The future of a proposed campsite near the M5 motorway between Taunton and Trull remains uncertain as the Planning Inspectorate prepares to decide on a new appeal slated for early next year.
Anthony Ormerod initially sought approval for a campsite on Dipford Road in Trull but was unsuccessful in an August 2023 appeal. Later, in collaboration with Cosy Barn Holidays Ltd., he submitted amended plans for the same number of tent pitches. These revised plans were rejected by Somerset Council in September due to concerns primarily over environmental impacts.
An appeal against this latest refusal has been lodged, with the Planning Inspectorate expected to make a final ruling by spring 2026. The proposed site is located at the intersection of Dipford Road and Sweethay Lane, near Galmington Stream and close to a planned 130-home housing development near Trull Cricket Club.
READ MORE: Yeovil Garden Centre Triumphs with Award-Winning Eco-Friendly Christmas Displays
READ MORE: Murder Investigation Launched After Elderly Woman Dies Following Assault in Devizes Flat
The updated design places tent pitches centrally on the site and includes a new wildflower meadow along the northern boundary to enhance local biodiversity. One major change from earlier plans is the removal of a permanent amenities building, replaced by a temporary shower and toilet block that can be removed outside the tourist season.
Waste management improvements form a key part of the proposal, featuring a package treatment plant designed to treat wastewater and reduce phosphate output before it enters Galmington Stream. However, despite these measures, Somerset Council’s chief planning officer Alison Blom-Cooper highlighted a critical setback: the developers failed to provide sufficiently robust technical evidence demonstrating how any net increase in phosphates affecting the Somerset Levels and Moors would be mitigated.
Blom-Cooper emphasized the council’s willingness to work constructively with the applicants but noted that the failure to satisfy this environmental policy ultimately led to the refusal. Unlike some refusals decided by the full planning committee, this application was rejected under delegated powers by officers.
Members of the public wishing to comment on the appeal can submit their representations online at the Planning Inspectorate’s website by January 19, referencing case number 3376775. The appeal will be resolved through written submissions without an in-person inquiry, though the appointed inspector will conduct a site visit before issuing their decision in spring 2026.
It remains unclear if the developers will seek to recover legal costs from the council, a possibility if “unreasonable behaviour” is established during the planning process.