Local Green Space protection has not prevented two self-build houses beside Wild Oak Lane in Trull, near Taunton. Inspector C Butcher allowed appeal 6009164 on 23rd October 2026, despite the appeal site forming part of the designated Trull Meadow Local Green Space.
The decision overturns Somerset Council’s refusal of application 42/25/0020 for two homes, access, footpaths, landscaping and ecological enhancements. The Inspector concluded that this particular plot was a relatively small gap between existing houses, rather than an unacceptable incursion into open countryside.
The important part is the treatment of Local Green Space under the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework. I would not treat this as a general green light for building on protected space: the Inspector applied the rules for limited village infilling, identified conflict with the local spatial strategy and Green Wedge policy, and still found that the benefits of these homes justified permission. A separate bid for the council to pay the applicants’ appeal costs failed.
Why Local Green Space protection did not bar the homes
The Trull Neighbourhood Plan designates the wider area as Trull Meadow. Its Policy E1 seeks to rule out development in the Local Green Space unless very special circumstances are demonstrated. That would ordinarily be a formidable obstacle to new housing.
National policy takes a more nuanced approach. Policy HC8 requires decisions involving designated Local Green Space to follow the relevant Green Belt decision-making policies, but excludes the grey belt and previously developed land exceptions. The crucial question here was whether the proposal fell within the separate limited village infilling exception in Policy GB7.
The Inspector considered the neighbourhood policy inconsistent with the national approach because it did not recognise that some development could be not inappropriate without needing very special circumstances. He therefore gave Policy E1 very limited weight. This was not a finding that the designation had disappeared, that Trull was in the Green Belt, or that any two houses within designated green space would automatically be acceptable.
The site was outside a defined settlement boundary. Nevertheless, the Inspector noted that the village core and its houses extended northwards along Wild Oak Lane without an intervening landscape gap. The appeal land lay between existing development to the south and a house called Withywind to the north. On the plans and following the site visit, he regarded it as part of Trull both visually and functionally.
The proposal was for two reasonably proportioned plots comparable with neighbouring plots. Their scale and position made the development read as a continuation of the built frontage. Those details, rather than a label on a boundary map alone, supported the conclusion that this was limited infilling within a village. The Local Green Space assessment was therefore resolved in the applicants’ favour.
Why the previous dismissal did not decide this appeal
There was an earlier dismissed appeal on the same land, APP/D3315/W/17/3181011. That decision had rejected a different proposal as not constituting limited infilling. Somerset’s present refusal therefore had an apparent appeal precedent behind it.
The Inspector explained why he was not bound to reach the same conclusion. The national policy context had changed, the dwelling immediately south of the site had been replaced by more built form, and the new scheme was for two homes rather than a single house. Dividing the frontage into two plots meant the houses could sit more naturally in the existing pattern than a lone home on one large plot.
That distinction is especially useful where a previous refusal appears to rule out development on a village-edge site. An applicant needs to show real changes in the proposal, surroundings or policy framework. Repeating an unsuccessful scheme with a different covering letter will not have the same effect.
Green Wedge and car-dependence harm remained
Passing the Local Green Space test did not mean passing every other planning policy. Trull was not identified for growth in the Taunton Deane Core Strategy. Policies SP1 and DM2 directed development away from the open countryside, and the Inspector found that the proposal conflicted with them.
Although the village’s school, community centre and other limited facilities were within a relatively short walk, Wild Oak Lane was unlit and lacked a footway. The route would be unattractive in darkness or poor weather. Occupiers were likely to rely heavily on cars for wider services in Taunton. The Inspector nevertheless judged the practical harm from extra journeys to be very limited given the two-house scale and the likely short distances travelled.
The site also formed part of the Vivary and Cotlake Hill Green Wedge, which seeks to maintain open breaks and landscape character. Two houses would reduce openness and the transition from town to countryside. The Inspector acknowledged conflict with Policy CP8, but found the harm slight because mature planting screened much of the site and the houses would continue the existing street frontage without joining settlements together.
Proposals for a new footpath link, a wildflower meadow, tree planting and public access to additional land had benefits for the wider area. The Inspector did not, however, treat those offers as decisive in the balance, noting that the wider land management could be achieved separately from permission for the homes.
Housing supply, phosphate mitigation and heritage
The appeal was decided against a reported 3.9-year supply of deliverable housing land in Somerset. National Policies S4 and S5 were considered alongside Policy HO7, which gives substantial weight to homes meeting evidenced needs. The Inspector concluded that the benefits of adding two homes outweighed the limited planning harm, even without relying on their self-build status or proposed wider-land improvements.
The decision also addressed nutrient neutrality. The site is in the catchment of the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar site, where additional wastewater phosphates may affect protected habitats. The submitted assessment calculated a requirement for 0.22 kilograms of phosphate mitigation credits each year, secured through a section 106 obligation and Deed of Variation. Natural England did not object subject to mitigation.
One condition requires a certificate allocating the necessary phosphate credits before any development begins. The Inspector also considered the proposal acceptable in heritage terms within the Haines Hill and Trull Road Conservation Area, and found no unacceptable impact on nearby non-designated heritage assets.
The self-build commitment was secured through a completed planning obligation rather than a planning condition. Other conditions address design materials, landscaping, drainage, access, visibility, ecological works and construction management. Statutory biodiversity net gain applies through the usual deemed condition.
Winning the appeal did not mean winning costs
The applicants sought a full costs award against Somerset Council. They alleged unreasonable conduct, including errors in the consideration of material planning matters and changes of position. The separate costs decision refused that application in full.
The Inspector said the council had identified its reasons and development plan policies, and that the disputed questions were matters of legitimate planning judgement. A decision maker can disagree with an authority’s assessment without finding that its conduct was unreasonable. The council was not bound by its pre-application advice, and the Inspector considered an appeal likely whatever had happened over the planning obligation.
That distinction matters in everyday appeal practice. An allowed appeal does not itself justify a costs claim. The applicant must establish unreasonable behaviour which caused unnecessary or wasted expense, rather than merely show that the decision was wrong.
What this means for other Local Green Space sites
Anyone considering development within Local Green Space should start with the actual designation, the neighbourhood plan wording and the relevant current national exceptions. The character of the village, the scale of the gap, neighbouring plot widths, settlement boundaries and earlier decisions all need careful, site-specific evidence.
Equally, a successful Local Green Space argument is only one stage of the exercise. Development can still fail on countryside strategy, transport, heritage, ecology or Green Wedge grounds. This Inspector identified real policy conflict before concluding that the modest harm was outweighed by the benefits.
The result is narrower than permission to build on protected meadows generally. It is an example of a specific two-home village infill scheme passing the national tests, with phosphate mitigation secured and a costs claim rejected. Compare our earlier report on Solihull’s Green Belt infill appeal, where a different designation and housing supply evidence led to another permission.
Read the Planning Inspectorate record for appeal 6009164 and the related costs decision. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments