Building a Sustainable Future for Bath and North East Somerset

example of response 

This is an example of how to respond within the Soundness Test

If you think the plan allocates too many homes to rural villages

1.Justified (Is it the best strategy based on evidence?)

Argue that the evidence base fails to prove local villages have the infrastructure (roads, schools, GP surgeries) to absorb the growth

2.  Effective (Is it realistic and deliverable?)

Point out that overwhelming rural infrastructure without funded upgrades makes the housing delivery unviable or undeliverable.

3. National Policy (Does it align with planning frameworks?)

Cite protections regarding the Green Belt and landscape impact if the allocations breach local designations unneccesarily.

If you think the plan does not allocate enough homes

1.Justified (Is it the best strategy based on evidence?)

Argue that the council has failed to test "reasonable alternatives" closer to employment hubs or transport corridors in Bath.

2.  Effective (Is it realistic and deliverable?)

Highlight that the plan only identifies land for around 80% of the government's housing requirement, meaning the plan is systematically failing to meet its legal target.

3. National Policy (Does it align with planning frameworks?)

Cite the national mandate to significantly boost the supply of housing and the explicit failure to meet the 27,324 target.

Specific example - how to object for Bishop Sutton developement

Under the updated B&NES Draft Local Plan, the village of Bishop Sutton has been earmarked for a significant allocation of 280 new homes.

This represents an enormous scale of development for the community. The village is classified by the council as less constrained than neighbouring villages like Chew Magna or Chew Stoke because it is not entirely washed over by the Green Belt. However, the proposed expansion—which includes developing sites at Bishop Sutton West (initially proposed for 70–90 homes with long-term potential unlocking space for 180–240 total phases)—presents massive infrastructural and strategic questions.

To make your comments count during this final Regulation 19 window, you must challenge or support the "soundness" of these specific allocations.

Structural Grounding for Objections in Bishop Sutton

If you are objecting to the 280-home target or specific sites, the most effective approach is to frame your response around the lack of infrastructure and environmental capacity:

• Infrastructure Failure (The "Effective" Test): The Stowey Sutton Neighbourhood Plan and historical local data explicitly state that Bishop Sutton's local infrastructure—specifically sewage management, narrow rural highways (A368), and primary school capacity—cannot handle high-density development. You should argue that allocating 280 homes without guaranteed, forward-funded infrastructure upgrades means the plan is not deliverable or effective.

• Unsustainable Travel Patterns (The "Justified" Test): Bishop Sutton has weak daily public transport links and relies heavily on commuting to Bristol or Bath. Forcing significant housing growth here conflicts with B&NES' core climate goals because it guarantees a massive increase in private car reliance. Argue that the council has not selected the most sustainable strategy.

• Proximity to Protected Landscapes (The "National Policy" Test): The village sits on the northern slopes of the Mendip Hills and partially falls within or directly borders the Mendip Hills National Landscape (formerly AONB). Argue that a 280-home expansion fails to properly respect National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) protections regarding the setting of protected landscapes and the edge-of-settlement character