CAMPAIGNERS have condemned a decision to allow the demolition of an 'arts and crafts' style villa in Minehead to make way for a development of retirement flats.

More than 100 letters of objection had been received by West Somerset Council in relation to McCarthy and Stone's plans to build 25 new apartments on the site of Beechfield House in The Parks.

And some 15 opponents of the scheme were at the authority's planning committee meeting last Thursday when the scheme was given the go-ahead.

Despite some councillors' concerns over highway safety, over-development of the site and McCarthy and Stone's failure to pay the council the full planning gain money to offset the impact of the development, the application was approved by eight votes to four, with several abstentions.

McCarthy and Stone will contribute £323,000 towards the provision of affordable housing elsewhere in the town instead of the £531,106 that the council would normally require for a development of such size.

Six local residents against the development spoke at the meeting, raising issues ranging from the increased risk of flooding and the scale of the proposed new building to highway safety and the impact on the conservation area.

Near neighbour Adrian Chick said the retirement complex would be seven times larger than the existing house and would not be in keeping with the area.

And fellow local resident Steven Dyer described the proposed building as overbearing and unsympathetic.

Mr Dyer also called the road at that stretch of The Parks an accident blackspot.

Local hotelier Bryan Leaker, whose guesthouse is almost opposite the site, claimed the proposal would destroy a business he had spent the last five years building up.

He said Minehead Town Council had objected to the application and it was abundantly clear local residents did not want it.

Mr Leaker also asked why planning officers were recommending the scheme for approval when an application for a house in the grounds of Beechfield had been refused 13 years ago largely because of the impact it would have on the surrounding area.

Minehead Conservation Society spokesman Sally Bainbridge spoke about the architectural importance of the existing house, designed by Minehead's premier 'between the wars' architect W.J Tamlyn.

She said English Heritage - which has rejected an application for it to be listed - had described it as a good quality Edwardian villa which made a strong contribution to the street scene.

"This is considerable recognition," she said.

And Mrs Bainbridge said it was "insulting" that McCarthy and Stone was not prepared to pay the full amount towards affordable housing provision.

Minehead town councillor Roger Thomas also raised the issue of the money.

"McCarthy and Stone is a commercial company and can well afford to pay," he said.

"They can't get away with destroying the architectural heritage of the town - Minehead should not be unfairly treated."

But a spokesman for the company said the level of contribution was based on the viability of the scheme.

He told the meeting that there was a local need for the retirement apartments now and in the future, revealing that the company had already received 70 enquiries in relation to the new development.

He said the existing house was "a pleasant property" but that the replacement building would not be out of keeping with the area.

Planning officer Elizabeth Peeks told councillors that the complex of 12 one-bedroom, 12 two-bedroom and one three bedroom flat had been designed to appear as two different properties linked by a single storey building.

And she said it had also been designed in an arts and crafts style to replicate the property to be demolished.

Mrs Peeks said neighbouring properties would not be adversely affected, the development was acceptable in flood risk terms and the reduced contribution towards affordable housing was in line with national guidance.

Mrs Peeks said the site was just outside the conservation area so the application could not be refused on those grounds.

"It is recognised that Beechfield is a lovely house and it is regrettable that it needs to be demolished," she said.

"Nobody doubts its contribution to the street scene."

But she said it was considered that the arts and crafts style design of the new development would complement the area.

And she told councillors that a previous application for a house in the grounds was rejected because it did not involve the demolition of the existing house and would have affected the spatial relationship of nearby properties, creating a cramped appearance.

Somerset highways representative John Cunningham confirmed that the 19 parking spaces proposed for the development was above the number required by the authority.

He said it was considered that the impact of the increased traffic would be small on the surrounding area and that visibility would be improved by the creation of new splays and a footpath to the front of the site.

But Cllr Chris Morgan said he considered the highways authority's lack of objection to the development to be "off the wall".

"When I visited the site, I thought that particular piece of road to be potentially lethal," he said.

He also said the scheme was an overdevelopment of the site: "The plans look good on paper but it is an enormous footprint on a very small piece of land.

"I find it almost obscene that it is being considered."

Cllr Keith Turner suggested the flats should have a 'locals only' tie but was told this would be unreasonable and virtually impossible to impose.

Several councillors raised concerns about the reduced contribution towards affordable housing that would be generated by the scheme but were told the viability was something the council had to consider, regardless of the wealth of the applicant.

Cllr Anthony Trollope-Bellew said the loss of money was a pity but he could not see any planning grounds on which the application could be refused.

After the meeting, Mr Leaker described the committee's decision as "a travesty".

"So many questions were left unanswered on flooding, road safety, the effect on local residents and businesses and other issues," he said.

"It wasn't really a planning meeting, more of a meeting about the money for affordable housing.

"Councillors spent more time talking about that then they did about the application itself.

"It seems their only interest is to milk the community and sell Minehead's crown jewels."