One detached dwelling at 171 - 173 High Street, Oldland Common

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing an existing garage and building one detached dwelling with access and associated works.

“OFFTEM DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE - 25th June 2026 App No.:P26/00513/FApplicant:Yuvi Private Limited Site:Land Adj Oldland Common Post Office 171 - 173 High Street Oldland Common South Gloucestershire Date Reg:10th March 2026 Proposal:Demolition of existing garage and erection of 1 no. detached dwelling with access and associated works.”

“OFFTEM If members felt necessary, this could become the subject of a suitably worded condition • Whether the proposal would result in unacceptable level of harm to the amenity of neighbours to the west and south of the site. Will there be loss of privacy or overbearing impact.”

Officer report

The site and access

The site was next to the post office, with access from Castle Road, a single-track highway leading to homes and a sports field.

“The proposed dwelling would be accessed via Castle Road which is a single track highway to the side of the existing building, leading to a small number of dwellings and the sports field. 1.3The proposed scheme follows previously refused proposals for a detached dwelling at this site, reference PK17/1415/F & P21/02001/F.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the revised dwelling acceptable in design, living conditions, transport and biodiversity terms, subject to conditions.

“5.9Regarding materials, the application form states the proposal would be finished in smooth render with brick quoins, and double Roman roof tiles. No detail on windows or doors has been provided. The use of rendered walls can be found on the immediate neighbour at no.22, and brickwork quoins on the cottages opposite the site. No detail has been provided in regard to the specific colour/appearance of the render, brickwork or roof tiles.”

“5.11Residential Amenity Policy PSP8 of the PSP Plan states that development proposals will be acceptable provided they do not create unacceptable living conditions or have an unacceptable impact on the residential amenity of occupiers of the development or of nearby properties. 5.12Previous concerns with the living conditions of future occupants have been suitably addressed. The proposal would now comply with the Nationally Described Space Standards.”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

Thirteen residents objected over highway safety, parking, residential amenity, accessibility, overdevelopment, appearance, ecology and policy matters.

“Overdevelopment and Site Suitability -The application site is considered to represent overdevelopment, with objectors noting that 171-173 High Street has been extended incrementally over time and that existing apartments have limited or no on-site parking. -The proposed dwelling would be located within the remaining garden/amenity space, reducing outdoor space for existing occupiers.”

“OFFTEM -Residents refer to a decline in bird, bat and owl populations following earlier development and believe the proposal would place further pressure on local biodiversity. Policy Considerations Raised by Objectors -Objectors consider the proposal to conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework in respect of residential amenity, design quality and sustainable development.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent spoke in support, while Councillor Paul Hughes read a statement expressing concerns from Ward Councillor Erica Williams.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed boundary-fence visibility, parking, visibility splays, construction management and ecological mitigation.

“During the ensuing discussion, the following issues were addressed:”

“The detailed landscaping plan would require the 1.8m high boundary fence along the southern boundary to be set back, level with the proposed dwelling, allowing sufficient visibility for vehicles entering and exiting the neighbouring property onto Castle Road. • The proposal will not reduce the level of parking available for neighbouring dwellings. • The application provides parking in compliance with the requirements of PSP16.”

Minutes

The vote

The motion to grant permission with additional ecology, landscaping and construction-management requirements was carried by five votes to two, with no abstentions.

“Notwithstanding the approved Proposed Site Plan, prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, a detailed landscaping plan specifying the location, species, stock size, planting centres and quantities of all proposed tree and structure planting, as well as all proposed hard surfaces and boundary treatments, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.”

“That in the interests of highway safety, officers be granted delegated authority to impose an additional conditional to require a Construction Environmental Management Plan to be submitted and approved.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was granted subject to the report’s conditions and additional ecology and landscaping conditions.

“That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out within the report.”

“That the following additional conditions be imposed:”

Minutes