Foodstore and associated works at Former Brincliffe Nursery, Keynsham

What was proposed

The application sought demolition of existing buildings and construction of a foodstore with parking, access, landscaping, a sub-station and highway works.

“Planning permission is sought for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of new food store (Use Class E) together with associated works including parking, access and landscaping.”

Officer report

The site

The site contained undeveloped land, residential curtilage and storage buildings on the edge of Keynsham within a designated primary industrial estate.

“The proposal relates to a site which currently comprises a mixture of undeveloped land, residential curtilage and storage buildings along the western side. The site is located on the edge of Keynsham outside of the Housing Development Boundary and Bristol - Bath Green Belt. The site forms part of the KE3A Strategic Allocated Site and is designated as part of the primary industrial estate known as Broadmead/ Ashmead/ Pixash industrial estate.”

Officer report

Planning history

There was no relevant planning history for the site.

“There is no relevant planning history on this site.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because severe cumulative highway impacts were not outweighed by the proposal’s economic, environmental and social benefits.

“As outlined above the proposal is found to be contrary to Policies KE3A, ED2A and ST7 of the Development Plan as well as the provisions of the NPPF. Officers recognise that there are considerable economic, environmental and social benefits of the scheme as listed…”

“Turning to the highway impacts of the scheme, the submitted information demonstrates that the development would result in a severe cumulative impact on the operation of the highway network. The highway impacts would harm the function of the primary industrial estate and severely disrupt operational effectiveness of the council waste recycling centre and the nearby police station. The impacts would also have potential to harm highway safety.”

Officer report

Consultation and public views

Highway authorities, councils, police and residents raised congestion and safety concerns, while supporters cited affordable food, choice, jobs and local convenience.

“7th May 2026: The applicant team has now submitted further information in support of the application, and the remaining issues are reviewed in the sections provided below. Having considered the findings of the comprehensive traffic modelling exercise, the highway authority concludes that the scheme would result in a severe cumulative impact on the operation of the local highway network, on this basis, and objects to the planning application on this basis.”

“This route will form a principal access and exit for the proposed Aldi store. There is therefore a clear risk that the development would further exacerbate congestion and adversely affect road safety in the local area. Concerns not only relate to vehicle motorised traffic safety but that of cyclists and pedestrians using the cycle/footpath on the northern side of the A4 running past the entrance to Pixash Lane.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant’s representative supported the application, while councillors discussed local supermarket demand, traffic congestion and the effect on the industrial estate.

Members’ debate

Members weighed the benefits of supermarket choice, public transport and employment against unresolved highway concerns and possible town-centre effects.

“In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed: 1. It was anticipated that there would be 100 vehicle trips in and out of the site every hour. There were 120 parking spaces, and the applicant had supplied evidence that this was sufficient. 2. The parking would be time limited to prevent people using the site as an unofficial park and ride. 3. Consideration had not been given to the provision of a community bus serving the site. 4.”

“Cllr Hughes acknowledged that residents wanted a choice of supermarket provision and considered the proposed site to be logical as it was situated near industrial units rather than a residential development. He also referred to the good public transport links and while acknowledging the results of traffic modelling, he believed that users would change their behaviour to avoid shopping during the afternoon peak times.”

Minutes

The votes

The motion to refuse was tied and failed, while a motion to delegate permission to officers was carried by six votes to two with one abstention.

“On voting for the motion to refuse the application, it was NOT CARRIED (4 in favour, 4 against and 1 abstention).”

“On voting for the motion for officers to be delegated to permit the application, it was CARRIED (6 in favour, 2 against and 1 abstention).”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee resolved that officers should be delegated authority to permit the application and prepare appropriate conditions.

“Cllr Jackson proposed a motion to delegate authority to officers to permit the application. She highlighted the benefits of the application in that it would be accessible to public transport users, and it would offer employment opportunities in the retail sector and that these benefits outweighed the highways objections. This was seconded by Cllr Hughes.”

“Following a discussion about possible conditions, it was agreed that officers would be delegated to draw up appropriate conditions without the need to come back to Committee, and that conditions relating to solar panels in the car park and excluding click and collect would not be considered reasonable.”

Minutes