Timsbury community website

Facilities, groups, parish council and business information for the village of Timsbury, near Bath

Timsbury Parish Council response to B&NES concerning Emlett planning application

Timsbury Parish Council

Planning application: 25/04918/OUT Parcel 4679 Hayeswood Road, Timsbury
Submitted by Waddeton Park Ltd

Outline planning for the erection of up to 170 dwellings (including affordable housing), along with associated parking, access roads, walking and cycling routes, public open space, drainage and other associated works. All matters are reserved, except for access (part).

At the meeting of the Timsbury Parish Council held on Monday 2nd February 2026 it was unanimously resolved to object to planning application 25/04918/OUT, as shown above in respect to the parcel of land known locally as Emlett Field, for the reasons given below.

This page is a web-readable version of the objection document that has been submitted to B&NES Council.

1) The site is not currently earmarked for development

This is a speculative planning application as the current B&NES Local Plan does not allocate Emlett Field for any future development including for new housing. The only land in Timsbury which is currently allocated for housing is the site to the east of St Mary’s School in the Placemaking Plan. In addition, the site is outside the current B&NES Local Plan Housing Development Boundary and is therefore this is contrary to Policy SV1 of the B&NES Local Plan.

2) Outline planning permission only

This application is only seeking outline permission for up to 170 houses and it is highly likely that the site would be sold on if outline permission was granted and any new owner / developer would submit a detailed planning application for even more houses. Initially Waddeton Park, back in February 2025, applied to B&NES for a “Screening Opinion” for residential development of up to 120 houses (25/00571/SCREEN), and now they have added 50 houses to their plans. Worryingly, B&NES Council themselves in their Local Plan Options document states the site could accommodate 220 houses1.

3) Cumulative impact of multiple planning applications

Alongside this application for 170 houses, Curo have submitted a full planning application (26/00210/FUL) for the allocated site to the east of St Mary’s School for 54 affordable homes. This application is more appropriate and is generally welcomed by the village. In addition, back in the autumn 2025 B&NES consulted on the Local Plan Options document which also considered land between Lippiatt Lane and Crocombe for housing development of between 70-90 houses. If all these sites were to be granted permission for housing in the future this would equate to a 33% increase in the number of houses in the village which would be intolerable for our community and infrastructure (especially Primary Health Care) which is already under significant strain.

Policy RA1 from the current Local Plan defines the strategy for rural areas “is to enable housing development of around 50 dwellings”, and thus is application is against Policy RA1.

4) Poor connectivity

Although B&NES attached a “moderate connectively” or “C” to this site in its Local Plan Options document consultation, the Government’s view is different. The Department for Transport has developed the connectivity metric, which measures an individual’s ability to reach employment, education, health care, shopping, leisure & community, and residential2. Using the postcode, BA2 0FH, for Emlett Field, the overall connectively score for this site is a low 41.73. Of the 45 sites consulted upon in B&NES Local Plan Options document only eight have a lower score than Emlett Field. Taking a logical sustainable and connective based approach the allocation of land for future housing across B&NES, 36 other sites, with a maximum capacity for 28,986 housing units, could be built on before Timsbury would become suitable. This data is taken from Podaris – Unofficial DfTConnectivity Metric Viewer.

5) Lack of local employment opportunities

There are limited job opportunities within the Parish, with B&NES own data4 in the “Journey to Net Zero” document published in 2023 stated that 60% of residents commute by car. And in “rural B&NES” which includes Timsbury 78% of journeys to work are by car5. The DfT Connective Metric for Employment for this site is lower than the “Overall” score at only 37.5.

6) The Climate Emergency

In March 2019, B&NES declared a Climate Emergency, which included a commitment to become carbon neutral by 2030. Transport currently accounts for 29% of carbon emissions in the B&NES area. Granting planning permission for up to 170 new houses on this site would go against B&NES own “Journey to Net Zero” by baking in further car-based commuting for employment, access to secondary education and other journeys.

7) Poor highway infrastructure

The highways network through Timsbury is already inadequate and is listed by B&NES as a key constraint on growth beyond the 5% baseline outlined in the B&NES Local Plan Options document. Data collected from the Avon and Somerset Constabulary supported Timsbury Community SpeedWatch Group shows c.300 vehicles per hour on North Road, with the north / south rat run of Bloomfield Road, The Avenue & Radford Hill recording 200 vehicles per hour. North Road cannot be widened and there is a key pinch point between Chapel Walk and The Seven Stars Public House which causes severe congestion during the morning and late afternoon / early evening commute. Access to St. Mary’s Church of England Primary School on Lansdown View requires pupils to cross the congested North Road with narrow pavements in certain locations and from this site to the School there is no pavement between Lippiatt Lane on the north side and then you have to cross the road at Chapel Walk as there is no pavement on the south side. This represents considerable road danger for the most vulnerable and must be full mitigated before any potential development commences.

This development will contribute to further outward commuting primarily to Bath and Bristol, increased congestion and the proposed entrance to the development on The Avenue will increase the dangers for the most vulnerable road users including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders in this rural village. Disability access around the village is poor with many pavements narrow or absent. Finally, for this objection point, it should be noted that the construction work for this scale of development would cause significant additional problems to congestion in the Parish.

