, I wanted to note that both the parish council and the local residents are delighted this development is taking place. Because as you said earlier on, before this, it was really a rubbish site and a course for many complaints. So the proposed development incorporates land that's actually not owned by the applicant. The previous owner encroached on what was a grass verge with a public bench on it. And the proposal is that that space should be used for car parking spaces outside. The boundary line of the property is also in dispute. The residents believe that in some places the contract would need to move the fence line back up to three metres. And the side road that leads up to the residents' accommodations. This also, the previous owner had encroached on that and it now makes it impossible for emergency vehicles to access the houses on the private road. It would also, the pavement would also need to be lowered. So that would, to be dropped to allow exit from the house to bath road. So we feel that Bain's highways need to be involved in this and need to give permissions. And there's also some concerns regarding the proposed parking areas because the new owners would not have access to the present road leading on to bath road. So they would need to have some provision to make that way out of their own property on to bath road. And those are the main objections that we have. Okay, thank you. You're really good to stick to time there. Two minutes. We have Delif Morris. Would you like to call forward? Are you a neighbour of the site or are you living the village? Are you a neighbour? Yes, I live down the lane. Okay, thank you. Delif Morris, objector. Objection to this planning application is on the grounds of location overcrowding right of way and maintaining the integrity of the public realm. I have eight points to bring to your attention. Points one to serve and relate to location and right of way. Point eight to do with the core plan. A brief introduction first. The proposed location will intrude on private land. The lane owners have not been consulted or agreed to these changes. An additional new build squeezed between the original house and the road junction represents in our opinion overcrowding likely to have an adverse impact on traffic movement and safety. Access to garages relies on a legitimate right of way and turning room for vehicles considering traffic movement on the lane is estimated to be between 120 and 150. Daily. The points that I refer to point one right of way. There is no legal right of way by one bath road to the private lane to anyone's knowledge and nothing has been gleaned from searches through the land registry. Number two, former owners of one bath road believe that they owned the adopted highway on bath road, Bellevue close and the private lane and expanded their fly tipping activities into these areas. They subsequently created a hole in the boundary fence between them and the private lane some years ago that was later filled with mock gates to claim access rights. This resulted in changing the structure of the lane whereas it used to be a straight lane. It now bulges out on the south end due to the encroachment. Point three, accessory title. An application by the applicant's solicitor was cancelled by the land registry as it failed to prove ownership of the expanded boundary. Number four, sworn statutory declarations by myself and Mr. Mike Tucker of Orchard Lee, who also lives down the lane, represents the correct history of the lane. I submitted the statutory declarations to the planning officer. And there is also signed petition which I submitted signed by all the residents of the lane declaring that the former owners never used the lane for vehicles but did enter the lane with the purpose of ad hoc fly tipping. Number five, land survey reports, these have been submitted to the council and the applicant showing the true boundary of the lane with the rear guard and the one bath road. Number six, legal easement and utilities easement, lane residents have prescriptive easement. We've just got over three minutes. You raised a lot of civil questions which we'll get behind. You did say you had one question or one point about the core policy. Yes, yes, that's right. So can I just finish this point? Also, Stone Lee, which is a property situated at the entry to the lane adjacent to one bath road, stated to us, and I quote, If we were to bring our boundary to the side of our property to the correct line, it is probably unlikely that the houses along the lane would be able to gain access by vehicles at all. So moving to the Baines core plan, policy D4 streets and spaces, D6 amenity, D9 public realm, we believe this proposed development is at odds with vision, strategic objectives and key principles of the core plan. In maintaining public spaces for the benefit of the community, through plans to change its use into private ownership. Thank you. Thank you. You did raise a lot of that. I was happy to go over time a little bit. Right. Thank you to the speakers. So this seems to be quite of a lot of issues that have been raised, it seems to be related to land ownership and also highways and access. So I think it would be useful if we could ask questions of both Janie and Dan. Councillor Jackson. Thank you, Chair. I wondered if I could ask the highways officer about the access to this garage area, because I haven't quite grasped how cars would turn, assuming that under current regs, they would not be allowed to reverse back up the lane onto the main road. As a principal, yes, we would want to deter reversing long distances back onto a main road, absolutely. And I think, as shown on the drawing there, there is sufficient width across the private lane for vehicles to do a turning manoeuvre at the proposed parking places. So I don't think we'd have a big concern about the risk of motorists choosing to reverse the long distance down the lane. Okay, thank you. Any follow-up question there? Well, I'm not a driver, but I do think this is a challenging access. Okay, anybody else got any questions? Councillor Crossley. I haven't got a question. I haven't got a question, but before you go to debate, I would like to move a site visit, which is very rarely do, but so just as if you've got that in your mind. That's noted, okay. Councillor Warren. Yeah, thank you. So it's the kind of elephant in the room. It's the ownership. Do we have any proof of ownership of who owns what and where we can go, where we can't go? So we've got two separate highways, ownership issues. I'll