The scale and location of the development due to its prominence and unjustified nature would result in overdevelopment of the site that would have a significant and adverse impact on the visual amenity and wider character and appearance of the area. In the absence of a justified need for this scale of development and any sequential approach taken to edge of settlement sites to demonstrate that there would be no alternative to the resultant visual impact of this site the impact of the development would be out of keeping with the prevailing pattern of development and would be contrary to policies C01, S2, T3a and D2 of the Local Plan.

Insufficient information has been provided to justify the scale of development in accordance with an up to date localised housing need report or confirmation that this site provides for a locally agreed infrastructure requirement. In the absence of appropriate justification, the application fails to comply with Policy T3a and would therefore be considered as development in the Countryside. The development would therefore fail to comply with C01 and S2 of the Local Plan which seeks to ensure new development is appropriately controlled.

Insufficient information has currently been provided in respect of trail trenching to ensure that the development has fully assessed the impact on the surrounding heritage assets and the development is therefore contrary to Policy D26 of the Local Plan and advice contained in the NPPF.

Insufficient information has been provided regarding the enclosure/blockage of the traditional markings on the Listed Building which may have been used as a way marker for vessels navigating the River Parrett and the impact of the development on the setting of this building. As a result the development would result in substantial harm to the setting of the Listed Building contrary to Policy D26 of the Local Plan and advice contained within the NPPF.

Insufficient and inaccurate details have been provided in respect of highway detailing with insufficient information in respect of visibility splays to ensure visibility along the proposed southern development access road from the crossing points, swepth path analysis to confirm that the site would be accessible and a framework travel plan to assess the impact of traffic generation and appropriate mitigation. In the absence of these details the LPA is unable to confirm compliance of the development with Policies D13 and D14 of the Local Plan and is therefore considered to be unacceptable from a Highway Safety perspective.

Insufficient information has been provided in respect of a preliminary ecological appraisal and any additional ecological reports to confirm appropriate mitigation and enhancement. In the absence of this information the development is considered to be unacceptable in accordance with Policies D20 and D21 of the Local Plan or guidance contained within the NPPF.

Insufficient information has been provided in respect of the Flood Risk Assessment. In this instance the submitted flood risk assessment fails to: demonstrate that the development is 'safe' for its lifetime (100 years) consider residual flood risk in the event of breach or overtopping of the coastal defences address the opportunities presented by this development for reducing flood risk take the predicted impacts of climate change into account utilising the latest climate change allowances (published 2019). utilise appropriate Environment Agency modelled flood data and the Sedgemoor District Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment detail mitigation measures to mitigate tidal and fluvial flood risk a sequential approach has been taken within the site adequately consider implications of surface water flood risk and impact of land raising within the site increasing risk to adjacent properties adequately consider the influence of tide-locking on any surface water drainage proposal confirm a suitable surface water discharge location In the absence of the above the application cannot demonstrate that it would be acceptable in respect of flood risk and therefore the development would be contrary to Policy D1 and advice contained within the NPPF.