Plans for six houses at Combe Down have been refused – with one veteran councillor branding the scheme the most “poorly designed” he’s seen in years.
On Wednesday 17th November, Bath & North East Somerset Council’s planning committee went against the advice of the case officer who had recommended giving the proposals at Stonehouse Lane the go-ahead.
The scheme involved demolishing No. 56 on the backland portion of the site and knocking down No. 54 on the infill portion. Two four-bed homes were proposed, with the rest five-bed. A total of nine parking spaces were proposed.
The site was historically used as a quarry, and permission was granted for it to be infilled in 1970.
The chair and vice chair of the planning committee had both agreed with a request from ward councillor Onkar Saini to ‘call in’ the application for the plans to be considered by councillors rather than delegated to officers.
A spokesperson for the 30 residents who had objected told the committee: “We do not dispute the applicant’s right to build; however, the proposed development is too big for this plot.”
She said it would “dominate surrounding properties, fundamentally altering the neighbourhood’s character”, adding that the style, height and massing were not in keeping and the proposals failed to safeguard neighbours’ amenity.
The council had received one letter of support for Continental Trade (Bath) Ltd’s plans.
The scheme’s architect, Spencer Back, also addressed the committee, describing the “bespoke homes” as being in line with council policies.
Under biodiversity net gain (BNG) legislation, developers must deliver 10% BNG but it can be offset somewhere else in the country, as was being proposed with this development.
Committee member Councillor Shaun Hughes (Midsomer Norton North, Independent) said the green space proposed for a five-bed house looked about the size of a parking space.
The planning officer told the committee that “they are quite generously sized dwellings internally” and the space that surrounds them is of “fairly reasonable size”.
He confirmed there is no requirement for a certain ratio of building to outdoor amenity space.
The officer did not consider the plans to be overdevelopment and said all properties would have an “appropriate outlook”.
But Councillor Hughes said the proposed development “fails on height, scale and massing”.
He added: “There is a clear loss of amenity to residents and a lack of amenity to those who would actually occupy these new houses.”
Committee member Councillor Paul Crossley (Southdown, Liberal Democrat) said he had reached a completely different conclusion from the officer recommendation.
He said: “I don’t think I have seen such a poorly designed scheme in years on this committee. It’s not the fault of the architect; it’s the fault of the person who’s briefing the architect who’s quite simply trying to cram as much housing as he or she can on to a site.”
Councillor Crossley added: “I think if we’d had an application before us for four units, I think that would be something that we could have coalesced around.”
He moved a motion to refuse the scheme due to the loss of amenity to neighbours and overdevelopment of the site.
Cllr Eleanor Jackson (Westfield, Labour) seconded the motion, concerned about the “unacceptable” loss of amenity to neighbours.
She observed: “This looks to me like urban design in a suburban location.”
But Councillor Duncan Hounsell (Saltford, Liberal Democrat) spoke in support of the recommendation to permit the application as he considered it was policy compliant and did not consider reasons to refuse it outweighed the “tilted balance” in favour of permitting the development.
Eight members of the committee voted in favour of the motion, with one against.
The decision notice says the scheme was rejected as the development would look “uncharacteristically cramped”.
Also, given its layout, height, scale, design and massing, it would not have acceptable levels of privacy, outlook and natural light for neighbouring occupiers, nor give future occupiers adequate private outside amenity space.
