The Planning Committee of Bath and North East Somerset Council met on Wednesday 21 January 2026, deciding on several planning applications. The committee refused an application for five new bungalows at 22 Tyning Road, Saltford, citing overdevelopment and harm to residential amenity. However, they permitted the conversion of a barn into a single dwelling at Bailbrook Lane, Lower Swainswick, despite objections regarding its Green Belt location and potential impact on the landscape. The committee also raised no objection to tree works in conservation areas at 4 Meadow View, Radstock, and Audley House, Park Gardens, Lower Weston.

22 Tyning Road, Saltford

The committee refused an application to demolish an existing bungalow at 22 Tyning Road, Saltford, and construct five new bungalows with a new access road. The refusal was based on two primary reasons:

• Impact on Character: The development was deemed to be an overdevelopment of the site, resulting in a cramped layout with insufficient green and amenity space. This was considered to be contrary to the character of the locality and in conflict with policies D2 and D7 of the Bath and North East Somerset Placemaking Plan.
• Harm to Residential Amenity: The proposed layout was considered to have an overbearing impact on neighbouring properties, leading to a loss of privacy. Furthermore, the lack of adequate amenity and green space for future occupiers was also cited as a reason for refusal, contrary to policy D6 of the Placemaking Plan.

During the debate, concerns were raised about the density of the development, the size of the proposed bungalows, the provision of parking, and the impact on biodiversity. While officers noted the need for housing and the efficient use of land, the committee ultimately voted to refuse the application, with 8 votes in favour of refusal and 0 against.

Barn, Bailbrook Lane, Lower Swainswick

The committee permitted the change of use and conversion of a barn at Bailbrook Lane, Lower Swainswick, into a single dwellinghouse (C3 Use Class). This decision was made despite significant objections from local residents, Batheaston Parish Council, and ward councillors, who raised concerns about the development's location within the Green Belt, the Cotswold National Landscape, and the setting of the Bath World Heritage Site.

Key points of contention included:

• Green Belt and Landscape Impact: Objectors argued that the proposal constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would harm the distinctive landscape setting of Solsbury Hill. They highlighted a history of tree removal and earthworks on the wider site, suggesting a pattern of incremental development.
• Residential Amenity and Privacy: Concerns were raised about potential overlooking from new windows and the impact on the rural character of the area.
• Access and Transport: The suitability of Bailbrook Lane for increased traffic and the lack of sustainable transport options were also cited.
• Precedent and Agricultural Use: Objectors questioned the agricultural need for the barn's conversion, noting that it was built relatively recently under permitted development rights and that a new agricultural building had also been approved.

However, the planning officer's assessment concluded that the proposal complied with relevant policies, including those relating to Green Belt development (NPPF paragraph 154g) and the conversion of rural buildings (Policy RE6). The officer noted that the changes to the building were minimal, and the proposed screening would mitigate visual impacts. The committee voted to permit the application by 5 votes to 4.

Tree Works Notifications

The committee also considered two notifications for tree works within conservation areas:

• 4 Meadow View, Radstock: The committee raised no objection to the proposed works, which included reducing the height of a conifer, removing a regenerating stump, and trimming a mixed hedge. The officer's assessment concluded that the works were reasonable and proportionate for routine management.
• Audley House, Park Gardens, Lower Weston: Similarly, the committee raised no objection to the proposed tree works, which involved reducing the height of several conifer trees and felling suppressed Lawson cypress trees. The officer deemed the works proportionate and consistent with garden management, noting that the trees were not highly visible from public viewpoints.

Both tree work notifications were approved with 7 votes in favour and 0 against for the Radstock application, and 8 votes in favour and 0 against for the Lower Weston application.

The meeting also noted the report on new planning appeals lodged, decisions received, and dates of forthcoming hearings/inquiries.