Plans for 43 flats in Bridgwater town centre APPROVED

Sedgemoor District Council’s development committee considered the proposals on Tuesday, December 7, with several councillors raising concerns about traffic, over-development and the loss of green space.

However, the committee ultimately voted to approve the plans, arguing they were better than the care home previously approved for the same site.

The site, which lies a short distance from the Royal Mail delivery office, has been subject to various attempts at redevelopment since the 1970s.

Prior to the Refresh scheme, the most recent attempt came in 2013, when Acorn Developments applied to build a 45-bed care home and six extra care units on the former graveyard.

Under the Refresh scheme, the extra care apartments and care home will be swapped out with two blocks of one- and two-bedroom flats, with 15 car parking spaces being provided.

Julia Tester, who lives on Friarn Street, said the proposals were “a retrograde move for an historic area in Bridgwater” and called on the council to preserve remaining green spaces in the town centre.

She said: “Our gardens offer homes to a myriad of species – earthworms, beetles, bees, bats, hedgehogs and mammals from Durleigh Brook.

“The application proposed turning green, un-Tarmacked space into flats. This will bring air pollution, as well as overshadowing our vegetable plot. There will be extra congestion on Friarn Street due to the lack of parking.

“We have a responsibility to take care of our green spaces. To further urbanise the centre of our town would be to diminish it.”

Councillor Brian Smedley, whose Bridgwater Westover ward includes the site, said the plans were ” an over-development of an already overdeveloped part of Bridgwater.”

He elaborated: “We need to accept that ‘vacant and overgrown’ is not necessarily a bad thing, with the current emphasis on re-wilding.

“Most of the residents who live in the area don’t wish to see their precious, wild green spaces taking away from them at a time of climate catastrophe. This is not mere NIMBYism – this is people taking a stand.

“This was once a graveyard – don’t let this become the graveyard of Sedgemoor’s planning legacy.”

The council estimates that between 33 and 90 bodies will need to be exhumed from the site in order for the development to take place.

Landowner Mark Thomas said green space at the southern tip of the site would be preserved, and the site was an improvement on the 2013 plans.

He said: “I feel this is a better design than the previously consented scheme. It’s a brownfield site – I hear people’s objections, but the majority of the green space on the other side of the Durleigh Brook will be retained and enhanced.

“We’ve done what we could to enhance the scheme. We think the design fits with the local vernacular.”

Several councillors spoke against the scheme, complaining about the density of the development and how it would impact on existing residents.

Councillor Alistair Hendry said: “43 units with nine motorcycle spaces and only one disabled space? I don’t understand that – and only two electric vehicle charging points? That cannot be right.”

Councillor Kathy Pearce (who also represents Bridgwater Westover) said: “This is a really awkward site in size, shape and location. It’s in a conservation area in an area built up before the age of the car.

“I do have concerns about how well the Durleigh Brook will cope with this. I just think it’s over-development; in my opinion, it’s too many homes on that site.”

Councillor Tony Heywood added: “I think it’s wishful thinking that people will change the way they live suddenly. I predict there will be huge problems with people being displaced.”

Others, however, argued the proposals were a better use of the space than a care home, with councillor Tony Grimes calling it “the lesser of two evils”.

Councillor Stuart Kingham added: “When you compare this application to the one that currently has permission, it’s much better.

“I’ve been in residential areas with buildings like this which have even less parking. This is a better building than what’s approved.”

After less than an hour’s debate, the committee voted to approve the plans by a margin of seven votes to four.