The public inquiry to decide the future of the treasured South Stoke Plateau opened on Tuesday, 28th January.

Work is already ongoing on an earlier phase of the development
Last April campaigners celebrated after Bath & North East Somerset Council’s planning committee refused plans for 290 homes.
More than 1,200 people had objected, along with many groups and organisations. A protest was held outside the Guildhall and more than 100 people packed into the public gallery.
The council’s own planning officers had recommended permission be granted but after a long debate, councillors rejected the plans by seven votes to one.
At the time the chair of the planning committee Duncan Hounsell (Saltford, Liberal Democrat) warned that refusal would set the council up for an appeal.
Applicants the Hignett Family Trust (HFT) indeed appealed to overturn the decision. They said the new homes, of which 40% would be affordable housing, would be “a beautiful new addition” to the city.
The first phase of the project was 171 homes at Combe Hay Lane, behind Odd Down Park & Ride, which was approved “with the utmost reluctance” by the planning committee in 2018.
The fields had been taken out of the Green Belt and allocated for “around 300” homes in 2014.

Planning inspector Tom Gilbert-Wooldridge
Last year the planning committee feared that building another 290 would take the number above the amount allocated, although council officers said the 300 figure was not a cap if all relevant principles were met.
The four reasons given at the time for refusal were:
- The effect on the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) as “exceptional circumstances” needed for such development weren’t demonstrated, with the scale far exceeding the “around 300” allocated.
- The effect on the World Heritage Site of Bath and its setting, as well as the harm to Sulis Manor, which is a non-designated heritage asset.
- The effect on the Wansdyke scheduled ancient monument and the failure to provide a mix of uses on the site to create a sustainable community.
- The impact on a large amount of trees/woodland.
On Tuesday, planning inspector Tom Gilbert-Wooldridge opened proceedings at the Guildhall, which are expected to take eight days. He said he had visited the site the day before and would be making a formal visit next week.
As well as considering evidence from B&NES Council and the HFT, the inquiry will be hearing from a variety of other speakers including Combe Hay and South Stoke parish councils under the ‘Rule 6 status’.
The parish councils are considered to be a main party at the inquiry and can cross-examine other parties.
In the opening statement for HFT, counsel Paul Tucker KC said that what had started off as a refusal by the council supported by four reasons is now a “one and a bit” reasons for refusal, “and an acceptance that the site should be developed for major residential development, albeit less than proposed, despite being located in the AONB, “meaning that the first reason for refusal is now a matter of degree”.
He said the council had withdrawn reason 2, part of reason 3, and reason 4.
Regarding reason 3, he said the council now agrees that provided there is a condition in respect of getting scheduled monument consent for a shared use path between the Wansdyke and Cranmore Place, and for the work to be done before any new home is occupied, it won’t reply on this reason for refusal.
Part of the Wansdyke is currently being eroded on the north side through informal use by the public.
As for the remainder of reason 3, Mr Tucker said “the invitation to only look at the appeal site and not its context when judging whether the development will result in a sustainable mixture of uses is downright odd, especially given the proximity to shops, leisure and sports facilities, education, healthcare facilities and even employment”.
He added: “It will of course have escaped no one’s attention that the council accepted the recommendation of highway officers and has never sought to argue that the appeal proposals would give rise to a severe impact upon the local highway network.
“And even the Rule 6 party’s evidence doesn’t appear to be directed towards the proposition that it would do so, but rather to argue that it hasn’t been proven that it wouldn’t.”

A protest was held last April | Photo © Bath Echo
Among those attending on the first day of the inquiry was Councillor Lucy Hodge (Liberal Democrat, Lansdown), who is vice chair of the planning committee.
She read out a statement on behalf of Councillor Matt McCabe (Liberal Democrat, Bathavon South) who is the cabinet member for planning and housing.
He said that as a parish councillor and chair of Englishcombe Parish Council, he’d campaigned against the development due to the traffic impact on the village.
However, as a cabinet member, he said he would confine his comments to the process, particularly the wording in the original core strategy.
“I accept that the council failed to secure a masterplan for the whole site and we are now dealing with the consequences, that is, piecemeal development.”
He said a total of 300 homes was the figure put out for consultation and which the council had voted to accept.
He said there is an acceptance that around 130 houses are yet to be built but the current application takes that total to almost 500 which is a “considerable uplift” with no additional facilities.
Bathavon South Lib Dem councillor Fiona Gourley spoke on behalf of residents in the 13 parishes south of Bath. She said that the Hignett family had “repeatedly” attempted to build over the plateau.
“Previous iterations for up to 800 houses, an enlarged business park, and roads right across the plateau have been rejected.
“All these attempts have been fought vigorously by local councillors and residents. We want to protect the cherished Cotswolds Landscape and preserve its rural nature and heritage.”
She said that Phase 1 residents had spoken of poor finishes, inadequate water pressure and drainage problems, as well as poor access to the Park & Ride and Odd Down.
She added: “We know 130 homes remain to be built from the around 300 allowed by the previous inspector. But Odd Down Football Ground and Sulis Manor are also in the allocation and could be developed in the future.
“So, we have no idea how many houses could potentially be built on top of the 290 proposed here – another failure of masterplanning.
“Local residents and surrounding communities feel very anxious about how we will cope with more traffic, the strain on local facilities, the destruction of Cotswolds Landscape and local heritage.
“Giving permission for this over-development would be a very bad outcome for both current and future residents in my ward and the wider area.”
The inquiry can be watched online on the council’s website and we will be following proceedings.