Burnham-On-Sea town council’s planning applications committee gave its support to residents fighting a proposed new development of 69 homes on Tuesday evening (April 29th).
Burnham-On-Sea.com was first to report earlier this month how Persimmon Homes had applied for full planning permission to build 75 dwellings on land to the west of Lawrence Close and north of Wallace Wells Road.
The company later cut back its plans to 69 homes amid continuing uproar from residents living next to the site.
On Tuesday evening, the residents filled the town council’s court room to hear the planning applications committee debate the application. The councillors unanimously voted in favour of objecting against the scheme.
“I can’t see that our original objection to the original 75 homes should change,” said Cllr Ken Smout. “All are objections remain valid with the 69 home scheme.”
And Cllr Chris Williams added: “It’s far too dense a development for this site.”
Nigel Kemp, leader of the residents’ action group, spoke at the meeting on behalf of the 70 people who live around the site. He said: “Residents are extremely concerned about the extra traffic that would be generated by a second substantial development in the immediate area.”
“Lawrence Close is not at all suitable for such an increased level of vehicular activity due to its narrowness and its block paved road surface. There are no pavements within the block paved areas and therefore existing residents will be put at risk.”
“Currently, service vehicles reverse up Lawrence Close due to limited manouevering space. The intended completion of the Frank Foley Parkway, the BT land and this proposed development will create immense congestion at the junction of Pepperall Road and Burnham Road. This is already apparent, especially at Bank Holiday and school times.”
Mr Kemp also said that residents fear the proposed site is out of keeping. “The proposed dwellings are in no way consistent with existing properties. Apart from brick, the colours proposed are terracotta, cream and one plot is even powder blue.”
“The existing properties are semi-detatched and detached two, three and four bedroom family houses with front and rear gardens, which provide a safe family environment. The proposed development of coach houses, courtyards and terraced houses are not at all in keeping with the neighbourhood and will cause overshadowing and loss of privacy.”
On the matter of density, Mr Kemp added: “Whilst recognising there are Government guidelines regarding density, the proposed development is too dense and represents over-development to maximise the site. This over-development will destroy the local community. The development will be taking a backwards step in social responsibility and possibly encourage crime. Further development to the North West of the site is in keeping with the rest of the existing area where planning proposals are for three and five bedroom detatched family homes.”
The residents also said they have concerns about environmental issues.
“There are several environmental issues which require further detailed investigations and consultation. These are issues over the content and boundaries of the former land-fill site adjacent to the development; the migration of gases and leachate from the former landfill site; the contaminated land within the proposed area of construction; further substantiation with regards to localised urban flooding; i nadequate sewerage arrangements; and inconsistencies within the application for planning permission and supporting documentation.”
Sedgemoor District Council’s Development Control Committee will consider the scheme during the next few weeks, and residents have until May 2nd to provide their feedback on the revised 69-home scheme.
Our photos show residents at Tuesday’s meeting in Burnham; and the site of the proposed development.
RELATED LINKS:
Residents grill property developer over new homes
Angry residents pack into meeting to halt 75 new homes
Plans for 75 new homes spark anger from local residents
£240,000 play area earmarked for former landfill site
