Five new bungalows at 22 Tyning Road, Saltford

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing an existing bungalow and building five new bungalows with an access road, landscaping and associated works.

“REPORT 22 Tyning Road is an existing bungalow within the housing development boundary of Saltford. It is located on a residential street which features a range of architectural styles and dwelling sizes. It has a large rear garden.”

“Permission is sought to demolish the existing bungalow and construct 5no. bungalows on the site, alongside an access road, landscaping and associated works.”

Officer report

Planning history

An earlier application for roof and link alterations was permitted in 1999.

“99/02403/FUL PERMIT - 9 June 1999 Pitched roof over flat roofed extensions; erect infill link between house and garage.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers considered the scheme policy-compliant and recommended permission because its adverse impacts would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of four additional homes.

“For the reasons set out above, the proposal is considered to comply with the provisions of the development plan and there are no material considerations which indicate that planning permission should be refused. Whilst a reduction in the number of dwellings would result in more opportunity for tree planting and biodiversity net gain provision onsite, this must be balanced against the requirement to make efficient use of land and the acute need for housing in the district.”

“As set out in the principle of development section of this report, Paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF is engaged. It is not considered that there are any adverse impacts of the development which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of permitting this proposal and providing 4no. additional dwellings to the B&NES housing supply. In accordance with 11(d), the application should be granted permission without delay.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The parish council, one supporter and 18 objectors raised concerns including over-development, parking, privacy, access, character, trees, wildlife, noise and construction disruption.

“8th October 2025 - Object - Number of dwellings is too high for the size of the plot - Overdevelopment of the site at odds with the pattern of development - Under provision of parking spaces - Private road is too narrow for visitor parking - Accepts the intention for older residents - Accept development being inside the housing development boundary in principle - Seek a reduction in the number of dwellings - If granted request conditions for EV charging, 10% BNG within the…”

“Objection: - Increase in traffic - Increase in on street parking - Insufficient levels of parking - Overdevelopment - Loss of privacy - Access will lead to highway safety issues - Impact to local character - Removal of hedgerow and trees is harmful to biodiversity and landscape character - Density not in keeping with the surroundings - Noise impacts - Air source heat pump locations not shown - BNG loss should be mitigated as far as possible on site - Harm to wildlife -…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident objected, an architect supported the application, and ward councillors Duncan Hounsell and Chris Warren objected.

What members debated

Members debated over-development, character, residential amenity, garden space, green space, biodiversity net gain, parking and the need for bungalows.

“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 an adverse impact on residential amenity or on the character of the area. 2. There was no specific policy requirement for a minimum outdoor space/garden. Policy D6 referred to sufficient amenity space and officers were of the view that this application was policy compliant. 3.”

“Cllr Hughes opened the debate and stated that although the site was in a sustainable location and there was a need for bungalows, he was concerned about over-development and the impact on the character of the area and the loss of amenity for existing residents and lack of amenity for future residents. He also expressed concern that BNG could not be met on-site and that there would be a loss of green space as a result of the development.”

Minutes

The vote

The motion to refuse was carried with eight votes in favour and none against.

“On voting for the motion, it was CARRIED (8 in favour and 0 against).”

Minutes

The decision and reasons

The committee refused the application because it considered the development harmful to local character and residential amenity for existing and future occupiers.

“RESOLVED that the application be refused for the following reasons 1. Impact to character - the development constituted over-development with a lack of green and amenity space and would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. 2. Harm to residential amenity - the development would have an overbearing impact on neighbouring properties resulting in a lack of privacy and there was a lack of amenity and green space for future occupiers.”

Minutes