start with that side access lane. So that is a private lane. I have had, I've received contradicting statements, one from a solicitor's letter from the applicants to say that the owners of One Bath Road do have access rights, but also, of course, the third party comments to say that the owners do not have access rights. That is a private lane, and any dispute over land ownership is a separate, civil matter, separate from the planning process. So there's only a limited amount that we can assess and we can get involved in. Obviously, those parking spaces are reliant on the owners of One Bath Road and the new dwelling having access rights. So in the event that any civil disputes result in owners not having access, we have taken a caution-based approach and have assessed that if those parking spaces cannot be delivered, that would not result in refusal of the application based on the sustainable location of the dwelling. So anything beyond that with regards to land ownership is a separate civil matter. Moving to the front of the site, the front is in highways ownership partly. So that includes the pavement. There is a dash line, a faded dash gray line, which shows a grass verge and historically a, or previously, a vegetated area that is within highways ownership. Separate to this application, the applicants would need to apply for a stopping up order, which would transfer ownership into the, into One Bath Road and the new dwelling's ownership. That is a separate process. But highways are content that the increased width of the pavement would allow them to grant that stopping up order. Thank you. Councillor Simon. Thank you. Thank you. I know that there's a garage further down the plot. It looks from the pictures as though that garage is of some antiquity, certainly more than 20 years old, does, having been on site, does it look over 20 years old to you? The point being that if it's over 20 years old, there was probably a right by prescription to access the lane to park. So we can't really comment on rights of access issues because that is a separate, separate civil matter. That garage is very old. I imagine it is in a state of disrepair. But like I say, we can't comment on rights of access. Councillor Gourley then, Councillor Hughes. Yeah. Is there on street parking on Bath Road? So I believe Bath Road has got double yellows in neighbouring, kind of, cul-de-sacs. I don't think it's restricted. I may pass over to you. Danny's got that right. There are double yellow line waiting restrictions on the corner of Bath Road and Bellevue close. There isn't particularly much parking activity on Bath Road necessarily within, because of the restrictions, but there is parking availability on Bath Road close itself. So that's where it would occur. Do you want to follow up? Are you OK? OK. Councillor Hughes, then Councillor Jackson. Thank you. I'm just trying to understand the layout for the garage. I can find various designs on the portal. I can see a free door garage. I can find a two-door garage. I can find one with the cycle stories all on the side. So I can find quite a few different revisions of this garage on the portal. What's the actual design going to be and how far is it from the Badger set? I have realised that I've forgotten to put the post-garage equations in this site plan. I will probably be able to find them. It is a double garage. You can see it on the site plan. There's a cycle store which kind of comes out that north elevation. That's the timber cloud cycle store, bin store. It is not going to disrupt the Badger set, which is to the very end, southern end of the site. Sorry, would you say it's not going to disrupt the Badger sets? Why are we saying they need a Badger mitigation licence? That mitigation licence. At the moment, we are confident that the proposals are unlikely to cause harm. However, the actual removal of the rubbish, which is on-site, that may cause some harm, which is why a Badger licence is required from Natural England, is a separate process under separate legislation. We are requiring that as a condition, pre-commencement to any of that work to the south end of the site, as well as a mitigation and enhancement scheme, and that will kind of over well negate any potential harm. Can I? OK, and what form does the Badger mitigation licence take? Are we talking about removal of the Badgers or protection of the Badgers? What are we planning to do with this licence? So there's no proposals to disrupt the Badger set. It is purely, so the Badger set would be retained. We're not planning on moving the Badgers anywhere. Initially, as proposed, that was the proposal, but that has changed. So the Badger set would be understood, but because there is so much rubbish around that Badger set, at the southern end of the site, and we cannot at the moment determine what the extent of the Badger set is to further work to kind of assess with ecological supervision. That's why we're taking this precautionary approach to ensure that there is no harm because we don't understand the extent of the set. OK, seems a cut for the horse, really, but thank you. OK, Councillor Jackson, please. Well, I was going to ask a similar question in relation to the Badgers that I would have thought there would be a kind of statutory perimeter that you had to have or distance that you had to have. And I would also point out that if this is a Badger set with a family in it, this is the time of year when they kick the teenagers out before the next litter arrives. And so if they get disturbed, you know, there could be quite a degree of chaos down there. I still can't see how you can turn a car without encroaching on that lane, but perhaps somebody can explain that to me. And the other point is I know the site extremely well because the bus keeps getting jammed up in front of it. The Bath Road is very narrow, and obviously people with a Blue Badger entitled to a park on the double yellows, people without a Blue Badger frequently do. So it's quite congested area, but of course, I wouldn't think that was a grounds for refusing this. It's a narrow congested road through P.S. down St. John. But I do wonder, seriously, if it's so difficult to get the cars in and out of that garage, if they won't be parked somewhere else. OK, that wasn't a question. I think you're sort of getting into a remit of making a view there, but we'll carry on with questions. Don't cancel the goal, you've got another one to make. Yes, sorry, just a clarification. So if you look at 1B, the new extension, not quite the very