Nearly two dozen new homes will be built in a small Somerset village following a ruling by the Planning Inspectorate.

The Johnson Land Company (Bristol) Ltd. failed in its attempts to secure permission for 26 homes on Chapelfield in Oakhill, north of Shepton Mallet – with Mendip District Council turning down the original plans in June 2022 and the Planning Inspectorate dismissing a subsequent appeal in May 2023.

The developer submitted revised plans for the same site in November 2023, reducing the number of homes to 23 – but these were refused by Somerset Council in February 2024, prompting an additional appeal.

The Planning Inspectorate has now ruled in the developer’s favour, meaning construction could start early in the new year.

The site lies at the southern edge of the village, with the sole vehicular access being onto Chapelfield leading onto High Street.

Of the 23 new homes, seven would be affordable – meeting the council’s target of 30 per cent affordable housing for any new development of ten homes or more in the former Mendip area.

Planning inspector Conor Rafferty visited the site on July 17 (the same day as an informal hearing into the plans) and published his ruling on the Planning Inspectorate’s official website.

He acknowledged that Oakhill had already delivered or had planning consent for 48 homes since 2006 – exceeding its minimum target within the Mendip Local Plan Part I, which runs to 2029.

While the site lies outside of the Oakhill settlement boundary – and therefore could be classed as development into open countryside – he ruled that it was sufficiently “adjacent” to the village to make it sustainable.

He said: “Oakhill is deemed to have a level of facilities appropriate to enable some housing development.

“While its localised housing requirement may have already been met, the growth in housing stock at Oakhill due to the proposal would be comparable to other villages in the area.

“In addition, as the proposal would be located adjacent to established residential development, there would be little difference experienced by potential future occupiers in terms of accessing the services and facilities of Oakhill when compared with residents within the settlement boundaries of the village.”

Mr Rafferty said the outline design of the scheme would not be “unduly cramped” and that any landscaping issues could be resolved through a reserved matters application.

He said: “The council has overall found the siting and layout of the affordable housing to be acceptable. Based on my observations, I have no reason to disagree.

“Furthermore, given the mixed form of housing in the immediate area, and the opportunity for a coherent design approach for the scheme to come forward at reserved matters stage, I am satisfied that the layout and siting of the affordable housing would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the area.”

Mr Rafferty said he was satisfied that the affordable homes within the site, along with public open space and a contribution to local school places, could be adequately secured through a Section 106 agreement.

He reasoned: “I am satisfied that the contributions would be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and would be directly related, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind, to the development proposed.

“While the council may have previously delivered adequate levels of housing and interested parties cite a lack of need or demand for housing in the locality, it remains that there is a significant housing supply shortfall that must be addressed.

“I am satisfied the proposal would not result in adverse impacts regarding flooding.”