Agenda item

The following applications will be considered:

1.  21/05471/OUT Parcel 5159, Minsmere Road, Keynsham

2.  22/02171/FUL Rose Lawn, The Street, Compton Martin

3.  22/03020/FUL Hillside Farm, Timsbury Road, Farmborough

The Committee considered: 

A report by the Head of Planning on various planning applications and update report in relation to item 1 under the main applications list.

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 decisions list attached as Appendix 2 to these minutes. 

Item No. 1 Application No: 21/05471/OUT

Site Location: Parcel 5159, Minsmere Road, Keynsham

The Case Officer introduced the report which was an application for 70 homes; new vehicular and pedestrian access on to Minsmere Road, public open space; tree planting and habitat creation; site drainage and associated infrastructure with all matters reserved apart from the access.  He gave an update to confirm that there was an omission on the plans list in the report which should have referred to an additional plan “site access SK01 revision D” and also that 6 further objections had been received and reviewed but these did not raise any issues that had not already been addressed in the report.

He advised the committee:

1.  The site had been removed from the green belt in 2014 as part of the core strategy and safeguarded for future development.

2.  The current development plan stated that the site should not be developed until the review of the Local Plan and so the application was technically contrary to policy.  However, as set out in the report, there were material considerations which outweighed this conflict:

a.  The site was proposed to be allocated for 70 homes in the emerging Local Plan Partial Update (LPPU) which had now been through examination and the initial letter from the Inspector stated that he was likely to find the plan sound subject to some modifications.

b.  The requirement for the Council to have a five-year supply of land for housing.

c.  The site was in a broadly sustainable location.

d.  There was an absence Green Belt protection compared to nearly all other undeveloped land in this locality.

e.  There would be a provision of sustainable transport measures (2 out of 6 measures which would be delivered as part of this development and the other 4 as part of the Withies Green development).

f.  A significant package of Section 106 obligations and contributions which would benefit the wider community

g.  An off-site Biodiversity Net Gain (BGN) at Somerdale.

3.  In relation to the proposed pedestrian access between Witham Road and the western boundary of the application site, this was third party land not owned by the applicant or the Council and so was afforded limited weight as a benefit as it could not be secured in perpetuity.

4.  A green space had been secured as a minimum buffer around the site and further landscape details would be part of the reserved matters application.

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

a.  no comments raising new material considerations from the advertisement of the application as a departure.

b.  the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to cover the 11 heads of terms as set out in the report.

c.  the conditions as set out in the report.

The following public representations were received:

1.  Chris Dolling, applicant, speaking in support of the application.

Cllr Andy Wait, in attendance as local ward member raised the following points:

1.  There had been approximately 270 objections from local residents as well as objections from Keynsham Town Council, Saltford Town Council, CPRE and the Council’s parks department.

2.  The application at Withies Green had been referred to the Secretary of State by Keynsham and Saltford Town Councils and it was likely that this application would also be referred.

3.  Bus services in the area were irregular and difficult to maintain once developer contributions had been used up.

4.  There was one exit from the site onto a suburban road which would lead to congestion on an already congested network.

5.  The proposed development was overcrowded, 70 homes were too many for the site and it did not meet the Council’s climate emergency commitments.

6.  The siting of the housing next to Manor Road woodland would have a detrimental impact on existing wildlife.

7.  A better use of the land would be a wildlife meadow and the parcel of land opposite Hygge Park which was currently earmarked for industrial use would be a better fit for housing.

In response to Members questions, it was confirmed:

1.  In relation to the Inspector’s letter suggesting the LPPU was sound, this was not equivalent to a judgement on this particular application, but rather on the allocation policy. 

2.  In accordance with policy, it was acceptable for the developer to offer an offsite BNG.  There would be further opportunities to improve the quality of the landscaping of the application site at the reserved matters stage. 

3.  Following the Committee’s decision to delegate to permit the application at Withies Green, Keynsham and Saltford Town Councils had asked the Secretary of State to call in the application.  A holding direction had been issued pending a decision by the Secretary of State on whether or not to call the application in and the Committee decision could not be issued while this was being resolved. 

4.  Due to the scale of the 6 sustainable transport measures, it was not feasible to deliver them all pre-occupation, but instead they would be delivered at the earliest stage.  Both sets of developers had accepted the measures which would be secured through a Section 106 Agreement, and it was officers’ view that the package would be delivered. 

5.  There would be a range of bus stop improvements as included in the transport measures.

6.  Sustainable construction would be considered at the reserved matters stage and net zero policies would be applied at that stage.

7.  There was no policy to require a sequential test to consider if brown field sites were available before developing green field sites.

8.  When the site was removed from the Green Belt in 2014, the Inspector stated that the future allocation of the site for housing would not lesson the gap between Keynsham and Saltford to the extent that it would impact their separate identities. 

9.  The figures used by the developer that forecast the transport package would increase cycling by 75% and public transport use by 30% came from the PGA report which informed the LPPU update.

10.The predicted vehicle movements of 37 trips in the morning peak and 31 in the afternoon peak did not take into account sustainable transport measures or traffic plan measures which could reduce the number of trips.  These figures related to peak times and not the number of vehicle movements throughout a day. 