bottom, but the right-hand corner, it looks like it's right against the boundary edge. Does that mean there's no way of getting around from the front garden to the back garden? You have to go through the house. Because considering there have been issues about ownership of the land, the lane, is there going to be an issue with it being quite so close to the boundary? So officers consider that the distance between the boundary and the new house is not going to cause harm to the character and appearance of the site, with regards to access to the garden that would be through the house, which is quite standard for terrorist properties. OK, thank you. I just want to be clear, we've had a number of comments from the Paris Council and from Maurice that there seems to be a lot of land ownership issues, and then that's not a planning consideration. It wouldn't preclude, if the committee was minded to grant permission, it wouldn't preclude third parties from preventing development from being implemented, if there were legal reasons not to allow that to happen. Yeah, that's correct. So any land ownership agreements, disagreements would be a separate matter, a civil matter for owners and neighbours to dispute following grant of consent. And were, yeah, a better one back to ask actually. Just to sort of conclude on that really to say that we have assessed it on the basis that if, for some reason, those land ownership issues result in the occupy being unable to access the garages or be able to deliver the highway works, it's still, in our view, results in an acceptable development. So without those works taking place, the development would still be acceptable and we wouldn't be recommending it for refusal. So it's not necessary to complete an entire permission, if granted, but the works that are definitely able to be complete would be sufficient for us to be recommending approval. Okay, Dan, did you want to make a point? Yeah, just for clarification on the highway authority point of view. It reflects what Danny said at the very beginning. There are two separate issues here. There are one issue relating to the private lane running alongside the property. The highway authority does not have any comment on that because it's an issue between third parties. The other issue relates to the frontage on Bath Road, where there has been some dispute for a number of years about the extent of the adopted highway across the frontage. This application from a highway authority point of view gives us the time to rationalise the area of highway on the frontage, widen the footway, make sure the services are within the highway itself, but that would require a separate process after any planning permission was granted. And at that stage, the Secretary of State would consult the highway authority or it would go to manage rates court, one of the two options. So the highway authority would have a chance then to discuss and agree the detail at that stage. There are two separate issues. I just wanted to clarify that. So that would lead to public betterment if the highway authority could take control of that area? That's our consideration at the moment, that it's actually improvement given the way, an additional footway, with on that corner, yes. Councillor Jackson's question about the turning. Obviously, if the third parties didn't allow access down that lane, as Sarah has already said, it wouldn't change the recommendation. It would still be fine without parking spaces. At one point, Councillor Jackson raised the issue that the lane would have to be used for the turning, just to clarify. So the turning would have to be undertaken on the private lane, however, as you've just stated, if there was an issue between third parties and that couldn't be used, then it wouldn't change our recommendation of the highway authority. Okay, thank you. So any more questions? Councillor Jackson. So it wouldn't be appropriate to have a sort of grampian condition that the consent was conditional on an agreement between the parties in dispute over the lane. Officers have not recommended a condition as such because the development would be acceptable without the parking spaces. Okay, there's no more questions. If you'd maybe want to start having a discussion about the proposal. We've not really touched on the actual dwelling itself, the design of it, the immunity implications of that. So that might be something that we can maybe touch on. Even though we've had quite a lot of comments raised about the access lane, they're not material planning considerations. I don't think if we were minded to refuse the application, we could refuse it on those grounds. What we would be having to refuse it on, of course, what our local policies say. And that is going to be based upon issues such as design, immunity, whether the scheme is actually acceptable within the context of the surrounding area. So does anybody want to stop the comments? Councillor Jackson. Oh, sorry. Okay. That's a very fair point. With works already been started, we've seen quite a lot of photographs. Is there a feeling in the room that a site would be helpful? Or do you feel that we could make a decision here and now? I feel we've got enough to proceed to the decision. Okay, so, Councillor Cross's last for a site visit. Would anyone want to second that? Councillor Pews, you would. Yeah, I think there's a lot of confusion on this. And I think boots on the ground would certainly enable us to make a more informed decision. Okay. So, Councillor Hodge, do you want to add something? Okay. Okay. So, we'll take a vote as to whether we defer for a site visit and then bring this application back to June Committee. So, all those in favour of a site visit? All those against? Okay. So, we feel that we can make the decision today and we have enough information to do that. So, does anybody want to, Councillor Jackson, you want to speak? This is just a comment. As I said, I know the site very well because the bus keeps getting held up outside it. And this is why I'm not so worried about this issue of the garage because there is a frequent bus service going past two most places in Somerset. But what I really wanted to say was the whole concept of extending this and making it a terrace instead of two semi-detached fits perfectly within P's down. It will fit the grain of the development along this. This is basically an Anglo-Saxon ribbon development with the Victorian houses added now. And I think it will work. If I didn't have this issue about the garage, I wouldn't be worried. I would be