Residents of Oakhillcan celebrate after plans for new homes were dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate.

Persimmon Homes South West and the Johnstone Land Company (Bristol) Ltd. applied jointly in December 2020 to build 26 homes at the western end of Chapelfield in the village of Oakhill, near Shepton Mallet.

Mendip District Council's planning board voted unanimously to refuse the plans in June 2022, citing concerns about over-development, road safety and the impact on the village's character.

Johnstone lodged an appeal against the decision in December 2022, resulting in a public inquiry which was held in Shepton Mallet in mid-April.

The Planning Inspectorate has now upheld the original decision to refuse permission – marking the first appeal victory for the new Somerset Council.

Mendip's planning board voted to refuse the original plans on the following five grounds:

• The site lies out of the boundary of Oakhill, and building homes there would "have a harmful impact on the character of the area"
• The development would be too close to the existing Chapelfield homes, which would be "detrimental to the residential amenity of the occupiers"
• Oakhill has "limited public services and facilities", resulting in new home-owners having to commute excessively by private car
• The development would have a "harmful impact on highway safety", putting both pedestrians and motorists at risk
• The development would result in hedgerow along the southern boundary being lost, which would have a "detrimental visual impact" on the village and the wider area

While the plans were originally presented jointly by the two applicants, the appeal was lodged and conducted solely by Johnstone, due to Persimmon's option on the land having expired.

Planning inspector Alison Partington visited the site on April 17 and 18, with her ruling being published in full on the Planning Inspectorate's official website.

She noted in her findings that Oakhill had already delivered more than its minimum housing allocation within the Mendip Local Plan, which runs until 2029 – with 48 homes being provided against an allocation of 40.

She said this latest proposal "would not accord" with both local and national policies which allow for building into open countryside in "exceptional" circumstances.

She also said the "very small" size of the proposed gardens would "provide an unattractive environment for occupiers and would be out of keeping with the character of the wider area.

"The development on Sunnymead shows that smaller terraced houses can still be provided while maintaining a less dense and more open character.

"All in all, I consider that the design and layout of the proposal would create an incongruous development that would not respect the existing character and appearance of the surrounding area."

Ms Partington said that the proposed timber fence at the southern edge of the site would "create a very hard edge to the development and would, in my view, be far less sympathetic to the character of the settlement edge than the existing row of trees."

She was also unconvinced by the proposed pedestrian access to Sunnymead, arguing "the desire of residents to walk westwards is likely to be limited" (though many would use such a path to reach the eastern end of the village).

While she agreed with the developer that the increase in traffic movements would not "detrimentally impact on living conditions", she concluded that this was not enough to outweigh the problems with the proposed development.

She said: "The village does not have a shop and has very limited employment opportunities.

"A further 26 houses would mean that the village would have accommodated nearly twice that which was considered to be proportionate to its size.

"Moreover, there is no evidence to indicate that the proposal is designed to meet any specific localised need.

"I consider that the adverse impacts of the proposal would be significant, while the benefits would be moderate."