Proposals to demolish a 1950s bungalow in Saltford and build five retirement bungalows and a new private access road have been unanimously refused by Bath & North East Somerset Council’s planning committee amid concerns about overdevelopment.
The current bungalow on Tyning Road
Planning officers had recommended approval of the scheme for No. 22 Tyning Road, a large bungalow with garages and a plot stretching back more than 90 metres. Eight properties share a boundary with the site.
A pre-application enquiry was made by the applicant to the council last year, and it was considered that “backland” development wouldn’t be out of character with the area.
However, the suggested number of properties was considered too great, so the proposal submitted reduced the number of detached bungalows from six to five.
However, at their meeting on Wednesday 21st January the committee members felt that five was still too many.
Four single-storey two-bed bungalows were proposed along with a four-bed chalet bungalow fronting the road. The plans showed parking for a total of six cars, with cycle storage for each property.
A number of trees were removed before the application was submitted and more felling was planned. Twenty replacement trees would be needed, but there would not be enough room on site for that many.
Eight replacement trees were being proposed on site, and a further 12 off-site under the biodiversity net gain (BNG) system.
The plans had been ‘called in’ by ward councillor Duncan Hounsell amid objections from local residents and the parish council but the committee was advised by officers that as the council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, any decision should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Any harm would have to “significantly and demonstrably” outweigh the benefits, and in this case, the proposal was for five houses in a sustainable location.
One neighbour who spoke at the meeting said the proposed development would cause significant harm to residential amenity.
She highlighted the loss of light, privacy, the risk to a beech hedge as one of the proposed homes is so close to one of the boundaries, and the “significant” biodiversity loss.
She added: “We are not objecting to develop in principle and recognise the need to deliver new housing. However, the current proposal seeks to accommodate too many dwellings on this site.
“Removing two units would allow a more spacious and workable layout, significantly reducing harm to privacy, light, outlook, boundary vegetation and outlook and biodiversity.”
Alternatively, reversing the layout and using the existing drop kerb at No. 22 would allow the access to run alongside the boundary of 24 and 24c, improving privacy for neighbours, she suggested.
Councillor Hounsell (Saltford, (Liberal Democrat) told the committee he welcomed the late change made to reduce a proposed four-bed chalet bungalow at the rear of the plot to a two-bed bungalow.
But he said his “fundamental objection” was overdevelopment and the two-bed bungalows lacked reasonable space, both inside and outside. He described the proposed garden space as “negligible”.
Councillor Hounsell also pointed out that similar backland development nearby has been possible with a lower density of houses.
Saltford’s other ward councillor, Chris Warren (Independents for B&NES), also stated his objection to the development.
The case planning officer told the committee that the council does not have a specific policy prescribing how much outdoor space there should be, but there would be enough room for a table and chairs.
Councillor Paul Crossley (Southdown, Liberal Democrat) said: “This is one of the most overdeveloped schemes I’ve seen for a long time.”
He said the government’s recent doubling of the housing target for B&NES is a problem, “but that should not mean that we have to put up with developments like this”.
He continued: “This is in my view massive overdevelopment. It is completely inappropriate development in a village like Saltford.”
Councillor Eleanor Jackson (Westfield, Labour) noted the council has an obligation to use land efficiently but in the context of Saltford, she could not see that this scheme would be in character. She branded it “just too concreting” and would “clear out any wildlife”.
Councillor Shaun Hughes (Midsomer Norton North, Independent) said although the location is sustainable, the proposed density is far greater than the surrounding area.
He echoed concerns about BNG, saying there was too much being offset off site, when it should be accommodated on site to benefit the residents moving in, “not to some unknown, undisclosed field somewhere else in the country”.
He also felt there would be a clear loss of amenity to existing and new residents and it would be difficult to accommodate visitors’ cars in the access road, so it would end up being pushed onto Tyning Road where there is already an issue with parking.
The committee was advised by a senior planning officer that it would be difficult to defend at appeal an objection on parking grounds as the scheme meets the council’s published parking standards.
He also said that the BNG system permits looking at off-site units and the benefits are not always intended for local people.
The recommendation of officers was to delegate to permit, subject to a number of planning conditions and a Section 106 agreement to secure a financial contribution for off-site tree planting.
However, the proposals were unanimously refused on the grounds of overdevelopment which would result in a cramped layout and a lack of green and amenity space that would not be in keeping with the area’s character.
The committee also said the development would lead to a loss of privacy and overbearing impact which would cause significant harm to neighbours, while the lack of outdoor amenity space would be harmful to future occupiers.