proposing to accept the officer's recommendation. I'm in agreement in terms of the actual design of the house that will fit in extremely well. To allay the concerns that have been raised, ultimately you and your lawyers have got the control. If we were minded to grab from the Planning Commission, we can't force that to happen. It's down to third parties like yourselves. So, does anybody else want to speak on this application? Councillor Simon, then Councillor Crossley. Yes, I think that we've commented on the design of the housing that's okay. We've had assurance that even if parking cannot be provided and I'm confident the legal issues could probably be dealt with. But that's not relevant. If it isn't provided, it's still acceptable. The parish councillor said that this site's a mess and needs tidying up and this proposal is a way to get that done. It will involve removal of the rubbish and creation of a nature area which will be the badger set. And it seems to me to be acceptable in planning terms, so I move the officers' recommendation. Okay, you've moved it. Thank you. Councillor Crossley. Do you want to say anything else before we get a seconder? I'm having some difficulty really visualising the spacing in this, particularly the garage and the garden division. And it seems to me that what we're doing is trying to squeeze a gallon into a pint pot and so I think that this should be refused. So, if the motion to permit is lost, I will move a motion to refuse with grants. Okay, thank you. Do we have a seconder for Councillor Simon? Councillor Jackson. I'm happy to second because on balance, I think you're gaining another house. But more importantly, the improvements that highways are proposing at the front of the dwelling will make a very considerable difference. There is a material advantage to having this happen and as clearing the site, I don't think is a planning consideration. It would be good, but given the front half of the site, I think it would be so much better. I'm quite happy to second. Okay, thank you. The gain outweighs the problems. Okay, before we take a vote, anybody else want to comment? Councillor McPhee? Councillor Hughes. Would you like to go first? Okay, you go first, then. Thank you. I shan't be supporting this. I mean, if the application was purely for the house at the front, I don't think there are too many issues. I'm certainly not happy with this. Oh, well, it's better than the fly tipping that we're seeing at the moment. That's no reason to be accepting an application. I have concerns about this access. I have concerns about the garage. I have concerns about the effects on the sets. Regardless of whether it's compliance with or without the garages, the garages are there, so we have to consider them. And I've got too many concerns with that aspect of the design to support it, so I won't be supporting this. Okay, Councillor McPhee? I will be supporting it. It seems to me it's good for highways. The house is going to be a benefit. And the other things are going to take care of themselves. We need to think about that particular area, and it does seem to sort it out. Right, mindful that Councillor Crossley would like to put forward a motion if the one that's been put forward by Councillor Syme and seconded by Councillor Johnson fails. We'll need to get a seconder for that and think about the reasons for refusal. So just have a quick think about that if this vote goes down. So the officer recommendation is to permit. We've had it first and seconded, and all those in favour. All those against? Okay, so that's carried. Yes, that's carried, so the mission is being granted. Are we happy to carry on with the final application? Yep. Okay, great stuff. So the final application of the day is 24, 0, 0, 1, 6, 3, 4. It's 19 Alexandra Road in Lincoln. Over to the officer. Thank you, Chair. So the application today is 19 Alexandra Road. It's for the direction of a rare side return in for the extension and loft conversion, including the addition of external render insulation to the rare elevation. Here you can see the site location plan with the site indicated in red, and then an overview of the site as well. So you can see behind the site is Alexandra Park, and just north of that image would be the river and the train station. Here is the site itself. So the property is a two-story mid-terrorist dwelling. You've got the front and rear elevations there on the left. You've also got elevation showing the site and the property within its terrace, and a photo at the bottom just showing the topography of the gardens to the rare as well. In terms of floor plans, we're existing and proposed here. So the proposed extension will provide an increase to the kitchen and steps up to a new level terrace at the back. And then a new bedroom and bathroom within the loft conversion. Existing and proposed front elevation. So the only difference here is the additional roof lights to the front roof slope. And to the rare, we have the two-story rare extension, the alterations to the roof of the outrigger and the dormer extension. There's also changes proposed to improve the energy performance of the building, which is render insulation to the rare elevation. New windows, solar panels to the outrigger, and then internal insulation to the roof as well. Here we've got the sections through the site, which just shows the changes to the ground levels of the garden, just to make it more usable in certain areas. And then this is a view of the street. So I appreciate we haven't done a site visit for this. So I've always good to share what the street looks like and what's there already. So the property is indicated by the red arrow. And then this is taken from the north, and then this indicates the existing dormer extensions, which are built within the street already. And then again, from the south, with the property indicated by the red arrow, and this is just circling the existing dormers and roof extensions in the street already. And then the officer's recommendation is refused for the reason outlined within the officer's report. Okay, thank you. Right, so it's a recommendation for refusal. We have an objector. We have someone who's supporting an application and also a local war member, Councillor Deborah Collins, would like to speak. So first of all, could we have a focus on McCormack come to the table? Afternoon, hi. Okay, if you want to put the microphone on, we'll give you three minutes. Thank you. Our statement is an objection to the size, shape and massing of the top story. I