Lawyers battle over ‘just too large’ development in village
Council lawyers have been battling to defend a decision to refuse planning permission for a “just too large” development on the edge of a North Somerset village, as developers seek to get the decision overturned.
North Somerset Council’s planning committee refused planning permission for M7’s plans to build 90 homes on a field by Congresbury in October 2023 — going against the advice of their own planning officers who recommended it be approved. The scheme, located behind houses on Park Road and Mulberry Road, was scaled back to 70 homes of which 21 would be affordable and came back before the committee a month later, but councillors unanimously stood by their decision.
But the developers launched a legal challenge, claiming councillors had made a “flawed decision” under pressure from the local campaign and not on the basis of solid reasons. The four day appeal hearing before planning inspector Stephen Wilkinson — which was well attended by Congresbury locals — concluded on September 10.
READ MORE:Congestion-busting bypass plans for Somerset village are back
READ MORE:Somerset's most expensive places to buy a home
Representing North Somerset Council, Tim Leader argued in his closing statement: “Members of the planning committee were right to reject the scheme because of the harm it would cause to the landscape and character of Congresbury.”
He said it went against the council’s policies for large developments to be built on villages on sites not allocated for housing. He added that the development also went against Congresbury’s neighbourhood plan, a plan created by the village for where they wanted local housing developments to go which had been recognised as being “positive and ambitious.”
He added: “The scheme will not be assimilated into the landscape. It will be prominent and intrusive on the tranquil and rural character of a well used and attractive area of open countryside.”
Mr Leader said: “It is just too large.”
He also warned that the scheme would harm the setting of Grade II listed Park Farm, and added that the shortfall of required housing in North Somerset was a “relatively small shortfall.”
But representing M7, Giles Cannock KC criticised the planning committee’s decision. He said: “Members wanted to refuse consent in the face of local opposition but didn’t have any credible reasons for doing so.”
He said: “The reasons for non approval from members under pressure by local residents were irrational and flawed. [...] There were no objections by statutory consultees. It was recommended for approval by the case officer.”
Quoting the new Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner — part of the Labour government which was elected after the planning committee turned down the plans — he said: “We are in the middle of the most acute housing crisis in living memory. Home ownership is out of reach for many.”
He dismissed the concerns about Park Farm, adding there would be no harm to the building. He added: “The delivery of 21 market homes to those households who will benefit from them is a benefit of very significant weight. Real people will need them now.”
Mr Cannock warned that North Somerset was not meeting the required levels of housing and had a “serious affordability problem.” Not meeting the requirement means a “tilted balance” in favour of development needs to be applied in favour of development. He said: “It would appear that members don’t appreciate the significant level of under delivery.”
Councillors had been told by council officers in October they had to apply the “tilted balance” to their policies due to the housing shortage, but councillor Terry Porter said: “That doesn’t mean we have to do away with them altogether.”
He added: “My real concern is the lack of concern it gives to the neighbourhood plan. [...] I think that has been ignored here.”
Councillor Hannah Young said: “That was not a ‘NIMBY’ neighbourhood plan.” She added that Congresbury residents selected places where new developments could be built in the plan — some of which remained undeveloped — but the field where M7 wanted to build 90 homes was not one of them.
When the plans came before the planning committee in November, committee member Mike Solomon said: “It’s interesting that once we turned it down, the applicant came and reduced the houses to 70.” But he added: “I haven’t changed my view since last time.”
Councillors were once again warned about the “tilted balance” and that M7 could appeal if the council turned it down, but Mr Solomon said: “I am not convinced, any more, that we will lose appeals on our housing numbers.”
A decision will now be made by Mr Wilkinson over whether the council was right to refuse the homes, or whether to overturn their decision and grant planning permission.