CONTROVERSIAL plans to build 121 at a Highbridge beauty spot have been given the thumbs down by town councillors.

Coln Developments is seeking planning permission to build 121 homes, a play area and a fitness trail on land between Lakeside and Isleport.

The land is currently owned by five parties including Sedgemoor District Council and if plans are eventually approved the developer says 30 per cent of the houses will be rent to buy.

At a planning committee meeting on Monday (February 25) discussed changes the developer had made to the plans including installing a kissing gate on their side of the railway line and changes to the play area.

Cllr Louise Parkin, said while she appreciates the developer has added a kissing gate to the plans she has fears it will not be enough to mitigate traffic issues in the town.

She said: "We have previously had concerns about the proximity to the rail crossing and while the developer has agreed to install a kissing gate on their side of the railway line, I don't feel it would be too much to ask them to put one on the other side of the bridge as well.

"I don't think this would deliver a sustainable from the site into Highbridge."

Cllr John Parkes echoed Cllr Parkin's comments and said the revised plans raise 'too many concerns' for approval.

He said: "Highbridge simply does not have the infrastructure to support another 121 homes.

"The town has absolutely horrendous traffic at the moment and it cannot support hundreds of vehicles.

"I think we have to accept that this application has been controversial, there have been over 131 responses to this application from residents.

"I think we have to be careful, very careful about what Highways are saying here

Cllr Phil Harvey also attended the meeting and said he 'fundamentally objects' to the plans as the site is public open space and national guidelines state there should not be development on public open space unless there are special circumstances.

He said: "This plan is not a special circumstance to justify this development, it does not exist here."

Cllr Andy Brewer said not all of the site is public space as some of it is privately owned but agreed that the plans represent 'a significant loss' of public open space.

Cllr Parkin echoed Cllr Harvey's comments and said: "Sedgemoor has made sure this public open space has not been used by the public by locking it up and to crate an area that is underused.

"It is disgraceful."

And Cllr Parkes said: "We need to take Sedgemoor to task on this - it (the site) has been blocked off and deliberately neglected.

"The question needs asking of them."

A spokesman for Sedgemoor District Council said: "SDC only has pedestrian access via the public footpath. 

"As we can’t get into the site with machinery we took the view to allow the land to be an area for wildlife. 

"We don’t own the access."

Councillors unanimously voted to uphold its previous objection to the plans on the grounds of inadequate highways access, over-development of the site, loss of public open space and detriment to wildlife on the site.