Six new homes at 56 Stonehouse Lane, Combe Down, Bath

What was proposed

The application sought six two- to three-storey homes, access, drainage and landscaping after demolishing two existing houses.

“The application refers to a plot of land forming the curtilage of two dwellings which are located within the Bath World Heritage Site.”

“Planning permission is sought for the erection of 6 no. 2-3 storey dwellings and associated access, drainage and hard/soft landscape works following demolition of 2 no existing houses…”

Officer report

Planning history

Earlier proposals included permissions for three homes and one detached home, refusals for other dwellings, and a withdrawn application.

“10/00264/FUL - WITHDRAWN - 11 March 2010 - Erection of 2 new detached dwellings…”

“Prior to this the application site was historically used as a quarry which was granted permission to be infilled in 1970. The site was then known as The Old Quarry Caravan Site. Permission was granted in 1972 for the erection of three dwellings but these properties were not built. Subsequent permissions were granted for three dwellings at the site. These properties were never built.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Highways and ecology raised no objections subject to conditions, while design and drainage information needed further attention; 29 individuals objected.

“Drainage and Flooding - Further information relating to the surface water drainage of the property is required.”

“Ecology - No objection subject to conditions.”

Officer report

Concerns about the scheme

Objections focused on overdevelopment, height, character, neighbouring amenity, parking, ecology, drainage, contamination and construction impacts.

“Harm to Residential Amenity o Numerous concerns about loss of daylight and sunlight to neighbouring properties, especially to primary living spaces and gardens. o The proximity and height of new buildings will create overbearing walls, leading to a sense of enclosure and loss of open outlook. o Shadow diagrams and daylight assessments are considered inadequate or misleading by objectors.”

“Drainage, Infrastructure, and Contamination o Existing drainage systems are already under strain; additional dwellings may overload them. o Concerns about the adequacy of proposed drainage solutions and the risk of flooding or contamination. o The site has a history of landfill and potential contamination, with insufficient investigation or mitigation detailed.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two local residents objected, the architect supported the scheme, and the ward councillor asked the committee to refuse permission.

Committee debate

Members disagreed about scale, design, amenity, housing need and the tilted balance, with concerns raised about overdevelopment and limited space.

“He was also concerned about contamination in view of the site’s previous history as a quarry. In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed: 1. In relation to the extant permissions, there would be a net increase of 2 dwellings. 2. Tilted balance was engaged in view of the lack of a 5-year land supply for housing in the current development plan and unless there was a strong reason for refusal, the balance was in favour of granting permission. 3.”

“Cllr Crossley expressed the view that the application, due to height, size and massing would constitute over development of the site and would result in a loss of amenity to neighbouring properties. He moved that the application be refused. This was seconded by Cllr Jackson who raised concerns about the development being overbearing which would result in overshadowing and loss of privacy for neighbouring properties.”

Minutes

The vote

The motion to refuse was carried by eight votes to one.

“On voting for the motion, it was CARRIED (8 in favour and 1 against).”

Minutes

The decision

Permission was refused because the height, size and massing were considered overdevelopment and harmful to the area and residential amenity.

“RESOLVED that the application be refused for the following reasons:”

“The height, size and massing would constitute over-development of the site and would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area. 2. The development would be overbearing and result in a loss of amenity to neighbouring properties in terms of shadowing and loss of privacy and lack of amenity for residents of the proposed dwellings due to the limited outdoor space.”

Minutes