The former Three Crowns pub site at 15 St. Mary Street in Bridgwater town centre could be redeveloped into nine new homes, pending the outcome of a planning appeal.
The pub shuttered in 2003, and permission for its demolition was granted by Sedgemoor District Council in 2013. In 2020, the council allocated £300,000 to support redevelopment of the site. Recently, Abtacore Ltd., a developer based in Chiswick, West London, had plans to build nine townhouses on the vacant plot rejected by Somerset Council in July 2025. The refusal cited concerns over the living conditions for future occupants.
Somerset Council, which took over responsibilities from Sedgemoor District Council in April 2023, argued that proximity to neighboring buildings and limited space would result in “unacceptable living conditions” due to lack of outlook and insufficient floorspace.
READ MORE: Dearly-Loved Great-Grandmother Among 28 Somerset Death Notices
READ MORE: Public Meeting Scheduled to Discuss New Taunton-Wellington Cycle Route
Now, Abtacore Ltd. has filed an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate to overturn the decision. A final determination is expected by late spring. The appeal will be decided through written representations rather than a public inquiry.
The site is notable for lying along the procession route of the annual Bridgwater Carnival and is conveniently close to local landmarks like the Admiral Blake fish and chip shop and Blake Gardens green space. Access to the site will be pedestrian and vehicular via St. Mary Street, with plans for a courtyard layout and designated cycle spaces for residents.
All proposed homes are one-bedroom units and will be offered at market rates. A spokesperson for Nick Hutching Architects Ltd., representing Abtacore Ltd., emphasized the sustainability of the scheme. “The site’s location near Bridgwater’s centre makes residential development the most sustainable option,” the spokesperson said. “It reduces dependency on vehicles, easing pressure on outer highways, and residents can access all essential facilities within walking distance.”
The council’s refusal was made under delegated authority by planning officers, rather than through a public committee decision, and was based solely on concerns about future residents' quality of life.