Planning Response – Land OS 6975, Bowden Road
Application Ref: 25/02759/REM
Valid From: 19/01/2026
Reserved Matters application for appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale for 140 dwellings in accordance with Outline Permission 22/03560/OUT
Parish Council Response (with NPPF references)
1. Lack of Consultation
The Parish Council has significant concerns regarding the limited public engagement undertaken prior to submission. The application does not demonstrate that the views of the local community have been effectively considered.
Under the NPPF, planning decisions should be shaped by early, proactive, and effective engagement with communities (NPPF para 34; plan-making also stresses this principle at paras 15–17).
This application does not reflect that requirement.
2. Overall Quality and Suitability of the Application
The Designing Out Crime Officer raised multiple concerns regarding the layout, lighting, and security of the site. These issues directly relate to national policy expectations that planning decisions should promote safe and accessible environments and avoid creating opportunities for crime (NPPF para 131 on safe and inclusive design). [gov.uk]
Key issues include:
- Parking layout that may elevate crime risk.
- Poorly lit or secluded routes to vehicles and rear access points.
- Lack of boundary features to prevent unauthorised access or inappropriate parking.
- Insufficient lighting along the pedestrian footpath linking the site to the village.
- Play area sited too close to Plot 113, contrary to the NPPF emphasis on safe, well-overlooked spaces (NPPF para 130–132).
3. Road Adoption and Technical Clarity
The documentation appears to imply that estate roads may be adoptable despite previous nearby developments (Knights Meadow, Blackmore Vale Close) being non‑adoptable.
The NPPF requires clear, coherent, and deliverable proposals (NPPF para 122—effective use of land and infrastructure).
Clarity on adoption status is therefore essential along with a full plan for ongoing maintenance of all open space and designated play areas as well as the provision of litter and dog poo bins none of which the Parish Council would consider taking on.
4. Arboricultural Impacts
The tree Office has reported that due to concerns about incursions into the RPAs of several trees on the southern boundary it does not confirm to EQ5 of SSLP. SSLP EQ5 – “Existing Green Infrastructure will be protected against any adverse impact of development proposals.”
The Parish Council requests that tree protection be secured by condition due to past evidence of root damage in nearby developments.
This aligns with NPPF requirements to protect existing trees and green features of value and to ensure developments conserve and enhance the natural environment (NPPF para 180–182).
5. Healthy Living Assessment – Misleading Assumptions
a. Walking, Cycling and Public Transport
The submitted assessment claims that “short trips of up to three miles can be easily made on foot or bicycle.”
However, the A357’s high traffic volume and the absence of continuous pavements make walking and cycling unsafe and impractical.
In addition, this proposal is likely to have a substantial and adverse impact on an area of the village that is already experiencing significant congestion. The application does not adequately consider the implications for residents of Bowden Road, West Street, Overcombe, Manor Close, and Westcombe, where extensive on‑street parking already reduces road widths and restricts the safe movement of vehicles.
This is particularly concerning given that many pedestrians now have no alternative but to use Bowden Road, which lacks a dedicated footpath. The increase in two‑way traffic—both during construction and as a long‑term consequence of the development—will exacerbate safety risks. Expecting pedestrians, including parents with children, school pupils, individuals with prams, and those with mobility difficulties, to rely on grass verges is wholly inappropriate and fails to meet basic accessibility and safety standards.
The proposal also overlooks the impact on access to the village’s only Post Office, used by all residents. Furthermore, the continued growth in online shopping means a rising number of delivery vehicles will be entering the area, further intensifying congestion and compounding existing highway and safety concerns.
The ‘frequent bus service’ given as an example to support sustainable transport choices is only 8 buses to Yeovil on a weekday and 7 buses returning to Wincanton. A reduced service on a Saturday and no service on a Sunday and so the location does not offer a sustainable transport choices.
This contradicts NPPF expectations that developments should provide attractive, safe, and convenient walking and cycling routes, and should enable sustainable transport choices (NPPF paras 114–121, particularly para 119 on promoting active travel).
b. Employment and Local Services
The assessment states that Wincanton (approx. 10 km away) provides significant employment opportunities. The Parish Council notes that as of 14/02/2026, no relevant vacancies are advertised locally.
