Plans for 25 affordable Cranmore homes and a community shop have won outline planning permission on land at Crane Cottages, Cooks Lane, Somerset. Inspector B Astley-Serougi allowed Social Housing and Planning Ltd’s appeal against Somerset Council on 15th October 2026.
The decision establishes that the development can go ahead in principle, with access considered now. The buildings’ appearance, layout, scale and landscaping still need approval. For the village, it brings the prospect of additional affordable housing and a local shop, alongside changes to land adjoining the existing built-up area.
I would pay particular attention to the reasoning on transport. The Inspector accepted that future residents would depend significantly on cars and found a conflict with the development plan. The Cranmore homes nevertheless succeeded because the affordable housing need and other benefits justified permission when the decision was considered as a whole.
Why the Cranmore homes were allowed
The original appeal decision, reference 6003863, concerns application 2025/0951/OUT. A completed planning agreement provides a mechanism to secure all the housing as affordable, rather than leaving that benefit as an aspiration.
Cranmore is outside the primary and secondary villages identified in the former Mendip area’s spatial strategy. The site also falls outside defined development limits. Those points mattered because the local policies direct most housing towards larger or specifically identified settlements, with exceptions in other locations.
However, the Inspector found that the scheme met the relevant rural exception site policy. This is a route for affordable housing adjoining a rural settlement where ordinary housing development would not otherwise be permitted, subject to evidence and other requirements.
The housing needs assessment supplied for the appellant was the only settlement-specific assessment before the Inspector. Somerset accepted that affordable housing was needed locally. Although the assessment’s methodology was challenged, the Inspector found its scope adequate when considered alongside the policy’s local connection provisions.
A substantial shortfall in affordable housing
The Cranmore homes were considered against evidence of persistent under-delivery. The decision records an affordable housing shortfall of 1,579 completions against the identified need between 2014/15 and 2024/25. It also records a 2.84-year housing land supply for Somerset’s East Area, formerly Mendip.
Those figures describe the evidence used for this appeal. They should not be read as a promise that every application across Somerset will succeed. The location, the type of housing, the legal agreement and the effects of this particular proposal all formed part of the assessment.
An argument about the scheme’s size also failed. The Inspector distinguished the policy’s reference to a small site from the number of homes proposed. The developed area was about 0.94 hectares, adjoining and closely related to the village, and was judged small for the local policy’s purposes.
The decision also addresses the August 2026 national policy framework. It treats the proposal as meeting the rural exception site route and, separately, as addressing evidenced unmet housing need. The Inspector gave substantial weight to the delivery of the affordable homes.
Car dependence remained a real disadvantage
The Cranmore homes did not win because transport concerns disappeared. The village has limited facilities, and the Inspector found relatively poor access to public transport. Nearby bus stops were identified, but the weekday service was limited in frequency.
Walking routes to other villages were also considered. Their limited lighting and exposure to poor weather reduced their usefulness as a realistic alternative to driving. Homeworking and online shopping did not remove the need for adequate transport options.
The proposed community shop helped the case by widening the range of facilities available locally. Previous difficulties sustaining village shops were raised, but the Inspector did not find sufficient evidence that the proposed shop would fail, taking account of an agreed contract with Plunkett UK.
The Inspector described the homes as making a “notable contribution” to housing provision. The shop also attracted substantial positive weight. Together with the other benefits, these considerations were sufficient despite the accepted transport disadvantage.
Contributions, paths and construction controls
The Cranmore homes come with a planning agreement covering more than affordable tenure. The decision identifies an off-site play contribution of £34,105 and a primary healthcare contribution of £16,703, alongside arrangements for open space, footpaths, drainage and travel planning.
There are 24 conditions. These include requirements for construction management, tree and hedge protection, ecological measures, surface water drainage, parking, cycle storage and electric vehicle charging. The condition schedule is therefore essential reading for anyone assessing what must happen before works or occupation.
A public footpath is particularly relevant locally. Development that interferes with footpath SM 4/8 cannot proceed until a diversion order has been made and confirmed and the diverted route made available to the council’s satisfaction. Outline permission does not itself complete that separate process.
The Inspector also considered residents’ concerns about traffic, flooding, neighbouring living conditions and heritage. The decision found that these matters did not justify refusal on the evidence and at the outline stage, with further design detail still to follow.
The next stage for the village
For anyone following the Cranmore homes, the next useful documents will be the reserved matters submissions and applications dealing with the conditions. These will show the detailed design and how the drainage, access, ecology and construction requirements are to be addressed.
I would distinguish the grant of outline permission from the delivery of a finished scheme. The appeal changes the planning position now, but it does not establish a construction start date or say that every necessary detail is already approved. Our Okeford housing appeal report provides another recent example of the importance of reading an approval alongside its particular safeguards.
0 Comments