35 homes and open space at Land At Great Dunns Close, Beckington, Frome

What was proposed

Outline permission was sought for up to 35 dwellings, public open space, landscaping, sustainable drainage and engineering works, with access from Bath Road.

“Application Details Application reference number 2025/0276/OUT Application type Major Residential Extension of time 05.12.2025 Description Outline permission with all matters reserved except for access for the development of up to 35 dwellings, public open space, landscaping, sustainable urban drainage system & engineering works, with vehicular access off Bath Road.”

“Scheme of delegation 4.1 The application proposes major development. The officer recommendation is for approval as a departure from the Development Plan. In addition, Beckington Parish Council objects to the application. Therefore, the application is to be determined by Planning Committee East.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The undeveloped agricultural site lies north of Beckington, beside the A36, outside but adjoining the conservation area and close to existing gardens and services.

“It is located to the north of Beckington centre and adjoins the Conservation Area in its southwest corner. Access is proposed to be taken from Bath Road, close to the petrol / service station at the A36 roundabout. Its Eastern Boundary is alongside the A36. The Western boundary is formed by existing gardens. The site is relatively level but at its southern extent is significantly above road level on Rudge Lane as it passes under the A36.”

“The site is currently in low level agricultural use. It benefits from hedgerows and tree lines at many of its boundaries – ownership of these features and protection in the long term is discussed below. Constraints and designations • The site is within Band C consultation Zone for Mells Valley SAC. • It adjoins the Beckington Conservation Area • On the boundary with the Service Station is a telecoms mast.”

Officer report

Earlier Beckington decisions

Recent Beckington applications were refused or dismissed because of concerns including heritage harm, drainage, infrastructure, connectivity and living conditions.

“The delivery of 20 new homes in Beckington, given the scale of growth within this area, is considered to result in overdevelopment failing to adequately consider sustainable and alternative travel patterns as encouraged through the placemaking principles and will therefore have an unacceptable impact on local infrastructure and connectivity contrary to Policies CP1, CP2 and DP9 of the Mendip Local Plan Part 1 (adopted 2014) and the NPPF. 2.”

“Consequently, I have found that the proposal is contrary to policies CP1, CP2, DP1, DP3, DP4, DP7 and DP16 of the LPP1. The absence of harm to the living conditions of future occupiers in regard to daylight and privacy is a neutral factor. With regard to the significance of the setting of the Clifton Villas listed buildings, the proposal would result in ‘less than substantial’ harm at a moderate magnitude.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered Beckington suitable for housing and found the significant housing, affordable housing, biodiversity and community benefits outweighed limited identified harms.

“In this case as with the recent appeal decision, the conflict with the policies is considered limited. The application accords with all other parts of the Local Plan and therefore no further reductions in weight need to be considered.”

“A very low level of heritage harm has been identified, which is considered outweighed by the public benefits. The application is therefore considered to accord with DP3, but the low level of heritage harm still needs to be considered here. This is considered a limited harm.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The parish council objected over growth, infrastructure, highways, drainage, landscape, ecology, noise, parking and the site’s position outside settlement limits.

“Flood Risk (surface water) and Foul drainage have not been addressed 7. Impact on landscape character at rural edge of village – lighting and acoustic screening 8. Overdevelopment 9. Considered “unsuitable” for development in Limited Local Plan PII update 10. Premature with reference to Neighbourhood Plan 11. Outside Settlement Limits 12. Insufficient Ecology information 13. Inadequate parking proposed…”

“Somerset Highways No Objection subject to conditions relating to: Detailed highway design Visibility Splay protection EV Charging point provision Parking space provision Surface water drainage provision Construction Management Environmental Protection Noise: Requires a noise attenuation verification condition Construction: requests a CEMP condition Somerset Waste Planning No comment Natural England No response received Tree Officer Requests conditioning of AIA and provision…”

Officer report

What residents said

Residents raised concerns about village character, infrastructure, highways, pollution, flooding, sewerage, ecology, heritage, density, amenity and privacy.

“Representations from members of the public 10.1 Planning issues raised by members of the public are summarised below. • Harm to village character – scale, layout and identity • Infrasturcture capacity – GP and schools • Highways impacts – A36, adjacent petrol/ service station and village • Traffic pollution impacts • Flood risk and drainage in the village centre and on site • Rural setting harm • Need for a Plan-Led system to decide where new homes should go • Over…”

“Affordable housing should be provided • Infrastructure improvements should be in line with development • Support findings of EcIA, enhancement measures should be conditioned.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Four speakers objected, a parish council representative objected, and the applicant supported approval and addressed drainage, housing supply and reserved matters.

What members discussed

Members debated housing supply against concerns about infrastructure, noise, wastewater, highways, active travel and the emerging neighbourhood plan.

“Members acknowledged the importance of meeting housing targets to address the Council’s land supply shortfall. However, concerns were raised about the cumulative impact of development on local infrastructure, character, and amenity. Some Members stressed that while housing delivery is a strategic priority, it should not override significant site-specific issues.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillor Rob Reid proposed approval with changes, and the committee approved it by eight votes to two with no abstentions.

“At the conclusion of the debate, Councillor Rob Reid proposed that the application be approved, in accordance with the Officers recommendation, with amendments of the relevant conditions relating to the provision of water butts, noise mitigation and active travel links to Goose Street. This was seconded by Councillor Tony Robbins.”

“On being put to the vote the proposal was carried with 8 votes in favour, 2 against…”

Minutes

The final decision

Permission was approved in line with the officer recommendation, subject to changes requiring water butts, earlier noise details and active travel links to Goose Street.

“That planning application 2025/0276/OUT be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation, subject to the following revisions:”

“An amendment to the Surface Water Drainage System condition (5) to include the requirement to provide a water butt for each dwelling. • An amendment to the Noise Mitigation Measures condition (12) to bring the submission trigger back to "with reserved matters submissions relating to layout". • An amendment to the estate roads condition (16), to amend the reference to pedestrian links to Goose Street to a reference to active travel linkages.”

Minutes