The Planning Committee of Bath and North East Somerset Council met on Wednesday 5th August 2026 to discuss several planning applications. Key decisions included the refusal of an application for a new dwelling in Bishop Sutton due to highway safety concerns, and the approval of an outline application for up to 115 dwellings in Haydon, Radstock, subject to a Section 106 agreement. The committee also approved an outline application for up to 30 dwellings in Clutton, which included the provision of school sports facilities, and a full application for eight new dwellings in Paulton.

Haydon, Radstock: Outline application for up to 115 dwellings

Outline planning permission was granted for up to 115 dwellings on agricultural land at Parcel 7800, Grove Wood Road, Haydon, Radstock. The decision was made despite objections from Radstock Town Council and concerns raised by the council's landscape and ecology advisors regarding the loss of open land and habitat. The committee's decision was heavily influenced by the council's inability to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, engaging the presumption in favour of sustainable development under paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

The officer's report highlighted that the site lies outside the housing development boundary and conflicts with Policy SV1 of the Somer Valley Core Strategy. However, the council's housing land supply is only 2.5 years, meaning key housing policies are considered out-of-date. This triggered the NPPF's presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Significant weight was given to the benefits of delivering up to 115 homes, including 30% affordable housing, and the proposed active travel link improvements along Kilmersdon Road. These benefits were deemed to outweigh the harms related to landscape impact and the loss of open countryside. The decision was subject to a Section 106 agreement to secure fire hydrants, targeted recruitment and training, affordable housing, public open space, education and healthcare contributions, highway works, a travel plan, and a biodiversity net gain monitoring fee.

Clutton, Bristol: Outline application for up to 30 dwellings and school sports facilities

Outline planning permission was granted for up to 30 dwellings, school sports facilities, and public open space on Parcel 4134, Lower Bristol Road, Clutton. This decision was made despite objections from Clutton Parish Council and the council's Highways and Ecology teams. The committee granted permission based on very special circumstances that were considered to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other identified harms.

A key factor in the decision was the provision of dedicated school sports facilities for Clutton Primary School on land safeguarded for educational purposes under Policy LCR3. The council and the School Trust lack the capital to deliver these facilities, and the proposal would secure their construction and transfer at no cost. This benefit was given great weight in line with NPPF paragraph 100.

The housing element, while considered inappropriate development in the Green Belt, was deemed necessary to fund the school facilities. The council's significant housing land supply shortfall also played a crucial role, reducing the weight given to restrictive housing location policies. The provision of 30% affordable housing and new public open space were also considered significant benefits.

However, the Highway Authority objected due to concerns about the site's location, limited travel choice, and the quality of walking and cycling facilities. The Ecologist objected to the loss of high-quality grassland habitat. These concerns were weighed against the benefits, with the committee concluding that the very special circumstances justified the development. The decision was subject to a Section 106 agreement and planning conditions.

Paulton, Bristol: Full application for eight new dwellings

Full planning permission was granted for the erection of four terraced dwellings and the conversion and extension of existing buildings to create four residential dwellings at Ashleigh House, High Street, Paulton. The application also included associated vehicular access, parking, and landscaping. The site is located within the Paulton Conservation Area, and Ashleigh House is considered a non-designated heritage asset.

The committee heard that the existing bungalow and garages would be demolished, and Ashleigh House would be converted and extended. Concerns raised by the Conservation Officer regarding the scale of dormer windows on Ashleigh House were noted, but officers considered them acceptable in the overall context of the enhancements to the building. The design was considered to reflect the local context and materials, and the proposal was deemed to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

The Highways Authority raised no objection regarding access and parking, subject to conditions. The development was considered to make efficient use of previously developed land within a sustainable location.

Bishop Sutton, Bristol: Full application for one new dwelling

Planning permission was refused for the erection of one one-bedroom dwelling to replace an existing former pigsty at Little Bonhill, Bonhill Road, Bishop Sutton. The primary reason for refusal was highway safety concerns, specifically the inability to achieve the required visibility splay to the north from the proposed new access onto Bonhill Road. The Highway Authority maintained an objection, stating that the shortfall in visibility would compromise driver intervisibility and pose an unacceptable risk to highway safety.

Despite the council's lack of a five-year housing land supply, which would normally engage the presumption in favour of sustainable development, the committee found that the limited benefits of a single dwelling were outweighed by the significant highway safety harm. The proposal was also contrary to Green Belt policy as it was considered inappropriate development without very special circumstances to outweigh the harm. The conflict with Policy RE6 regarding the re-use of rural buildings was also noted, as the pigsty was not considered capable of conversion without substantial reconstruction.