The NPPF stresses that developments should support local economic growth and be located where they can be appropriately serviced by employment, infrastructure, and services (NPPF paras 86–104; economy and town centres).
The proposal does not satisfy these criteria.
6. Housing Mix and Accessibility Needs
The proposal includes no bungalows or fully accessible homes suitable for older residents.
This conflicts with NPPF requirements to deliver a wide choice of high-quality homes and to meet the needs of different groups in the community, including older people and those requiring accessible accommodation (NPPF para 81(e) and para 83).
7. Local Character and Design Quality
The proposed uniform finishes—Anthracite Grey UPVC windows, Stiffkey Blue/Agate Grey doors, and Black rainwater goods—are not representative of the village’s varied architectural character.
The NPPF states that developments should:
- Be visually attractive
- Be sympathetic to local character and history
- Maintain a strong sense of place
(NPPF paras 130–134: achieving well‑designed places).
The current proposal does not accord with these principles.
8. Distribution of Affordable Housing
The S106 agreement requires affordable homes to be pepper‑potted across the site. The current plan clusters them predominantly on one side, which is inconsistent with NPPF policy requiring mixed and balanced communities (NPPF para 81).
9. Archaeology and Ground Conditions
The Written Scheme of Investigation has only been partially discharged.
The NPPF requires that heritage assets (including archaeological remains) be identified, assessed, and where necessary, protected or recorded before development proceeds (NPPF paras 204–210: historic environment).
Findings include:
- A possible cremation area requiring further investigation.
- A minimally excavated quarry pit (Trench 18) containing fresh cattle bones associated with an historic epidemic.
- Uncertainty about full pit extent due to health and safety limits on excavation.
Given the outstanding archaeological risks, proceeding with development would not meet NPPF expectations for appropriate investigation and mitigation of heritage assets and highlights the previously extensively reported location of a burial site for cattle during a foot and mouth epidemic. Given that the trench was excavated minimally for cited ‘health and safety reasons’ we would further question the appropriateness of then considering building on this site.
10. Access to Planning Documents
On 14/02/2026, key planning documents were inaccessible due to system errors.
The NPPF stresses that planning should be transparent, effective, and allow proper public participation (NPPF paras 15–17, and general decision‑making requirements at paras 129–140).
Failure to provide document access compromises the fairness and validity of the consultation.
Conclusion
Based on the concerns outlined—supported by clear conflicts with the NPPF—the Parish Council does not consider the proposal acceptable in its current form. The development fails to demonstrate compliance with key national policy expectations relating to:
- Community engagement
- Safe and inclusive design
- Sustainable transport and infrastructure
- Housing mix and accessibility
- Respect for local character
- Archaeological due diligence
Until these matters are addressed, the application should not proceed to approval.
In addition, as discussed in the Abbas and Templecombe Parish Council Meeting of 10 February concerns that the access route for deliveries does not allow for the height restriction on under the railway bridge and the width of Bowden Road which includes essential residential parking which it will not be acceptable to restrict given there are no other alternatives. The Parish Council could request that should planning permissions be granted the proposed development in West Street should not be allowed to commence until completion of this application or should West Street reserved matters be granted and be ready to commence that this application would not be allowed to commence until completion of West Street to avoid complete gridlock as both applications would need to use Bowden Road for access.
We note that the developer indicates no deliveries would occur during journey to school time. Within the village we have school journeys from 7 – 9:15 am and from 3 – 5:15 to reflect school bus drop off times. We would ask how this would be enforced along with the proposed noise, dust and parking mitigation which was also promised in the Knights Meadow development and was rarely complied with and not supported by Planning enforcement.
The Parish Council would ask if planning permission is granted despite the numerous concerns listed in this document that all mitigation and planning conditions have clearly indicated sanctions for non-compliance. The Parish Council would like assurance that Somerset Council are prepared to implement those sanctions in a timely manner to ensure any development is delivered to the agreed planning consent with regards to content, quality and in the required timeframes that Templecombe and its residents deserve and not the travesty of a development delivered by Tilia Homes at the Knights Meadow Development where numerous breaches of planning exist nearly 6 months after the last property on the development was occupied.