An Ilton traveller site proposed for three pitches has been refused on appeal because flood safety and acceptable living conditions were not established. Inspector Martin Allen dismissed the appeal concerning The Stables at Ashford Old Farm, off Isle Abbots Road in Somerset, on 13th October 2026.
The partly retrospective proposal would have provided each pitch with a mobile home, touring caravan and utility dayroom. The site was already occupied by a family group on one pitch. The scheme would have created three pitches in total, but Somerset Council’s refusal remained in place after the hearing.
I would separate the issues carefully here. The Inspector accepted substantial unmet need and found the phosphate mitigation satisfactory. The appeal still failed because those findings did not show that residents could safely leave during a flood, or that homes beside the sewage treatment works would offer acceptable living conditions.
Why the Ilton traveller site could not rely on evacuation
The land lies in Flood Zone 3a, a high-risk flood area. Allen treated the proposed mobile homes as highly vulnerable development, which the national flood-risk compatibility table says should be refused in Flood Zone 3. The development therefore faced a fundamental policy difficulty before its detailed evacuation arrangements were considered.
The Ilton traveller site assessment identified the River Isle as the principal source of flooding. Mobile-home floors could be set 0.6 metres above the design flood-event level. However, predicted water at the access could reach approximately one metre deep at the peak, preventing residents from entering or leaving.
The appellants proposed signing up to flood alerts and warnings and evacuating before that point. Allen was not convinced the arrangements would always work. Alerts might be missed, not arrive or not be acted on. Residents’ vulnerability could also change over the lifetime of the development.
The submitted assessment indicated that water at the access would become a hazard within about an hour of a flood starting. The Inspector considered that a short evacuation window, particularly if a warning was missed overnight. Remaining inside raised mobile homes could leave residents marooned and potentially dependent on rescue, which he did not find acceptable.
Uncertainty in the flood evidence reinforced those concerns. The Environment Agency maintained its objection, including concerns about modelling an adjacent watercourse and the range of flood events assessed. Allen concluded that he could not have sufficient confidence in the development’s safety. He wrote: “there remains too much uncertainty”.
A lack of alternatives did not make the site safe
For the Ilton traveller site, the parties agreed that no alternative available site could meet the need. The council accepted that an appropriate search had been undertaken and that the sequential test would have been passed. That test considers whether development can be directed to locations with lower flood risk.
Nevertheless, finding no alternative did not resolve the site’s compatibility with the proposed use or the safety of access. Allen also accepted that the scheme offered sustainability benefits and that there was no evidence it would increase flooding elsewhere. The remaining problem was the safety of the people living there.
His assessment of a temporary permission for the Ilton traveller site reached the same obstacle. The flood risk would remain during a temporary period and could jeopardise occupants’ safety. I would not read the decision as saying that a shorter permission automatically offers a solution to an otherwise unacceptable flood risk.
Phosphate mitigation was accepted
The Ilton traveller site lies within the catchment of the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar site, a protected wetland. Additional wastewater could increase phosphate flows and harm the designated ecological interest. The Inspector therefore considered mitigation through a precautionary assessment of the proposal’s effects.
A completed legal agreement secured a specified treatment plant, exclusive connection to it and appropriate maintenance. Phosphate credits would offset the remaining discharge. Allen found these mechanisms secure and concluded that, with the mitigation, there would be no net phosphate increase and no adverse effect on the protected site’s integrity.
This was a favourable finding for the appellants. It would be inaccurate to report nutrient pollution as an unresolved reason for dismissal. The decision shows why separate technical objections need separate answers: resolving the nutrient issue did not answer the flood-safety question.
Living beside the treatment works remained a problem
The Ilton traveller site also adjoins a sewage treatment works. The appellants said they had not experienced odour or nuisance from flies, but Allen detected noticeable odour across the site during his visit. No substantive odour assessment was provided to establish that conditions would be satisfactory.
Wessex Water’s initial assessment identified a slight adverse odour effect and a moderate adverse effect from flies. The decision also records previous observations of a fly swarm about 60 metres from filter beds, within the distance at which new accommodation would sit. Allen found insufficient evidence to conclude that future occupants would have satisfactory living conditions.
The Inspector gave significant weight to general and personal need, the lack of alternatives and family circumstances. The council’s accommodation assessment identified a need for 261 pitches up to 2045, including 153 by 2029/2030. He also identified a failure of policy because the development plan contained no traveller-site allocations.
Even so, Allen found the harmful effects substantially outweighed the benefits. He considered human rights and equality duties and concluded that interference was proportionate in the interests of residents’ safety and living conditions. The full official decision, appeal 6007760 and application 23/00404/FUL, sets out that balance. Our recent reporting on flood escape for housing concerns a different scheme and should not be treated as a directly comparable permission.
0 Comments