Building a Sustainable Future for Bath and North East Somerset

How did we get here?

Last year, the Labour Government doubled the housing target for our council area to around 1,500 homes per year – 27,000 between now and 2043. As the Councillor leading the  development of the Local Plan said “I don't know of anyone outside of Westminster who thinks this level of housing in N.E. Somerset is a good idea” but we have no choice in this matter.

These sky-high figures have been calculated using a national formula that does not reflect local need. Little allowance has been made for local constraints and how the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Inspectorate limit building in Bath because of its World Heritage designation- excluding 6000 proposed homes.

To make matters worse, the Government has changed national planning rules to heavily favour developers. They have shredded Green Belt protections- undermining the green buffers around villages. Because of the strict legal process around planning including the presumption in favour of development and the new power of Government to over-rule Councils if they refuse larger developments, less sustainable development may be forced on us.

The Council is preparing a new Local Plan. Even though the Planning Inspector has agreed that a Local Plan that reaches 80% of the government housing target may be “sound” there is no choice but to include all the sites put forward by developers in the draft Local Plan. There are three large sites in the Chew Valley ward, two at the west of Bishop Sutton capped at a total of 280 homes, one at Hedgehogs field, Chew Stoke, of up to 100 homes plus one small site in Chew Magna.

We are in a housing crisis. There are nearly six thousand people on local housing waiting lists and property and rental prices have gone through the roof. So we will be getting housebuilding- Government have made sure of that. What we desperately need though, is more quality, smaller homes for downsizing, truly affordable homes for first time buyers and young families, as well as social housing. New housing should reflect the need of local people, be in sustainable locations with good transport connections. Having a new Local Plan will help cap the number of houses being built, ensure good quality development, secure more affordable and accessible homes and also essential infrastructure funding from developers and the WECA. Without a Local Plan it becomes a developer free for all, and our communities will lose the money for infrastructure and community facilities.

Responding to the draft Local Plan is the best way that we can make development fit for our needs. The link is here: https://haveyoursay.bathnes.gov.uk/localplan/ . We have until Friday October 30th to respond. If you wish to object you have to say that the plan is “unsound” and the reasons for this are that it is “unjustified” (an inappropriate strategy), “Ineffective” (not deliverable) and / or not consistent with national policies. The Planning Inspectorate can then modify the Local Plan after its public hearing. To speak at the public hearing you have to respond.

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.NOT 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.  NOT Effective (Is it realistic and deliverable?)

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

3. NOT 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 new Labour Government housing allocation tool 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