®Planning appeal decision
Former Wyevale Garden Centre, Hicks Gate, Keynsham, BRISTOL, BS31 2AD
Outline application for the demolition of existing buildings, removal of surface parking, and erection of buildings to accommodate 4,765 sq.m of commercial buildings (flexible Use Class E/B2/B8) with associated bins and bike stores. Associated hard and sof t landscaping. Vehicular access from the A4 Bath Road. Approval sought for the matters of Access
- Authority
- Bristol City Council
- Appeal type
- major · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- employment-industrial · Major general industry/storage/warehousing
- Inspector
- Lewis D
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt.
- Whether proposals made within the development scheme would offer a genuine choice of travel modes and encourage the use of sustainable modes of travel.
- The effects of the proposal on highway safety and the capacity of the A4 Bath Road.
- The effects of the proposal on landscape character, the appearance of the site and the visual amenity of the surrounding area.
- The effect of the proposed provision of commercial premises on the supply of employment land and floorspace, having regard to policies for regeneration and efficient use of land.
- The effects of planning conditions and planning obligations on the quality of the proposed development and mitigation of any potential adverse effects.
What decided it
The unacceptable impact on highway safety arising from unresolved deficiencies in both proposed A4 junction layouts and their traffic modelling, which alone justified refusal, combined with the failure to demonstrate very special circumstances to outweigh Green Belt harm.
The potential harms to the Green Belt and the additional identified harms (unsustainable location and highway safety) were not clearly outweighed by the employment and economic benefits and other positive considerations, so very special circumstances did not exist and the balance tipped against the proposal.
Framework references: 50, 110, 115, 116, 124, 154, 155
Plan policies cited: Policy BCS5, Policy BCS6, Policy BCS7, Policy BCS8, Policy BCS9, Policy BCS10, Policy DM1, Policy DM7, Policy DM12, Policy DM13, Policy DM15, Policy DM17, Policy DM19, Policy DM23, Policy DM24, Policy DS12, Policy E2, Policy E3, Policy E4, Policy E5
Judgments cited: Vistry Homes Ltd v SoS Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Others [2024] EWHC 2088 (Admin)
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.