11.There was no information about the impact on local GP surgeries and no representations had been made by local GPs about capacity issues.

12.In relation to whether housing supply in Keynsham had been met, the Council needed to look at the housing market area rather than an individual town.

13.In terms of access points, the application was policy compliant and did not allow for a through route between A4 and the Chandag estates. 

14.The sustainable transport measures would broadly offset approximately 200 trips in the morning and afternoon peak times from this site and the Withies Green site.

Cllr Hal MacFie opened the debate as local member and expressed concern about the cumulative effect on traffic as a result of this development alongside the Withies Green Development and the new recycling centre.  He expressed the view that 50 would be a more appropriate number of homes on the site and would allow for onsite BNG to be achieved. 

Cllr Duncan Hounsell expressed concern about the impact on highways in the Keynsham area, such as the Bath Hill/Wellsway roundabout being over capacity before the mitigations were in effect and also the access to the site via an established housing estate.  He confirmed that he did not support the application due to these highways concerns as well as the proposed offsite BGN.

Cllr Shelley Bromley raised concerns about the pressure on local services such as GPs and the uncertainty about the future of bus services which was beyond the control of the local authority. 

Cllr Shaun Hughes expressed concern that the application was premature and not compliant with current policies.  He also stated that the number of homes should be reduced to make space for onsite BGN.

Cllr Paul Crossley spoke in support of the officer recommendation and the package of obligations secured during negotiations.  He stressed the importance of securing social housing which was an important element of this application. 

Cllr Sally Davis concurred with this view and stated that attempts to reduce the number of homes would result in a reduction of social housing.  She moved the officers’ recommendation to delegate to permit.  This was seconded by Cllr Eleanor Jackson and on being put to the vote it was NOT CARRIED (4 in favour, 5 against, 1 abstention) 

Cllr Duncan Hounsell proposed that the application be refused on highways grounds including the significant impact on congestion at key roundabouts and on the existing housing estate, as well as the offsite BGN.  This was seconded by Cllr Shelley Bromley.

Cllr Lucy Hodge raised concerns about the transport mitigation measures being inadequate and questioned whether they would be delivered.

Cllr Shaun Hughes supported the proposal to refuse the application for the additional reasons of the over development of the site especially in view of its location next to a protected woodland area.

The Case Officer advised that it would be difficult to defend a refusal on highway grounds as there was a package of mitigations and also that the offsite BGN was policy compliant.  He further advised that in the event of an appeal, the developer may not be required to deliver the package of measures and the Council may be liable for costs. 

In view of the concerns raised, the Case Officer suggested that a decision be deferred to enable officers to negotiate with the applicant about securing on onsite BGN and to allow for further discussions in relation to precise triggers for planning obligations. 

Cllr Duncan Hounsell withdrew his motion and Cllr Sally Davis moved that the application be deferred to allow for further negotiations.  This was seconded by Cllr Hal MacFie.

On being put to the vote the motion was CARRIED (10 in favour and 0 against)

RESOLVEDthat a decision be deferred pending further negotiations between officers and the applicant with a view to securing onsite Biodiversity Net Gain and clarify the triggers for planning obligations.

[Cllr Paul Crossley left the meeting at this point.]

Item No. 2 Application No: 22/02171/FUL

Site Location: Rose Lawn, The Street, Compton Martin

The Case Officer introduced the report which assessed an application for the erection of a two-storey side extension to a semi-detached cottage.  He gave an update that a revised block plan had been received and confirmed that the application had been referred to committee under the scheme of delegation as there had been objections raised to the initial plans which had since been revised to address concerns. 

He confirmed the officer recommendation that the application be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.

The following public representations were received:

1.  Annelie Smith, applicant, speaking in support of the application.

Cllr Duncan Hounsell proposed the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.  This was seconded by Cllr Eleanor Jackson who thanked all parties for working to achieve an acceptable application.

On being put to the vote the motion was CARRIED (9 in favour and 0 against).

RESOLVED that permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Item No. 3 Application No: 22/03020/FUL

Site Location:Hillside Farm, Timsbury Road, Farmborough

The Case Officer introduced the report which assessed a retrospective application for the erection of a detached double garage.  She confirmed the officer recommendation that the application be refused as no very special circumstances existed to outweigh the harm caused by the development in the green belt.

The following public representations were received:

1.  David Gunter, applicant, speaking in support of the application.

In response to Members questions, it was confirmed:

1.  The only consideration was whether the building was for agricultural use which could constitute special circumstances in the Green Belt.  There were no concerns about the building materials used in the construction of the garage.

2.  The view of officers was that the garage was more closely linked to domestic use due to its siting, appearance and storage of a mixture of agricultural and domestic equipment.  The agricultural field was not easily accessible from the garage.

3.  In response to the applicant’s claim that the garage had been sited in a secure location in accordance with NFU guidance to protect against the theft of agricultural equipment, officers had taken this into account but considered that there were other secure options available.

4.  Any delays associated with an appeal and enforcement process would not be long enough to result in the garage becoming permitted development.

Cllr Eleanor Jackson proposed the officers’ recommendation that the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report.  This was seconded by Cllr Duncan Hounsell.

On being put to the vote the motion was CARRIED (9 in favour and 0 against).

RESOLVED that the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report.