PLANS to knock down a bungalow and build a “cramped” cul-de-sac on its garden have been unanimously rejected.

Every councillor on Bath and North East Somerset Council’s planning committee voted to turn down a planning application to demolish 22 the Tynings in Saltford and build a cul-de-sac with five bungalows in its place and across its “rather large” rear garden.

Speaking for applicant Sandy Veer at the committee meeting on January 21, the scheme’s architect John Blake said: “Her mum and dad loved their large garden and large amounts of vegetables, fruit, and even grapes in the greenhouses were grown up until 10 years ago when the garden became too much for them. They are now in retirement living accommodation.”

He said: “The site itself is nearly a quarter of a hectare in area. The existing bungalow is over 70 years old and is tired and has been extended many times in its life. This is an inefficient use of space.”

But next door neighbour Ruth Presswood urged councillors to turn down the plans, or at least require major changes. She said: “The proposal places new dwellings and gardens immediately alongside existing homes. This results in a significant loss of privacy and a sense of enclosure.”

The plan also faced opposition from both of Saltford’s local councillors. Duncan Hounsell (Liberal Democrat) warned: “The layout proposed appears unnatural and cramped,” while Chris Warren (Independents for B&NES) added: “Five properties on this plot is overdevelopment of the site.”

Planning committee member Paul Crossley (Southdown, Liberal Democrat) said: “This is one of the most overdeveloped schemes I have seen for a long time.” He said the development was “completely inappropriate” in Saltford and might even be turned down in Bath.

Several councillors also raised concerns about the size of the proposed bungalow’s gardens — particularly the small gardens proposed at the end of the cul-de-sac. Only Tim Warren (Midsomer Norton Redfield, Conservative) said he was not concerned about the size of the gardens, commenting: “If you don’t want a small garden, you don’t buy it.”

The development was turned down on the grounds of the “cramped layout and lack of green and amenity space” having a negative impact on the area’s character, and the harm to neighbours’ “residential amenity.”

Councillors turned down the application despite being behind on its housing supply.

In 2024, the government doubled Bath and North East Somerset Council’s housing target. As a result, the council is no longer able to demonstrate a five year housing supply which means councillors are required to weigh up planning applications with a “tilted balance” in favour of development. Council officers warned councillors “it is a very significant consideration that you should weigh heavily in your minds”.

Mr Crossley told the committee: “I don’t think we should be worried too much about the fact that the government has just doubled our housing target overnight […] I don’t think that should mean that we have to put up with developments like this.” He said: “I think this fails on a number of reasons.”