150 homes at Land North Of Cossington Lane, Woolavington, Bridgwater

Outline permission for up to 150 homes

The outline application sought up to 150 dwellings, public open space and landscaping, with access from Cossington Lane.

“The Planning Officer introduced the application with the aid of a presentation. The…”

“Officer explained that the application was to consider for Outline planning application with all matters reserved except access, comprising the erection of up to 150 dwellings, public open space, landscaping and associated works, with vehicular access to be provided via Cossington Lane, and pedestrian and cycle connection to Woolavington Hill.”

Minutes

Objectors and Woolavington Parish Council on highways

Objectors and Woolavington Parish Council said the A39/B3141 junction was already over capacity and the modal shift assumptions were unrealistic, asking for further highway modelling.

“The development was considered inappropriately located and unsustainable, particularly in scale relative to nearby settlements. • Concern was raised about the disproportionate impact on Cossington, a smaller village, with the proposal said to threaten its character and independence. • Strong objection was made to the highway impact, particularly at the A39 / B3141 junction, which was described as already operating at or beyond capacity.”

“The Parish Council did not object in principle, but raised material concerns, particularly in relation to highways impact. • Stated that the A39 / B3141 junction is already over capacity, and that the report relied too heavily on assumptions of modal shift without clear evidence that this would materially reduce traffic.”

Minutes

Who spoke

Two objectors, two parish councils and the planning agent addressed the committee.

The tilted balance and junction capacity

Officers said the lack of a five-year land supply meant the tilted balance applied, and that junction modelling showed the added traffic was not severe.

“Councillors acknowledged discomfort with the proposal but recognised that the five-year land supply shortfall meant the application had to be assessed under the tilted balance. Officers confirmed that refusal would require harms that significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. • Councillors repeatedly raised concern that the junction was already operating at capacity and questioned whether additional traffic could realistically be accommodated.”

Minutes

Modal shift and cumulative development

Officers said travel measures and a safeguarded sum would support modal shift, and that junction modelling had accounted for other committed development.

“Officers responded that the scheme included physical infrastructure, travel planning and a safeguarded sum, allowing further measures if monitoring showed modal shift targets were not being met. • Councillors expressed unease that this application was being considered in isolation while other nearby developments were likely to come forward.”

“Policy T2A, subject to mitigation, and that impacts had been assessed accordingly. • Reference was made to a previous refusal on the site and earlier schemes where more substantial junction works were required. Officers explained that circumstances had changed, including the land supply position, updated traffic data and revised national policy emphasis on active travel. • Councillors highlighted concern about the risk of refusal.”

Minutes

Councillors voted to approve

Councillors proposed and seconded approval, which carried 5 votes to 3 with one abstention.

“After deliberations Councillor Hendry proposed to grant planning permission. This was seconded by Councillor Ham.”

“Having been duly proposed and seconded the Planning Committee resolved that the Planning Application be GRANTED planning permission in line with the officer recommendation. Subject to the completion of the Section 106 Agreement, delegated to the Chair and Chief Planning Officer.”

Minutes