Plans for a 115-home development on a field where Iron Age burials were recently uncovered have been refused by Bath and North East Somerset Council.
The proposed site lies on the outskirts of Haydon, a small village near Radstock. Lesley Mansell, Labour councillor for Radstock, voiced concerns during the planning committee meeting, warning that the scheme would turn “Haydon from a rural hamlet into a suburban extension of Radstock.”
Archaeological investigations, conducted as part of the planning process, revealed significant finds including the grave of an Iron Age man and a burial containing both a dog and a cow. Ms Mansell described the discoveries as “exceptional” and likened Haydon to “its own version of Pompeii.”
READ MORE: Freddie Burns Announces Retirement from Rugby Career Spanning Nearly Two Decades
READ MORE: Leadership Dispute Causes Rift Among Independents in B&NES Council
Housing association Curo expressed interest in acquiring the site if permission had been granted. Peter Roberts of Curo highlighted the local housing need, noting that over 6,000 households were on the council’s housing waiting list, with more than 450 seeking affordable homes specifically in the Radstock and Haydon area. Haydon currently contains just nine local homes, and this development would have added 35 more.
Council planning officers had recommended approval, stating in their report that “The archaeology has already been excavated and is no longer present on the site.”
However, councillors voted 4 to 3 against the plans, primarily citing concerns about overdevelopment and the unsuitability of the site rather than the archaeological elements. Objectors pointed to the strained water supply, the presence of wildlife such as red kites and skylarks, and the existing shortage of local jobs and facilities to support further housing.
During the meeting, Planning Committee member Duncan Hounsell (Liberal Democrat, Saltford) reminded colleagues that national planning policies increasingly limit local councils' ability to refuse developments. He said, “We are obliged to apply the policies as they are, not as we would like them to be.”
He also noted, “The new government doubled the housing target for B&NES. It is mandatory. It has to be addressed. And every change to the national planning policy framework has tried to encourage, more and more, the opportunity for housebuilding.”
In contrast, Shaun Hughes (Independent, Midsomer Norton North) questioned the council’s autonomy in planning decisions: “Why are we here in the first place if we can’t determine this ourselves?”
Mr Hughes emphasised the scale of the development in relation to the village, saying, “In a village that contains 250 homes, a 50% increase - 155 more homes - is an overdevelopment of a village. We have an obligation here to protect communities and expecting a community to absorb a 50% increase is unrealistic.”
Currently, the site is not allocated for housing in the council’s existing Local Plan, the key document outlining planning policies and designated development sites. However, it is expected to be considered for inclusion in the forthcoming Local Plan, which will undergo public consultation and require government approval before adoption. Several major developers have recently submitted applications for sites likely to be included in the new plan, anticipating its approval.