COUNCILLORS have opposed plans for a house to be built on land within Wellington’s conservation area.

Wellington Local History and Museum Society opposed the proposals after a nearby resident alerted it to the application for the rear of Shute House in South Street.

“It is the society’s view that the proposal would not preserve or enhance the area,” said a society spokesman.

The society said the site currently had no vehicle access from Birch Road, although the applicants had indicated a new access for traffic would be created by the partial demolition of a 19th Century boundary wall.

The society also said the application would result in the ‘partial destruction of the 19th Century garden’ and it opposed the style, size and materials proposed.

David Steele-Perkins, who attended Wellington Town Council’s latest planning committee meeting, urged councillors to object to the plans.

“The development would result in a substantial house and lead to a loss of privacy and an invasion of privacy,” he said.

Mr Steele-Perkins said that if Somerset West and Taunton Council (SWT) gave the application the go-ahead it would result in part of a 175-year-old wall being demolished and the removal of an old apple tree.

Cllr John Thorne said he was a ‘bit of a philistine’ when it came to the merits of old walls and 19th Century gardens.

“If you have a conservation area it is there for a reason and to destroy it with a large modern building is wrong – it is not an appropriate development to have,” he said.

Councillors voted to oppose the application – although a final decision rests with SWT.

A number of individuals have written to the council to oppose the plans – put forward by Mr and Mrs Colman – and claim no vehicle access currently exists from Birch Road to the proposed development track.

“There is no existing vehicular access from the unadopted track that serves my garage, along with my neighbours’,” wrote one opponent. “The only vehicular way to and from the site, at present, is via South Street.

“Along the north-east of the site there is a substantial brick wall with no opening except a pedestrian door further along. The development will necessitate opening an entrance into that wall.

“The pre-application response notes that the ‘boundary wall has a gate in it’. Clearly the planning officer who wrote that advice believed that the gate was vehicular – it isn’t - it is a pedestrian door and is much further up than the proposed access.”

Town councillors were surprised that no ‘design and access statement’ from the applicants or their agent appeared on the district council’s planning website.