Plans for 50 new homes in Wells refused

Land Allocation Ltd applied to build the homes on the northern side of Wookey Hole Road in Wells, directly opposite the existing Priory Fields housing estate.

This was the second attempt by the York-based developer to build on Wookey Hole Road, after permission for 148 homes was roundly refused by Mendip District Council in May 2020.

The council has now refused these smaller proposals, sharing the views of local residents and Wells’ MP that it is not appropriate to build more homes near Wookey Hole.

The site was not allocated for development either in the council’s Local Plan Part I (which included the land south of Wookey Hole Road) or the Local Plan Part II, which identified further sites at the city’s western edge near the A371 Portway and the B3139 Elm Close.

These latest plans were refused by the council’s planning officers through their delegated powers, rather than a public decision by the planning board.

Julie Reader-Sullivan, the council’s head of service for planning and growth, identified four key reasons for the refusal – namely:

The development would result in “a loss of rural character” along Wookey Hill Road, impacting on the “openness of the rural setting” of both Wells and the Mendip Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

The applicant has not provided enough information as to how the development would impact on the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar site, or the protected species therein.

There has been “insufficient information” about how trees near the site, and the species which dwell in them, will be protected alongside the new homes.

There has been a lack of information from the developer over how surface water from the new homes would be managed so that it doesn’t increase flood risk elsewhere.

Wells MP James Heappey was among those who formally objected to the plans – breaking the convention that MPs do not normally give their views or intervene on local planning applications.

In a letter to the council’s chief executive Stuart Brown, he stated that his views had not changed since the first attempt to develop the site was made in 2019, a few years after he was first elected to the constituency.

He said: “While, of course, MPs have no formal role in the planning process, I share the concerns of my constituents that small, rural villages, such as Wookey Hole, risk over-development.

“To continue to build further houses risks the degradation of such a beautiful area, and also raises important questions about how local infrastructure, including schools, roads, employment and transport will cope with increased development.

“I do agree with my constituents who question whether Wookey Hole is suitable for further development, especially as it has seen a significant amount of development in the last decade.”

The council’s planning board refused plans for nine new homes in Wookey Hole itself in May, with councillors ruling that Wookey Hole Caves’ proposals for new homes near the West Mendip Way amounted to “over-development”.

In addition to the Priory Fields development (comprising 203 homes), there have been numerous attempts to build new homes on Wells’ western edge – some more successful than others.

Gladman Developments was refused permission to build 90 homes west of Priory Fields (near St Cuthbert’s Mill) in September 2020, in an area designed as a “green gap” within the Local Plan Part I.

The same developer, however, was granted permission to build 100 homes on the B3139 in February 2020 following a “long and detailed debate” – shortly after separate proposals for 220 homes on the A371 Portway were given the go-ahead despite concerns about the “dull” designs of the houses.

Gleeson Strategic Land was refused permission for 68 houses between Elm Close and the Wells Touring Park just before Christmas 2020, with the council ruling it would negatively impact “the openness of the wider setting of Wells”.

Land Allocation Ltd has not indicated whether it intends to appeal the council’s decision over the Wookey Hole Road site.