submitted a written objection of the number of pages, and I stand by those comments. The reasons for objection are the same as those of the Council, and I make some other specific points. Firstly, primarily the proposed design is overscaled, and I return to that point at the end. Secondly, in the planning submission in the documents, the architects presented selected, curtailed views, photos of the rear elevation of the terrace, therefore failing to show the overall composition of the terraced dwellings. The choice of splitting the elevation of the terraced dwellings into two photos failed to allow full reading of the actual current sympathetic massings and current consistency in uniformity, particularly the horizontal eaves levels of the rear elevations of the dwellings. The existing properties do show uniformity. They all retain pitched roofs to the main roof, and they all have eaves raised to the same height above the second story. This consistency of the existing eaves line creates the current lack of existing visual dominance of any one dwelling, which would be compromised with the proposals of number 19, which would create visual dominance. Thirdly, there is precedent by the Council, a pre-app of rejecting a smaller dorm or roof volume, and that rejection has helped to maintain the harmony of the current terraced. The Council precedent shows good reason to reject this larger overscaled proposal for number 19. Fourthly, the document says that the agent suggests that reducing the dormer would not enable it to follow the passive house design principles. Officer state, the officer state that only very limited weight in consideration can be given to this argument to justify the dormer extension, particularly as the measures are not dependent on the dormer being constructed. I would actually go a little further that a claim that the passive design can only be enabled with this submitted design is incorrect. I speak as a fellow of two engineering institutions. Certainly, I support measures recognizing the climate emergency. Certainly, I'm sure all of us do. But such support is not relevant to consideration of the need to reject the design proposal because of the inappropriate massing. Energy measures can be applied to an extension without the need for such overscaled massing. In summary, the design proposal is overscaled. It's not a contextual design to the existing composition. The proposal of Third Story and Flat Roof is an inappropriate composition to and disrespectful to the form and massing of the existing row of terrorist dwellings, existing raised e-slides and existing pitch roofs. The design proposal is unsympathetic to the existing dwellings and would create visual dominance. Thank you very much. Okay. Can we have James Kuzik, who is the agent, supported the application? Hi there. Okay, when you're ready? Thank you. Committee Chair. Thank you for allowing us to address you this afternoon. The application before you has two principal policy considerations, the first of which concerns heritage matters. Number 19 is not a listed building, but it is within the Bath Citywide Conservation Area that washes across the whole of Bath. The MPPF states, not all elements of a conservation area contribute to significance. Whilst the front of Alexandra Terrace does, sorry, Alexandra Charaud, and this Terrace does, the rear elevation does not. It also can't be seen from the public realm. As per the listed Building Conservation Areas Act, we propose to enhance the rear elevation by referencing those buildings that are locally positive. We create what appears as a two-story building at the rear. There is clearly no harm caused to the conservation area or the World Heritage Site because we make use of those design principles for which these areas are designated and Bath is internationally renowned. The second policy consideration is that of energy efficiency. The meaningful, meaningful retrofit of dwellings in Bath can be problematic. The status quo by repeating past designs with dorm windows, this or thing, does not lead to truly energy saving design. Whether it be passive house, n-a-fit, letty, ACB, any measure of sustainable building design has, at their core, good, insulative performance, lack of thermal bridges, simplified building form, and increased air tightness through simplified construction. At number 19, we are mindful of the need for the rear elevation to counterbalance the thermal deficiencies of the front elevation where we must use relatively low performance internal insulation. This is to protect the existing front façade. If replicating past designs, we would become unstuck because increased insulation below the rafters would disproportionately decrease floor area. This is a geometrical factor of low-pitched neighboring roofs. Thermal bridging would increase in length by about two and a half times versus our proposal. In our design, we propose a simple form where thermal bridging and air tightness can be better controlled. We've calculated that the heat loss from our proposed schemes loft is under half of that from a dorm style design and that there would be roughly 100 kilograms of CO2 saved each year from designing out thermal bridges at loft level and maintaining the simple form. Imagine if we could achieve this across Bath. The design and buildings and extensions, not just the basic thermal performance of als and roofs as required by the building regulations is incredibly important, yet our building regulations do not address thermal bridging with the alteration of existing dwellings. This scheme does. By supporting this design, the committee will show that they sport meaningful retrofit that is of Bath. Although this application represents only one of 65,000 retrofits that is local authority would like to see before 2030, retrofits are still so few and younger. Yet the planning policy has been in existence for some time. We see a step change in decision-taking is required. With the sport of four out of five neighbouring households who have submitted their views to the planning department, we aim to positively meet these aspirations of the local plan. