PLANS to build nearly 250 homes on the edge of Highbridge have been given the green light.

On Tuesday morning Sedgemoor District Council’s development committee met to discuss the plans for a site east of Isleport Lane.

The plans include 248 new homes, a community building, public open space and new vehicle access.

The development will consist of 24 one-bedroom apartments, 68 two-bed apartments, 31 two-bedroom houses, 82 three-bedroom homes, 43 four-bedroom houses, 187 garages as well as a new community building.

Of those new dwellings, it is proposed that 30 per cent will be allocated as affordable housing - a total of 70 dwellings.

Both Burnham and Highbridge Town Council, and the Burnham Without Parish Council had objected to the plans, citing concerns regarding the overdevelopment of the site, the poor sustainable transport links including further provision for pavements and cycle routes, and Isleport Lane’s ability to cope with increased traffic.

Local resident Becky Davey spoke at the meeting saying she was concerned about the safety of the road.

“The access proposed is not suitable, it is too narrow,” Mrs Davey said.

“I believe there will be an accident if this is grant, whether that is a head-on collision, a car ending up in a ditch or a pedestrian struck by a car.”

Nick Jenkins, speaking on behalf of the agent for the site said: “The site is allocated for residential development in the Sedgemoor Local Plan. There are varying types of houses, including 30 per cent affordable housing, 1.5 hectares of open space, cycle and pedestrian links, landscape buffers to the M5 and neighbouring properties.”

During the debate it was explained that there were still some concerns to be sorted with the developer and Highways England regarding the access and Section 106 contribution, but it was recommended the application was approved, with officers delegated to deal with these matters.

Cllrs Mike Murphy and Mike Facey both highlighted concerns over the lack of pavements proposed but were told by the planning officers that County Highways had not recommended this as a condition, and that if the town council wanted to pursue this it could work with County Council.

Following the debate, councillors voted and the development was approved by 11 votes to one, with one abstention.