- Decision
- refused, 2 September 2026
- Decided by
- Council planning committee: B&NES Planning Committee (vote 5-4; delegated to refuse subject to referral to the Secretary of State)
- Authority
- Bath and North East Somerset (South West)
- Application reference
- 25/04961/FUL
- Procedure
- committee
- Development
- Up to 272 co-living studios (sui generis) with communal facilities, after demolition of commercial buildings
- Homes
- 151
- Site context
- inside settlement, PDL, conservation area, flood zone 2
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 2.5 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S4, DP3, HO9, L2
- Development plan policies
- B&NES Core Strategy B1, B4, Placemaking Plan SB8, D1-D5, H7
- Main issues
- design/height; co-living HO9; S4 balance; member overturn
Summary
A 272-studio co-living block on the contaminated former gasworks in Bath's western riverside. Officers recommended approval under S4, the within-settlement presumption, finding HO9 met and giving substantial weight to remediation under L2. Members voted 5-4 to refuse on height, scale and massing alone. Because the 2026 Consultation Direction applies, the resolution was "delegate to refuse" subject to referral to the Secretary of State.
Issues and findings
- S4 (officers). "development proposals within settlements should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects … no significant harms have been identified" (Report item 4, Conclusion).
- HO9 co-living: PASS on location, space and management plan (Report, Principle).
- L2: "substantial weight should be given to development proposals which remediate contaminated land" (Benefits).
- Members: concerned about "height, scale and massing", small rooms and no affordable housing. The Team Manager "advised against reasons for refusal relating to parking standards, size of rooms or affordable housing", so the refusal rests on a single design reason (Minutes item 4).
What made the difference
Design is the one lever S4 leaves members once the principle is settled and supply is short. The resolution names no NPPF design policy, so its defensibility will depend on the DP3 and local design wording in the final refusal notice.
Transferable points
- A "delegate to refuse" resolution, subject to Secretary of State referral under the 2026 Consultation Direction, is now the form used where members overturn an approval recommendation on a major scheme (Minutes item 4).
- Co-living units counted towards supply at 1:1.8 (Report, Benefits).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| S4 | fail | officers — within settlement, approve unless substantially outweighed, no significant harm; members refused on height, scale and massing | |
| HO9 | pass | co-living — access to services by walking/cycling/public transport, adequate space, management plan | |
| L2 | benefit | substantial | remediation of contaminated gasworks land |
| DP3 | fail | members' sole reason — height, scale and massing |
Key facts
- 272 studios counted as 151 dwellings for supply at 1:1.8 ratio; supply c.2.5 years
- Allocated brownfield regeneration site in Bath Western Riverside
- Officers advised against reasons on room size, parking and affordable housing; members refused on design only
- Motion framed as "delegate to refuse" because the 2026 Consultation Direction requires referral to the Secretary of State
Related decisions
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.