Somerset Council faces a substantial legal bill after the Planning Inspectorate ruled in favour of a long-standing caravan park near the M5 motorway, allowing it to continue operating.
The Cornish Farm Touring Park, located on Killams Avenue just outside Taunton near the Killams Park housing estate, is an established holiday site. It advertises itself as “an award-winning AA 4 Gold Pennant Touring park,” welcoming motorhomes, caravans, and tents, and holds a 4.7 out of 5 rating on Google Reviews.
Owned by Sovereign Park Homes Estates Ltd, the park sought to formalise its use by applying for a certificate of lawfulness for up to 25 holiday pitches in June 2025. After Somerset Council denied the application, the owner appealed, leading to a public inquiry held in June.
READ MORE: Glastonbury Introduces New Parking Restrictions to Tackle Roadside Encampments
READ MORE: 80s Pop-Rock Star Curt Smith Joins £6 Million Investment Group to Take Over Bath City FC
Planning Inspector Roy Curnow ruled against the council, finding its behaviour during the appeal process “unreasonable” and ordering it to pay the park’s legal costs. The original 2000 planning permission permitted up to 25 pitches on the site, with each occupied for a maximum of 28 consecutive days.
However, the council contended this 28-day limitation was unenforceable and claimed it had been breached continuously over a ten-year period. Upon visiting the site on 10 June, Mr Curnow observed that there were in fact “far more than 25 pitches,” with site plans indicating up to 48 potential pitches.
He noted there were no existing controls on either the length of stay or the type of caravans used, and dismissed the council’s argument that an increased, year-round presence of caravans would significantly alter the character of the area, leading to more traffic through Pitminster parish.
“There are simply no restrictions on using caravans on the land for residential purposes,” Mr Curnow stated. “Therefore, any changes referred to by the council could occur regardless, resulting in no material change in the land’s character.”
Concluding that the council’s refusal to grant the certificate of lawful use was “not well founded,” Mr Curnow also criticised the council for failing to make a timely and correct decision and for not reconsidering its position during the appeal. He described the council’s arguments on occupancy durations as “fundamentally flawed and not substantiated.” The exact value of the legal costs to be paid was not disclosed in the ruling.