A Somerset couple has faced a second refusal in their attempt to build new homes on a site near the A38 after an unsuccessful appeal. Mr. and Mrs. Marratty initially sought to develop eight houses on their property at 9 Main Road, West Huntspill, just outside Highbridge, in January 2024. When Somerset Council rejected this application in March 2024, the couple reduced the development to six homes. Despite the amendment, planning permission was again denied in December 2024.
The Planning Inspectorate upheld the council’s decision, citing concerns that the housing scheme would harm the rural character of the area and heighten local flood risk. The proposed development site sits roughly midway between the large Brue Farm housing estate—comprising 171 homes on Highbridge’s outskirts—and a recently approved 45-home project at the Main Road and New Road intersection by Edenstone Homes.
Access to the new residences was planned via a new junction off Main Road, with the houses arranged around the Marattys’ existing home. Inspector J. J. Evans conducted site visits in late August and early September before issuing his ruling.
READ MORE: Charity Founder Julie Matthews Honoured with British Empire Medal for Mental Health Advocacy
READ MORE: M4 to Close Completely Over Weekend for Badminton Road Bridge Beam Installation
While acknowledging that future residents would have access to services in both West Huntspill and Highbridge, including local bus routes such as the number 22 to Taunton and Bridgwater, Evans found the homes would have “no visual relationship with either settlement.” He stressed there is no identified local need for additional market housing in this area of Somerset.
Evans explained that the six dwellings and their associated infrastructure would consolidate what is currently a loosely scattered housing pattern, eroding the natural transition zone between Highbridge and West Huntspill. Instead of blending with the disparate neighboring properties, the development would form an overly dense cluster.
A major factor in the decision was flood risk. The site lies within Flood Zone 3, an area classified by the Environment Agency as having the highest likelihood of flooding. Despite including a proposed refuge on the first floor for residents, the plans failed to prove occupants would remain safe over the development’s lifetime, especially considering climate change impacts.
The inspector highlighted concerns about the site’s proximity to the North Rhyne watercourse and existing drainage systems, emphasizing the need for flood easements and assurances against increasing flood risk outside the site.
In light of these significant risks and the development’s limited benefits—mainly temporary construction employment—Evans ruled that the harms outweigh the positives. Consequently, the scheme conflicts with current development policies and conditions cannot adequately mitigate its adverse impacts.