Agenda and draft minutes

The Democratic Services Officer will draw attention to the emergency evacuation procedure.

The Democratic Services Officer read out the emergency evacuation procedure.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Ian Halsall, Cllr John Leach and Cllr Toby Simon.

There were the following substitutions:

Cllr Ruth Malloy for Cllr Toby Simon

Cllr Duncan Hounsell for Cllr John Leach

At this point in the meeting declarations of interest are received from Members in any of the agenda items under consideration at the meeting. Members are asked to indicate:

(a) The agenda item number and site in which they have an interest to declare.

(b) The nature of their interest.

(c) Whether their interest is a disclosable pecuniary interest or an other interest, (as defined in Part 4.4 Appendix B of the Code of Conduct and Rules for Registration of Interests)

Any Member who needs to clarify any matters relating to the declaration of interests is recommended to seek advice from the Council’s Monitoring Officer before the meeting to expedite dealing with the item during the meeting.

Cllr Hounsell declared an interest in that he may be considered predetermined in relation to item 1 - 25/03496/FUL – 22 Tyning Road, Saltford and stood down from the Committee to speak as ward councillor and then withdrew from the meeting and took no further part in the debate or vote.

Cllr Jackson declared a disclosable personal interest in item 3 - 25/04547/TCA - 4 Meadow View, Radstock and withdraw from the meeting during consideration of the application.

In relation to item 2 - 25/02637/FUL - Barn, Bailbrook Lane, Lower Swainswick, Bath, Cllr Crossley stated that he was the Council’s representative on the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Beauty Board and as the Board had not made a determination on the application plus considering the councillor code of conduct test  for this interest, he held an open mind to the planning arguments and would be participating in the debate and vote.

There was no urgent business.

To note that, regarding planning applications to be considered, members of the public who have given the requisite notice to Democratic Services will be able to make a statement to the Committee immediately before their respective applications are considered. There will be a time limit of 3 minutes for each proposal, i.e., 3 minutes for the Parish and Town Councils, 3 minutes for the objectors to the proposal and 3 minutes for the applicant, agent and supporters. This allows a maximum of 9 minutes per proposal.

The Democratic Services Officer informed the meeting of the process for public speakers to address the Committee.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 17 December 2025 as a correct record for signing by the Chair.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meetings of 17 December 2025 be confirmed as a correct record for signing by the Chair.

1.  25/03496/FUL - 22 Tyning Road, Saltford, Bath and North East Somerset

2.  25/02637/FUL - Barn, Bailbrook Lane, Lower Swainswick, Bath, Bath and North East Somerset

3.  25/04547/TCA - 4 Meadow View, Radstock, Bath and North East Somerset

4.  25/04609/TCA - Audley House, Park Gardens, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath and North East Somerset

The Committee considered:

1.  A report and update report by the Head of Planning on the applications under the main applications list.

2.  Oral statements by members of the public and representatives.  A copy of the speakers’ list is attached as Appendix 1 to these minutes.

RESOLVED that in accordance with the delegated powers, the applications be determined as set out in the main applications decisions list attached as Appendix 2 to these minutes.

1.  25/03496/FUL - 22 Tyning Road, Saltford, Bath and North East Somerset

The Planning Case Officer introduced the report which considered an application for the demolition of an existing bungalow and the construction of 5 new bungalows including a new access road off Tyning Road.

She confirmed the officers’ recommendation that officers be delegated to permit the application subject to:

1.  A Section 106 Agreement to cover a financial contribution for:

  a.  replacement tree planting for 12 replacement trees

  b.  a monitoring fees contribution of £468 per obligation

2.  The conditions set out in the report with an amendment to condition 15 to include “(Hillside Trees January 2026)” after “Tree Protection Plan”.

The following public representations were received:

1.  A local resident, objecting to the application.

2.  John Blake, architect, supporting the application.

Cllr Duncan Hounsell stood down from the Committee to speak as ward councillor and raised the following points:

1.  Although he welcomed the late change to reduce 2 of the proposed bungalows from 4-bed to 2-bed, he objected to the application as he considered it to constitute over-development of the site due to loss of amenity to neighbouring residents and lack of amenity to future residents of the site.

2.  The density of the development was also out of keeping with the character of the area.

3.  The size of bathroom/toilet was too small for older people with accessibility requirements.

4.  Garden space was negligible.

5.  The proposed access road was on the wrong side of the plot.

6.  Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) was only achievable off-site, and it could have been achieved on-site with a lower density development.

7.  Similar backland developments in Saltford had been successful due to lower density.

8.  He was aware of tilted balance arguments but considered the application to be contrary to policies.

At this point, Cllr Hounsell withdrew from the meeting and took no further part in the debate and vote in relation to the application.

Cllr Chris Warren was in attendance as ward councillor and read a statement summarised as below:

1.  He objected to the application.

2.  He recognised the contribution of backland developments but did not consider this application to be appropriate.

3.  The proposed 5 properties constituted over-development of the site. 

4.  He was concerned the development would add to on-street parking.

5.  He was also concerned about the loss of wildlife habitat.

In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed:

1.  In determining whether an application constituted over-development, there needed to be consideration of any harms e.g. if there was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

The Committee is asked to note the report.

The Committee considered the appeals report.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.