Self-build dwelling at Site Of Former Folly Inn Brewery And Pleasure Ground, Lane Hampton Row To Grosvenor Bridge, Bathwick, Bath, Bath And

The site and its setting

The wooded site lies beside the canal within the Bath Conservation Area and World Heritage Site, with public rights of way around it.

“The Green Belt and World Heritage Site Boundaries run along the eastern edge of the site so that the site lies just outside the Green Belt but lies within the Bath World Heritage site, the Bath Conservation Area and the locally designated landscape setting of the settlement of Bath. The site also forms part of the 'Fields by the Canal and Railway (Hampton Row)' Site of Nature Conservation Interest.”

“The Site is bounded to the north, east and south by Public Rights Of Way (PROW BC65/3, BA1/1 and BCTOW/04 respectively).”

Officer report

Why officers advised refusal

Officers found that the proposal’s adverse impacts significantly outweighed its housing and sustainability benefits and recommended refusal.

“Paragraph 11 of the NPPF sets out that plans and decision should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Subparagraph d) sets out that, where policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, which includes policies involving the provision of housing where an LPA cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, permission should be granted unless i) the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of…”

“However, the application is found to conflict with numerous development policies as outlined in this report and these adverse impacts are found to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal and therefore, whilst having consideration of paragraph 11(d)ii) of the NPPF it is recommended that planning permission should not be granted.”

Officer report

Consultees and residents

Residents objected to the scale, visibility, ecology, access and character impacts, while supporters cited low-carbon construction, biodiversity and community benefits.

“Objections raised: Erode and harm the rural character of the area. Harm caused to AONB Design is inappropriate The building is too large and will be overly visible Over development of the site The development will harm trees and wildlife including bats on the site Light pollution and noise on this rural site Loss of trees and wildlife The old inn is a historic ruin from the war and should be protected The access is poor The development will harm the historic character of the…”

“Support reasons Improvements to landscape, ecology and biodiversity. Low impact. Provides BNG Using renewable energy sources. Sustainable development should be encouraged, building materials hempcrete and lime used. Development should be more prominent. Responding to climate emergency. Ongoing land and woodland management, the site has been cleared and maintained by owners. Community benefit Promoting sustainable transport. Non-car development.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicants spoke in support, and Councillor Simon opened the debate as ward member and supported finding a way to approve the proposal.

The committee debate

Members discussed mitigation, lighting, ecology, heritage, trees, construction and future management, with some supporting deferral and others supporting refusal.

“Cllr Simon opened the debate as ward member and stated that Bath Preservation Trust supported the proposal, and Natural England confirmed their agreement with the conclusions of the Habitats Regulations Assessment providing that all mitigation measures were appropriately secured and he considered that this was the starting point for finding a way that the application could be acceptable. He addressed the officers reasons for refusal as follows:”

“Ecology – the impact on ecology would be minimal and the applicants would be stewards to help with the management of the land. Habitat Regulations Assessment – it did not seem to be reasonable to say that conditions could not be applied. In terms of lighting, people living on the canal were used to approaching their properties in the dark and a condition to ban external lighting would be reasonable in these circumstances. 3.”

Minutes

The vote

The motion to defer was carried by five votes to four, with the Chair using a casting vote.

“On voting for the motion, it was CARRIED (5 in favour and 4 against – Chair using casting vote).”

Minutes

Why the decision was deferred

The committee asked for a detailed management plan, further justification for securing mitigation, and suggested conditions or planning obligations.

“Regulations Assessment and residential occupation. 3. to prepare suggested conditions and/or planning obligations. In response to a question about whether it would be possible for the committee to accept in principle, the Legal Officer advised that members would need to reconsider the application with an open mind when it came back to committee for determination.”

“RESOLVED that a decision be deferred to allow officers: 1. to ask the applicants to submit a detailed Landscape and Environmental Management Plan. 2. to give the applicant the opportunity to submit further justification on how mitigations would be secured in relation to the conflict between Habitat Regulations Assessment and residential occupation. 3. to prepare suggested conditions and/or planning obligations.”

Minutes