Cabinet approved the 22,000-home draft Local Plan on 10 September. Comments run 14 September to 26 October, and must argue soundness, not preference.

Bath and North East Somerset Council’s cabinet has approved the draft Local Plan for public consultation. The decision was taken on Thursday 10 September (decision notice, B&NES).

The plan allocates land for around 22,000 homes between 2025 and 2043. Comments open on Monday 14 September and close on Monday 26 October (Local Plan timeline, B&NES).

This is the last round of public comment before a government planning inspector examines the plan. It is also a different kind of consultation from the two before it. A comment that ignores the difference may count for little.

The decision cannot be called in

Most cabinet decisions can be called in for review by councillors. This one was made exempt, and the decision notice records it as not subject to call-in.

The officers’ report explains why. Under the government’s transitional rules the plan must be submitted for examination by 31 December 2026. If that deadline is missed, the plan cannot be examined or adopted at all. Any delay, “such as that caused by the call-in process”, would put the deadline at risk (cabinet report, paras 3.10 and 3.11).

What is in the plan

The headline requirements in the cabinet report are:

  • around 22,000 homes from 2025 to 2043, an average of about 1,222 a year
  • 120,600 square metres of office space
  • 114,500 square metres of industrial, warehouse and logistics space
  • homes split across four areas: Bath 5,900, the Bath to Bristol corridor 8,900, the Somer Valley 4,600 and rural areas 2,600

Meeting those numbers means taking land out of the Green Belt at nine places. The plan’s district-wide strategy names them (draft plan, chapter 1):

  • strategic releases: Keynsham, Saltford, Whitchurch, Hicks Gate and Peasedown St John
  • smaller releases: Batheaston, Chew Stoke, Corston and Farmborough

None of those places is in the city of Bath itself. The cabinet report’s own summary leaves Corston out of its list, but the plan text includes it.

The evidence says around 40% of the housing need is for affordable homes. Around 70% of that is for social rent.

We set out the sites area by area in our report before the meeting.

Why 22,000 and not 27,000

Some reports this week put the figure at 27,000. That is the government’s number, not the council’s.

The government’s standard method gives the district a housing need of 1,518 homes a year. Over the plan period that is 27,324 homes. The draft plan meets around 80% of it.

The council argues the district is too constrained to do more. Bath is a World Heritage Site twice over, and the district has two National Landscapes and extensive Green Belt. Planning for the full figure would cause “unacceptable harm” to those assets, the report says (paras 3.15 and 3.16).

It is candid about the risk. A requirement below the government’s figure “is likely to be challenged”, and inspectors may not find the plan sound (para 3.18).

The plan also phases the building. It asks for fewer homes a year at first, then steps up once the big sites and their roads and schools are in place:

Period Homes About a year
2025 to 2031/32 5,320 760
2032/33 to 2042/43 16,698 1,518

For comparison, the current Local Plan asks for around 720 homes a year (para 3.17).

The plan takes none of Bristol’s shortfall. Bristol has identified an unmet need of 13,860 homes. The report leaves that, and the district’s own gap of around 5,000, to a West of England strategy due to be adopted in 2029 (paras 3.28 and 3.29).

This consultation is about soundness

The two earlier rounds asked for views on options. They drew around 7,000 to 9,000 responses each (para 3.6). This round is formal. In the report’s words, “It is not a further options consultation.”

Comments have to say whether the plan is legally compliant and “sound”. An inspector tests soundness against four questions, set out in national policy:

  • Positively prepared: does it meet the area’s assessed needs, as a minimum?
  • Justified: is it an appropriate strategy, based on proportionate evidence, having looked at the reasonable alternatives?
  • Effective: can it be delivered over the plan period, with cross-border issues settled rather than put off?
  • Consistent with national policy: does it follow the national planning rules?

A comment made on those grounds is “duly made”. Anyone whose duly made objection is lodged has the right to have it considered by the inspectors (paras 3.8 and 3.9).

Draft Local Plan: the road to adoption 10 Sep 14 Sep 26 Oct 31 Dec 2027 Cabinet approves Comments open Comments close Deadline to submit for examination Adoption expected Six weeks to comment on soundness Sources: B&NES cabinet report and decision notice, 10 September 2026; B&NES Local Plan timeline. Graphic by Bath Daily
Before submission, cabinet and full council have to agree to send the plan to the inspectors. Examination hearings follow submission.

How to comment

The council says it will run the consultation through its website and a consultation portal. It will also brief parish and town councils and use its Area Forums (para 3.39). The portal link had not been published when we checked on 11 September.

You can sign up for the council’s planning policy email updates to be told when it opens. The council gives planning_policy@bathnes.gov.uk as the address for planning policy queries (B&NES).

What happens next

  • 14 September to 26 October: consultation
  • After 26 October: the council reviews the comments. Its climate and sustainability scrutiny panel also looks at the plan
  • Before 31 December: cabinet and full council decide whether to submit the plan
  • Winter 2026: submission and examination by an inspector
  • 2027: adoption, if the inspector finds the plan sound

What it means for you

If a site near you is in the plan, this is your last chance to object in your own right before an inspector. After this, the inspector decides which issues are debated.

“I do not want houses here” is not one of the four tests. A comment carries more weight if it ties the objection to one of them. You might argue that the evidence for a site does not hold up (justified). Or that the roads, schools or surgeries it depends on will not arrive in time (effective).

If you support the plan, or think it should build more, that is worth saying too. The inspectors will hear from developers arguing for the full 27,324.

Our planning news page tracks the plan and the biggest applications across the district.

Sources