Plans to expand a busy tourist attraction at the foot of Brean Down have this week been turned down by district planners.
Burnham-On-Sea.com first reported last December how Brean Down Bird Gardens at Brean Cove (pictured) had submitted a planning application to extend its facilities in time for this summer’s tourist season.
It applied to build a new two-storey extension to the west of its current building to allow it to extend its shop and introduce extra toilet facilities, along with a new bird rearing and viewing room.
Brean Parish Council had supported the scheme, but several local residents and the Planning Case Officer voiced concerns about the impact that the scheme would have on the environment.
Members of Sedgemoor’s Development Control Committee considered the comments and rejected the scheme at their latest meeting.
Brean Parish Council had said the project was good for the area, adding: “At present the building is looking ‘tired’ and this will greatly improve appearance of what is a tourist attraction. There is no parking problem as there is a small field available for parking and therefore the approach is not blocked. Emergency vehicles use the lane to the farm and a separate road to access the Down. The bird garden has an important and successful bird rearing programme and extra indoor facilities are required for this. A previous application was refused due to the addition of a balcony and exit door opposite neighbours and this has been removed.”
But two formal letters of objection were received from local people, with the complainants claiming the work “would be unsuitable next to an area of outstanding natural beauty” and that the project “would cause security and environmental issues” plus “loss of tranquility and views of the countryside”.
Sedgemoor Case Officer Colin Arnold agreed, saying in a report on the proposals: “The main issue remains the creation of a new dwelling in the open countryside. The applicant’s preference to concentrate on the business side rather than the bird keeping side does not amount to a planning justification for allowing a new dwelling in the countryside.”
“The design of the extension is over large and will dwarf the original dwelling. It would create a monolithic building in an area of particular beauty. This is an area which does not have such large buildings and the general scale of the buildings in the area is domestic.”
“The proposed extension of this building by virtue of its mass, bulk, design and detailing would result in the unsympathetic over-extension of the existing building at odds with its simple character and the low-key pattern of development in the locality. The proposal would therefore neither maintain or enhance the local environment nor create a quality development.”
