AN attempt by the Forest Council to overturn the go-ahead for 95 homes at Tutshill has been defeated in the High Court.

The council wanted to appeal a decision which gave planning permission for the homes off Glou­cester Road quashed.

It was claimed that planning inspector George Baird, who decided the appeal by Gladman Developments, had ‘erred’ in the way he dealt with landscape issues.

According to national guidance the planning system should protect ‘valued landscapes’ but the council claimed that because the area did not have any quality designation, the inspector assumed it was not ‘valued’.

The council contended that the site, although not designated, was a ‘valued landscape’ – although it conceded there were features that made it anything more than countryside in general.

Justice Hickinbottom said there was no reason to disagree with assessments that “the landscape value and sensitivity of the area to change are medium.”

The judge also said he was ‘unpersuaded’ by the argument that the inspector’s failure to consider the landscape as ‘valued’ could have led to a different result.

He concluded: “I am satisfied he (Mr Baird) did not mean that, simply because the area was not designated, it did not and could not comprise valued landscape.”

The judge’s decision will have a positive impact on the five-year land supply for housing – an issue which has caused the council planning headaches over the last year.

Without a five-year land supply, it is more difficult for the council to argue against housing developments on sites it thinks ‘inappropriate’.

A council spokeswoman said: “The effect on the land supply is to increase it by 95 and, in this instance, given the assurances from the appellant that the site is deliverable within five years it also increases the five-year land supply. 

“The council recently submitted draft plan changes to the Allocations Plan inspector in response to his finding that we need to find more land for housing which could deliver over the first five years. 

“That submission provided sufficient for 5.55 years according to the council’s calculations.

“The additional 95 increases that to 5.76 years’ worth. 

“This margin is subject to change in the event that the inspector does not agree with the council’s view of the availability of the sites concerned, or if he considers the calculated requirement is too low.”