Agenda item

The Committee considered:

·  A report by the Head of Planning on various planning applications.

·  An update report by the Head of Planning attached as Appendix 1 to these minutes.

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

RESOLVED that in accordance with the Committee’s delegated powers, the applications be determined as set out in the decisions list attached as Appendix 3 to these minutes.

Item No. 1

Application No. 20/02479/OUT

Site Location: Parcel 1991, Bath Road, Keynsham – Outline application for up to 5,700sqm (GEA) of flexible use commercial development falling within Use Classes B1(b), B1(c), B2 and B8 with primary access onto Bath Road.  All matters reserved except access.

The Case Officer reported on the application and his recommendation to permit.

Two local residents spoke against the application.

The agent spoke in favour of the application.

Cllr Andy Wait, local ward member, spoke against the application.  He raised concerns regarding the arrangements for vehicles to enter and exit the site via the A4.  This is already a very busy road and is the Bristol/Bath commercial corridor.  It made no sense for HGVs to be turning right onto this road.  He stated that an access via World’s End Lane would be far more sensible.  He raised concerns regarding the detrimental effect on the amenity of local residents.  He stated that the use of the site for a B2 use so close to residential properties is not appropriate.

The Case Officer then responded to questions as follows:

·  The masterplan for the site was referred to in the previous officer report which was considered in July.

·  Following analysis, officers do not think that the access via the A4 is contrary to the allocation policy.  Although this access is not referred to in the original plan it is not specifically excluded.

·  A separate application on this site (in particular the MOD site in Pixash Lane agreed by the committee in July) would be a material consideration.

·  The committee should act consistently in its approach to this application and where the masterplan has been found to be acceptable, this is a material consideration.

·  Whilst there could be alternative access to the site via World’s End Lane, members should focus on the application in front of them.

·  Proposed improvements to World’s End Lane would include widening the carriageway and the inclusion of a dedicated pedestrian and cycle path.

·  Alternative accesses were discussed with the applicant but there is an issue with a pinch point and the need to cross land belonging to a third party.  Highways consider the proposed access to be acceptable.

·  The transport addendum provides a model based on trip data which includes exit times for larger vehicles.  The average figures include the morning and afternoon peak periods. 

·  The travel to school route would be via the shared pedestrian and cycle path on the A4.

·  There would be some buffering and landscaping to reduce noise to residential properties.  However, there is already a level of noise from the A4 and so the development would not greatly impact residential amenity.

·  Use of the site would be subject to environmental protection legislation and be limited to certain hours to mitigate any noise nuisance.

·  A concrete works would fall under use class B2.

·  World’s End Lane is a single-track road and currently two vehicles cannot pass each other.  There are proposals to widen the lane to make it a two-carriageway road (although this would not extend to the A4).

·  The site is allocated for employment use and is in a sustainable location.  This would provide more jobs in Keynsham with less need for out-commuting.

·  The masterplan for the site was subject to public consultation as part of the planning application for the Pixash Lane site.

·  Highways Officers are satisfied that the appendices contain all the required information and that the figures provide a reasonable prediction of exit times.

·  When the reserved matters are considered the layout of the site plan could be changed.

Members of the Planning Committee discussed the site visit that was carried out during peak hours (3-4pm) and noted the high volumes of traffic and noted that they had observed vehicles having difficulty crossing the A4 due to the flow of traffic.

Cllr MacFie, Ward Councillor on the committee, stated that this proposal will generate additional traffic and pollution on the A4.  This would cause harm to the amenity of local residents which could be mitigated by the use of World’s End Lane as an access route.  This access route was specified in the original plan, and this harm is therefore avoidable.

Cllr Hounsell stated that he did not believe there has been adequate consultation on the masterplan as required by policy KE3A.  The Town Council did not refer to the masterplan and the Parish Charter states that Parish and Town Councils should be consulted regarding plans with a significant impact in their local areas.  He pointed out that the masterplan document was only on screen for a very short period of time during the July Planning Committee meeting and was the 197^th document on the planning website.  The original plan did not reference an access onto the A4.  The A4 is a busy congested road and members have acknowledged this on the recent site visit.  83 seconds is a long time for vehicles to wait and this would have an adverse impact on highway safety.  He stated that the committee does not have adequate highways information regarding traffic numbers, exit timings and changes to World’s End Lane.  The Council’s traffic count survey figures show the large amount of vehicles using the A4 in both directions on a daily basis.

Cllr Hounsell then moved that the application be refused for the following reasons:

·  The proposal is contrary to policy KE3A.  The masterplan was not adequately consulted on as required by the policy.  The policy requires the access to be via World’s End Lane.

·  The proposal is contrary to policy ST7 and would have a significant adverse effect on highway safety due to the long wait time to make a right turn which is likely to lead to unsafe manoeuvres. 

The motion was seconded by Cllr MacFie.

Cllr Appleyard noted that the Core Strategy Inspector supported the use of this site for industrial use.  He acknowledged the difficulty of turning right onto the A4 but did not feel that World’s End Lane would be any more suitable.  A bottleneck could be created.  Not all vehicles entering and leaving the site would be HGVs.  He also supported the creation of employment in this area.  On balance he supported the officer recommendation.

Cllr Jackson did not support the proposed widening of World’s End Lane due to the removal of the hedgerows.  She was concerned at the increase in noise levels to local residents in the proposed care home but noted that environmental protection legislation could address this if necessary.  She did not believe that World’s End Lane is the correct access route.

Cllr Davis noted that the masterplan was approved in July and stated that consistency of decision-making is important.  There are restrictions due to third party ownership.

Cllr Hughes expressed concerns regarding the highway access point.  He felt that the cheapest and easiest option was being chosen and that alternative options have not been fully explored.

Cllr Pritchard noted the cost implications of improving World’s End Lane.  He stated that when on the site visit, he noticed that the school children travelled mainly on the opposite side of the road to the site.  The A4 is a busy road but not necessarily a dangerous road.

Cllr Hodge did not feel there has been adequate consultation on the masterplan.  The obvious access is onto the A4, but this is dangerous.  Most of the objections received raise concerns regarding highway safety.  Members viewed the busy A4 on the recent site visit, including children walking home from school and vehicles turning onto the Bath Road.

Cllr McCabe felt that not enough is known about the plans to upgrade World’s End Lane and third-party ownership issues.  He felt that the consultation on the masterplan has not been sufficient and had concerns regarding the safety of the access onto the A4.  He noted that the original plan was for the access to be via World’s End Lane.  He needed to have more information before agreeing to create a new access onto the A4.

The motion was put to the vote and it was RESOLVED by 6 votes in favour and 4 votes against to REFUSE the application for the reasons set out above.