Plans to build 115 homes on the outskirts of Haydon, near Radstock, have been rejected by Bath and North East Somerset Council.
The field, where developers proposed the new housing, was recently found to contain Iron Age burials discovered during archaeological surveys. Labour councillor Lesley Mansell, representing Radstock, warned that the development would turn Haydon “from a rural hamlet into a suburban extension of Radstock.”
Among the notable archaeological finds were the grave of an Iron Age man and a joint burial of a dog and a cow, described by Ms Mansell as “exceptional” and likened to “Haydon’s own version of Pompeii.”
READ MORE: Leadership Dispute Causes Rift Among Bath and North East Somerset Independents
Housing association Curo intended to acquire the site if permission was granted. Peter Roberts from Curo highlighted the pressing need for affordable homes in the area, stating that over 6,000 households were on the council’s housing list, including more than 450 seeking affordable housing in Radstock and Haydon. He noted that Haydon currently has only nine local homes and the scheme would add 35 new affordable homes.
Despite the council’s planning officers recommending approval, stating that the archaeological artefacts had already been excavated and removed, councillors voted 4-3 against the scheme. The decision reflected concerns about overdevelopment and the unsuitability of the site rather than the archaeological discoveries.
Residents and objectors highlighted existing issues such as strain on water supply, the presence of local wildlife including red kites and skylarks, and a lack of sufficient local jobs and facilities in the area to support the increase in housing, referencing the impact of prior developments.
Liberal Democrat planning committee member Duncan Hounsell acknowledged the challenges councillors face under national policy, explaining that “We are obliged to apply the policies as they are, not as we would like them to be.” He pointed out the government’s doubled housing target for the area and the attempts within national planning frameworks to encourage housebuilding.
Independent group member Shaun Hughes questioned the committee’s limited authority under current national regulations, arguing that a 50% increase in housing for a village of 250 homes represented overdevelopment and was unrealistic to expect the community to absorb. He emphasised the committee’s duty to protect communities.
The proposed site is not currently allocated for housing in the council’s existing Local Plan but is anticipated to be included in the forthcoming plan, which will be subject to public consultation and government approval. Several major housebuilders have submitted applications for sites expected to feature in the new Local Plan, anticipating its adoption.