# Vale View, West Bagborough

- **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Butcher
- **Authority:** Somerset (South West)
- **Appeal reference:** 6010616
- **Application reference:** 45/26/0003
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Erection of four dwellings, garages and associated works
- **Homes:** 4
- **Site context:** settlement-edge, national-landscape
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Housing land supply (years):** 3.95
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** N2, S5(1)(j), HO7
- **Development plan policies:** Taunton Deane Core Strategy 2012 DM1, CP8, SADMP 2016 ENV1
- **Main issues:** protected species, biodiversity net gain, S5 balance
- **Tags:** s5-1-j, substantially-outweighed, housing-shortfall, protected-species-survey, national-landscape, non-determination, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme

## Summary
Four dwellings on the edge of West Bagborough in the Quantock Hills National Landscape, where the council had 3.95 years' supply. Dismissed. The site passed S5(1)(j) and the four homes got HO7 substantial weight, but protected-species surveys were inadequate. The inspector held that the resulting N2 conflict "substantially outweigh[s]" the benefits (DL ¶18).

## Issues and findings
- **Protected species — N2: FAIL.** Further surveys were needed for bats, reptiles, dormice and birds. "seeking additional surveys via a suitably worded condition would not be appropriate as the required level of certainty is needed prior to granting planning permission" (DL ¶9).
- **Location — S5(1)(j): PASS.** "this part of the policy provides support for proposals where they would be well related to an existing settlement … Given the location of the site, these aspects of the policy would be met" (DL ¶17).
- **HO7.** "the lack of information in relation to protected species means that significant harm cannot be ruled out. As a result of the conflict with the aims of Policy N2 of the Framework, I conclude that the harm would substantially outweigh the benefits, even when affording substantial weight in relation to Policy HO7" (DL ¶18).
- **National Landscape — N4: no harm** (DL ¶14). **BNG: capable of delivery** (DL ¶13).

## Planning balance
S5(1) "substantially outweighed" test. HO7 substantial weight for four homes against an N2 conflict from unresolved protected-species risk. There was no separate weight label for the harm.

## What made the difference
Evidence, not merits. The location, landscape and BNG were all acceptable. A complete set of species surveys in season would very likely have produced an allowed appeal under S5(1)(j).

## Transferable points
- A precautionary, unquantified protected-species risk can "substantially outweigh" HO7 substantial-weight housing benefits under S5(1) (DL ¶18).
- An earlier council acceptance of a similar ecology report does not bind the inspector (DL ¶8).
- An S5(1)(j) pass with a 3.95-year supply still needs a clean technical case.

## Policy findings
- **N2: fail.** PEA inadequate — further surveys needed for bats (15 species nearby), reptiles, dormice, nesting birds (survey outside optimal period); cannot be conditioned; "significant harm cannot be ruled out" (DL 5-10, 18)
- **S5(1)(j): pass.** just outside settlement; well related and appropriate scale; 3.95 years supply (DL 17)
- **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to four homes in a shortfall, but harm "substantially outweigh[s]" (DL 16, 18)
- **N4: neutral.** Quantock Hills NL — seen as part of settlement, scenic beauty maintained; LURA 2023 s245 duty met (DL 14)
- **N2 (BNG): pass.** off-site gains on appellant land; obligation needed only at gain-plan discharge (DL 11-13)

## Key facts
- Council supply 3.95 years (DL 17)
- Similar PEA accepted by council for earlier six-dwelling application 45/25/0013 (DL 8)
- Non-determination appeal; parties consulted on 2026 Framework (DL 2-3)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010616
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2b1cf8da-68bb-4651-aeef-bfce90605763

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010616.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.