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Thank you for that. Yes, right. Councillor Collins, as board member, you get five minutes to address the committee. Thank you very much. Right. Okay. I'm making this submission on behalf of both board Councillors who support this application. In our view, the decision before you is essentially a judgement on where the balance should be struck between potential harm to visual immunity in a conservation area and the benefit of a loft conversion design which minimizes heat loss. The planning officer considers that the harm outweighs the benefit. We disagree. We consider the benefit outweighs the harm. The one issue that this is not about is simply the size of the extension. Although the report refers in the section on energy efficiency to the extension being excessively large, it also concludes that the extension sits within the existing roof and does not extend beyond the existing rear elevation so that there is no harm to neighbor immunity. And that the design scale massing and siting create no significant harm to neighbor immunity and that the extension accords with policy D6. The harm that the planning officer identifies instead relates to the impact of this particular design on the visual immunity of the conservation area. We consider that not enough weight has been given to the improvements in energy efficiency that flow from this design. Energy efficiency wasn't even listed as a key planning consideration within the original reference to the chair, instead being covered under other matters at the end. It is, however, a material consideration for this committee. As a matter of process, while more information on energy efficiency has now been added to the officer's report for the committee, that information was not included in the original reference. I'm not sure whether this is fair to the applicant, no doubt. The committee will want to see reassurance on this point. On the substance, in the recent local plan partial update, the council set out three key priorities to respond to the climate emergency, the first of which was the energy efficient improvement of the majority of existing buildings. The recent energy efficiency retrofitting and sustainable construction SPD states that the council will seek to encourage and enable the sensitive retrofitting of energy efficiency measures and the appropriate use of micro renewables in historic buildings and conservation areas. That same SPD reminds us that around 41% of the district's carbon emissions come from domestic properties and that the council has the goal of achieving 65,000 retrofits in Baines by 2030. In these circumstances, we consider that significant weight should be given to the energy improvements proposed. The applicants architects have set out the technical reasons why not only the fabric, but also crucially the form of the extension provide the greatest energy efficiency compared with the more uniform style. The planning officer argues that the energy efficiency could be improved without a large extension, but her own conclusion is that the extension size is not contrary to policy D6, so it is the design that's the problem. And as the architect has demonstrated, adopting the preferred design of the planners would make it less thermally efficient. The SPD that I've mentioned encourages principles of sustainable construction, which this application meets and the change one would not. In contrast, there's been a significant overestimation of the possible harm to visual immunity. The officer recognizes that there is no impact on the front of the terrace and that the back of the terrace is only visible from neighbouring gardens. She points out this would also be visible from Google Earth or a hot air balloon, but the photos taken by the applicants and the photos shown to the committee show there is considerable variation in the terrace itself between the houses and an even wider variation from the aerial view that the officer refers to. The design of this extension also reflects nearby Georgian designs. In summary, we consider there is very little uniformity in the rear of the properties along Alexander Road, especially when one considers the only wider aerial view that would be visible to the public. We believe the extension is attractive and well designed and that it will enhance rather than to track from the area. We note that four neighbors agree, although one household does not. However, we are not asking the committee to enter into questions of personal taste here, but to reach a judgement on the technical and objective facts. We consider the committee should take seriously the SPD's aims of encouraging and enabling retrofitting. We consider that this extension has been done sensitively and that very little harm would be done to the visual immunity and certainly not enough to justify refusal of the application. We also consider the application. Thank you very much, Councillor Collins. We'll come to some questions. The application is up for recommendation for refusal. Hopefully, Kirsty, you're okay to answer the questions with service help. So, Councillor Hodge, you've got questions, Councillor Jackson. Yes, it's to do with the possibility of deferral, actually, because, you know, my questioning was going to be on the line, along the line of, obviously, the hugely supportive issue of retrofitting a property. But it's about the evidence, and I'm sure others will want to ask the same question. The evidence that a larger dormer will contribute in any way to have a separate contribution in any way to the positive energy benefits of the property in all aspects as well as the passive house principles. But I'm concerned that there isn't a consul team, there's only an informal response from the Bain's sustainable construction officer. So, we don't have a written, we have an opinion, but it's only informal. And it seems to me that it hinges on this opinion on those points. So, to answer that question, but maybe we feel we can answer it without the information. So, you feel that you would like it to be deferred and ask the officers to go away and get further information, evidence, to support a written opinion from our sustainable... On that, rather than informal, would be the transcription of an informal consultation. So, we'd have to have the agreement with the applicant there, because if we did defer, we'll go beyond time. So, we'd need to get an extension of time, and of course, the applicant would want reassurance or comfort that the committee would look at it positively with the additional evidence. I'll come to Sarah in a second, but I mean, my view is, you know, I think it's straightforward. Is it too big, and does it have an impact on the conservation area as per the recommendation reviews? I think that's what we really need to be focusing on when we get to the debate, but Sarah will help now. Yeah, I think just to come back in on that, a couple of points, really. I