Supreme Court ruling to reject plans for 400 new homes in Gwynedd ‘a victory for common sense’

A Supreme Court ruling rejecting plans for 400 new homes in Gwynedd has been welcomed as “a victory for common sense”.

Hillside Parks Developments Ltd previously brought an appeal forward to gain permission to build open market houses in Aberdyfi.

It was fighting to overthrow an earlier decision by the Snowdonia National Park Authority halting the plans.

However, a judgement was published today dismissing the appeal.

The area concerns 28.89 acres of land in the Balkan Hill area.  The site has been owned by a number of investment firms since the 1960s.

The judgement has been praised by two Plaid Cymru politicians who represent the Dwyfor Meirionnydd constituency following extensive local opposition.

Liz Saville Roberts MP and Mabon ap Gwynfor MS said: “This is a victory for common sense and reflects the overwhelming opposition from within the local community to this completely unsuitable historic planning application, brought back to life by unscrupulous developers looking to make a quick buck.

“There was collective local agreement from the outset – nobody wanted to see the hillside above Aberdyfi disappearing under bricks and mortar, simply to satisfy the greedy pockets of developers with no real grasp of local housing needs.

“The application, had it been granted, would have actively undermined the interests of the local community, the consequences of which would be far reaching.

“The houses were earmarked as open market properties that families in the area simply wouldn’t be able to afford.

“We welcome the Supreme Court’s ruling. There was nothing in the application that would have fulfilled local demand – the houses earmarked for the site were not planned with local people in mind. This was nothing more than a profit-making exercise.”

“We pay tribute to the residents of Aberdyfi who, with steadfast support from the community council, ran an energised campaign against this proposal.

“Today’s ruling is a reflection of their determination to uphold the collective views of local people and puts to bed once and for all, months of worry and speculation.”

The case has attracted attention due to potentially having far-reaching implications for other developers.

It raised the issue of whether an original planning permission can be cancelled out by making subsequent tweaks to further planning applications.

The case dates back to 1967, when a housing application was first made under the old Merioneth County Council.

It granted planning permission for 401 dwellings within the Snowdonia National Park.

According to the Supreme Court’s case summary, between 1967 and 1973, seven further grants of planning permission were made at the site – but each “departed” from the original scheme.

Gwynedd County Council became the planning authority in 1974. In 1987, it argued in proceedings brought in the High Court by Landmaster Investments Ltd, then site owners, that the original 1967 permission had “lapsed.”

A High Court hearing rejected that decision, deciding the development authorised by the 1967 permission could still lawfully be completed.

When Snowdonia National Park Authority became the relevant local planning authority in 1996, eight more grants of planning permission were made between 1996 and 2011.

In 2019, owners Hillside Parks Ltd, brought a claim against the authority, to find out whether the development authorised by the 1967 permission could still lawfully be completed.

However, the High Court and the Court of Appeal found in favour of the authority.

Hillside appealed, and the case was heard by Lord Reed, Lord Briggs, Lord Sales, Lord Leggatt and Lady Rose in the Supreme Court in July.

Outlining their judgement, they said: “The courts below were right to hold that the 1967 permission was a permission to carry out a single scheme of development on the Balkan Hill site and cannot be construed as separately permitting particular parts of the scheme to be built alongside development on the site authorised by independent permissions.

“It is possible in principle for a local planning authority to grant a planning permission which approves a modification of such an entire scheme rather than constituting a separate permission referable just to part of the scheme.

“The developer has failed to show, however, that the additional planning permissions under which development has been carried out on the Balkan Hill site since 1987 should be construed in this way.

“Therefore, that development is inconsistent with the 1967 permission and has had the effect that it is physically impossible to develop the Balkan Hill site in accordance with the master plan approved by the 1967 permission (as subsequently modified down to 1987).

“Furthermore, other development has been carried out for which the developer has failed to show that any planning permission was obtained.

“This development also makes it physically impossible to develop the site in accordance with the master plan approved by the 1967 permission (as subsequently modified).

“The courts below were therefore right to dismiss the developer’s claim and this appeal must also be dismissed.”