New homes bid on green belt rejected

Housing plans for green belt land on the edge of Bath have been defeated again due to “significant omissions and issues”.

More than 180 residents objected to Millen Homes’ revised bid for 15 two- and threebed affordable homes off Deadmill Lane after its previous attempt was thrown out on appeal.

The developer said scaling back its proposals reduced the pressure on site and allowed a greater degree of openness and permeability through the site. It faced staunch opposition.

Many of the concerns were set out by an organised campaign, which said: “The proposed development is totally unacceptable. The field, both an important wildlife habitat and source of pleasure for the local people, will be lost and the character of this area will be irrevocably altered.”

It said the project would increase traffic and emissions, harm an “excellent” wildlife corridor and destroy the relationship of the historically important Deadmill site with its surroundings.

Lambridge’s councillor Rob Appleyard said the scheme was highly contentious and residents could not identify any exceptional circumstances for building in the green belt.

His ward colleague Councillor Joanna Wright added concerns about affordable housing and transport links to the charges against the development.

Refusing planning permission, Bath and North East Somerset Council said the scheme failed to meet the demand for one-bed properties or provide assurance the homes would always be affordable.

Concluding, the officers said: “The proposed development is considered to be of an unacceptable scale, quantum and layout which would harm landscape and rural character of the site, the Bath World Heritage Site designation, the Conservation Area and the setting of Dead Mill.

“The public benefits of the proposal are considered to outweigh the harm to Dead Mill when assessed independently but it is considered that this contributes to the totality of harm.

“The public benefits do not outweigh the harm to these designations.

“In addition, the proposal fails to provide an acceptable layout and access in terms of highway safety.

“Ecological and arboricultural matters have not been fully addressed in accordance with planning policy and UK law.

“It is therefore considered that there are significant omissions and issues with the proposal and on this basis, it is recommended for refusal.”