think one of them is, if members did ask for deferral, we'd have to be clear what the deferral was seeking to achieve. And I think it's also important to be clear that any deferral would not then preempt the discussion or the decision that might be made at the subsequent committee, because then, at that point, you would have the application before you again with whatever information accompanied it, and you would be in a position where you'd have to debate and come to a view just like you are now. So we couldn't come to and give any sorts of assurances as to what any outcome of a deferral would be. And I think it's really important not to preempt or prejudge any subsequent discussions. Regarding the consultation response, it is fairly standard practice that we consult. I want to say informally, it's almost like we take a surgery with our consultees where they set aside time where officers can attend that time slot in order to bring applications to them just because it's an efficient way in which to use those consultation spaces. And so in terms of what additional information you would get from a deferral that then brought those comments back in a written form, I have to say I don't think you would be provided of anything more than you have now because it would just be what the officer has said only in the written form of that officer. I think that the issue here really is that we only have the information that we've been provided with and that's the information that's been assessed. And so the comments in the report are quite clear on, there is a section in the report, I've just read it regarding what the consultation advice was in terms of passive house and the emissions from the submission and those emissions would still exist unless the applicant supplemented their application which obviously we have no control over. So at the moment what you have before you is obviously the application as we are able to assess it based upon the information that we have now. Yeah, Councillor Hodge. Okay, so my question is sorry about that, just to be clear so that we just possibly thinking about the size of the dormer in the conservation area, you're able to explain why the dormer is not considered necessary to achieve the retrofitting benefits, the potential is property. Of course, so the retrofitting they put forward in their design and access statement is external render installation to the right elevation, which does not require the dormer extension. There's the solar panels which would be placed on top of the roof of the outrigger, so again it's not reliant on the dormer. There's new windows and there's internal roof installation, both of which could be carried out without a dormer extension. Thank you, Councillor Gali. I'm just wondering about this idea of it being too big. Is there an issue with it creating a precedent because there's lots of other different sorts of dorms and extensions? Why is this one objectionable as opposed to other forms? 20, is your microphone? Okay, so on the image I showed you a moment ago, the other dormers within the street are significantly smaller, so whilst this one isn't visible as such, it is significantly larger and is therefore at odds with the character of the other roof extensions within the street? Yeah, can Sarah just make a comment quickly? It's just quite useful if the officer can bring up the photograph with the dormers. And what you'll be able to see, what the stand-out point is on that, is that what you have is dormers and roofs, but essentially everything is under a tiled cover, essentially, where there are dormers. They sit within the roof, so they're integrated and they have much more of a roofscape that is tiled. I think that's the stand-out point, whereas this is more akin to something that would be three-story effectively with a flat roof and no tiled roof on top, I believe that's correct, is it just a case officer to confirm that? Yes, that's right. Yeah, I was just wondering, when you go back to that streetscape, there's loads of different sorts of houses, including garages with flat roofs, so I'm continuing, you can't see this from anywhere except the hot air balloon. I wonder about whether it's such a big issue, maybe, but obviously these big issues are too big. OK, Councillor Jackson, obviously you would be able to see it from a cable car at one point. What I was wanting to ask is, it seems to me we've got, am I right in thinking, we've got two issues here, we've got the size of the dormer, which is disproportionate to the scale of the roof and the shape of the roof, and it's not integrated into the roof in the way that the other dormers are, which are significantly smaller, and we've got the issue of the retrofitting and the improved, can I say, the carbon footprint, the heat, there are very significant benefits in terms of energy consumption from this being, if this were to be permitted, but I'm unable to see, and I hope the officer can perhaps help us, the connection between the two things, why do they need such a big dormer window, and how is it that the harm that would be done to the conservation area, the World Heritage Site and so on, would be justified by the fact that heat bills would be lowered? That's my question, what's the connection between the two, because as things stand on the evidence that the officer has given in her report, I would be reminded to move the recommendation when you want somebody to do that. Okay, thank you, do you want to be able to come back on those questions? So just to be clear, we are supportive of the retrofitting measures, the external render installation, the internal windows solar panels were supportive of all of those, the issue does come down with the scale of the dormer, and the argument was put forward that the energy improvement measures outweigh any harm of the big dormer, but ultimately those measures can all be done without providing the large dormer, therefore we don't think on balance it does outweigh the harm. Okay, thank you, Judge LaHodge. Just thinking about the conservation area and the requirement of the dormer to preserve and enhance those of the policy, I'd just like to see the dormer picture again, and I have a query, the house to the other side of it to the kind of left-hand side, does it project out in the lining of the house in front of those, sorry, on the right-hand side in the picture, there's a sash window, and does it project out a little bit in front of those? It looks like a third story that possibly does project out. No, I don't have any side elevations, so they are flush the elevations, and they've simply raised the roof up by raising the eaves up, which is similar to the dormer, but ultimately they've kept a roof slope as well, so it looks more of a roof extension as opposed to a whole new story without a roof. Okay, thank you. Okay, anybody else got any questions, or shall we move to the debate and consider the merits? So, as I can see with this one, it's a simple case of, is the scale and design of the dormer excessive? Will it affect the character of the house? Will it cause any harm to the setting of the conservation area? My view on this at the moment is it's on the rear of the house. Well, yeah, the beach and cliff is right behind it, it's a very steep cliff. Whilst there are obviously reported benefits about the design and it being retrofitted to improve energy efficiency, it is an individual benefit, rather than obviously with the issue with conservation areas, if it's less than substantial harm, it's got to be in the public interest to support something. This is an individual interest, not the public interest, so the question is, is that design unacceptable? Is it too big and should we be refusing it? Councillor Jackson. Chair, I think it is. I think you've put it very succinctly and I'm happy to move the officers' recommendation. Okay, thank you for that. No, is there anyone who wishes to second that motion at the moment or shall we carry on discussing this? Yes, I'm happy to second. I think the dormer is too big in the conservation area. Okay, thank you. Anybody else got a view to express before we take a vote on that? No. Okay, well, we'll go to the vote. So, all those in favour of supporting the recommendation to refuse planning permission? Can you raise your hands, please? All those against? Any abstentions? We've got one there. Okay, so that's not carried. We need to then get someone to put forward a motion to support the scheme. Councillor Simon. What I will move is that we delegate to permit. It will clearly need conditions and further work. So, my motion is to delegate to permit. Okay, thank you. So, that's a motion put forward to delegate to permit. Councillor HOWL, a seconder at that. We are happy to touch one more. Yeah, so we just need to... Obviously, if we go in against the recommendation, we need to say as a committee why we don't think it's going to be harmful to the character and setting of the conservation area. Well, what we need to do is delegate it to do effectively. I think that because of its location, the fact it's not visible from the public realm, the fact that it contributes to effective housing stock, it contributes to energy efficiency. It would be reasonable to grant this application. However, it does require appropriate conditions. And that's why it's the one moving delegation. So that any conditions that the officers think appropriate can be attached. Thank you. Yeah, okay. I mean, the area, I know the area very well, is a really eclectic mix of buildings and housing styles. You know, it's on the back of the property. It's the informal side of the property. It's not... I mean, you can see where the box storm goes. It's slightly below the ridge. So, it's not as if it is going to be a completely flat roof, free story building. I'm happy with that. I think it's good contemporary design. And there is a bonus if it is energy efficient, even though it's obviously for personal gain of the applicants. Councillor Hodge. I'm sorry, I'm still confused about what we're delegating, why it's a delegate to permit. Okay, because we need conditions. If we're going to overturn the officer recommendation, we'll need to apply appropriate conditions. So, we need to delegate to permit. What will the conditions be? What are the conditions that we should... Will we be applying? I don't think materials, standard time limit, plan list condition, and materials would probably be the only conditions that we would be applying. Okay, and... The legal officers want us to just understand what the... What is the nature of the effect on the situation of time? What effect? So, are you saying it's having a neutral effect on the conservation of area? You don't feel it will cause any adverse effects on social spectrum? Yes, I will say there has no adverse effect. Neutral. Okay. All right, so, Councillor Simon, you know, Councillor Jackson wants to say something else. Not having the benefit of a suitable computer or anything with me. I would like to know, and just possibly somebody might know the answer to this one, why this application is different from application 23 stroke O2 991 stroke full, 216 Bloomfield Road, Bloomfield Bath, where we've refused a loft conversion with a dorm or window. Well, I mean, we have to look at this application on its merits. Bluefield Road is in the same, well, in the adjacent ward, but we don't have the details in front of us on that one, so we have to still decide whether this scheme is acceptable to approve. Can I use comment on Councillor Jackson's point? Loft conversions, particularly ones that create a gable end, can look really odd. I've been wondering to myself whether that would be a problem in this case, and I think in this context it's not going to be. But it's very likely that in some other occasion moving from hip to gable is going to produce something that looks very odd. This is such a narrow house that I don't think is going to be such a problem. Thank you. Councillor Simon has put forth a motion to overturn the recommendation and the proof delegates to pit with conditions. That's been seconded by a Councillor McPhee, so can we have a vote in favour of that motion, please? Five of those against? Four. Okay, so that carries, and the final information has been granted. Thank you. Right, we've covered the rest of the agenda items, because before lunch we did look at the appeals reports and performance reports, and we've noted those. We've confirmed the date of the next site visit, although that's not from deferred applications. That's a pre-site visit for the June Committee. So I think we are ready to close the meeting. So thanks everybody for attending. We'll host the Jackson. Sorry, it's the first appeal lodged. We don't have the details of the level at which the decision was taken, the decision date or the rest of it. If we could just have that emailed round, I'd be grateful. [INAUDIBLE] Okay, we can officially close the meeting. Now there will be a new chair and vice chair appointed next week ready for the June Committee. Watch this space. [BLANKAUDIO]