8) Local routes for commuting

Across B&NES there are three strategic transport corridors including for public transport; these are the A4, A37 and A367. Timsbury is located in the middle of this triangle and level of public transport, i.e the bus service reflects this. B&NES Council’s own Active Travel Masterplan6 shows that there is a deficiency of active travel routes out of the village, as outlined above. Exits from the village are west via Hayeswood Road towards the A37, north via Farnborough, south towards Radstock and east towards Bath via Tunley. All of these routes are sub-standard and beyond the actual village, vehicles traveling north towards Bristol have to navigate the poor junction in Farmborough where Timsbury Road meets the A39, the location of many serious road traffic collisions. Increased commuting traffic caused by potential developments on both the western and eastern edges will exacerbate this further.

9) Inadequate public transport

The bus services connecting the village currently are inadequate particularly for morning and evening commuting for employment and secondary and tertiary education. These inadequate services have been cut over recent years and are under further treat of cuts. The Government has reduced bus funding to the West of England Combined Authority (WECA). This latest three-year bus grant of £51.3m for our region is down by £6m from the previous grant in 2022 and will result in cuts to key services. This could negatively impact Timsbury with the First Bus 522, the Big Lemon 2V and the WESTlink (supported by WeMove or E-Zec Medical Transport Services) 768 services all financially supported by WECA. Para 12 of Appendix 1 to Volume 5 Rural Areas Strategy and Sites highlights that the rural area which includes Timsbury has “poor access to public transport… which leads to isolation for those without access to private transport”.

10) Air quality

The nearest Air Quality Management areas to Timsbury are Temple Cloud and Farrington Gurney but to date no air quality monitoring takes place in Timsbury. Given the inescapable increase in traffic for communing which would result from an increased population, a deterioration in air quality is inevitable.

11) Fire and Rescue Service provision

The developer claims that there is a Fire Station in Timsbury. The Thompson Family opened Timsbury Service Station on the site of the old Fire Station on the 15th March 19757 Therefore the Parish Council can assume that the Fire Station in the village closed approximately 50 years ago. This is just one example of poor knowledge and understand of our village littered throughout various reports and papers submitted by Waddeton and their consultants.

12) Primary Health Care capacity

The NHS B&NES, Wiltshire & Swindon Integrated Care Board and NHS Property Services response to this planning application proposal in relation to the requirement for a S106 planning obligation to mitigate the impact of the development on local healthcare infrastructure states that:

There is not sufficient existing primary healthcare capacity locally to address demand generated by the development.

Although their response goes on to state that:

Mitigation is therefore required in the form of a financial contribution of £180,063 towards the capital cost of delivering the additional primary care floorspace required to serve residents of the new development.

St Mary’s Surgery has just 65% of the floorspace (measured in NIA) that it should have for its current list size when considered against HBN 11-01 guidance.

No land in this proposed development is allocated for space for the construction of a new site for St. Mary’s General Practice Surgery. Without available land no level of financial contribution will actually deliver additional primary care floor space and existing residents would face deterioration in the level of health care.

The NHS Property Services submission states:

It is also important to note that practices can apply to the ICB to close their list and/or modify their practice boundary. One key reason why practices may be required to do this is because of a significant lack of physical capacity to deliver services to increasing populations.

Although the submission says St. Mary’s has the physical potential to be refurbished and/or extended, this does not take into account parallel planning application (26/00210/FUL) by Curo for 54 homes and potential housing development of between 70-90 houses between Lippiatt Lane and Crocombe.

Therefore, the Parish Council believes that this development would not comply with CP13 of the B&NES Composite Plan and paragraphs 55 to 58 of the NPPF and related Planning Practice Guidance.

13) NHS Dentistry provision

Planning applications for housing in the UK are supposed to take into account the need for healthcare infrastructure, including NHS dentistry. However, in practice, this often focuses on GP services, with dentistry frequently overlooked or not fully funded, despite guidance requiring health infrastructure considerations.

The Assessment of Need for Primary Care should include dental clinics. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires local planning authorities like B&NES to ensure health and well-being are considered in Local and Neighbourhood Plans.

Should this application be approved, then the S106 agreement should also include contribute towards new or improved NHS dental surgeries in the local catchment area.

Despite these requirements, a 2023 parliamentary report indicated a “crisis of access” in NHS dentistry, suggesting that the expansion of services does not always keep pace with new housing, particularly in “dental deserts”.

In July 2023, a report by the UK Parliament’s Health and Social Care Committee formally declared that NHS dentistry was facing a “crisis of access“. The report, titled NHS dentistry, concluded that the system was, in many cases, failing to meet the basic needs of patients, with the situation described as “unacceptable in the 21st century”.

While the framework for accounting for dentistry exists within the planning system, consistent, timely, and adequate funding for new dental infrastructure in new housing developments remains a significant challenge8.

This is certainly true with this application as even the response from NHS Property Services and the NHS B&NES, Wiltshire & Swindon Integrated Care Board fails to discuss the need for adequate NHS Dentistry provision.

Timsbury Parish Council believes that this application can’t even be considered for potentially approval until an adequate response from NHS Property Services and NHS B&NES, Wiltshire & Swindon Integrated Care Board outline the S106 contribution for new dental infrasture is received and able to be considered.

14) Education provision (Early Years)

The response to this planning application from the B&NES Education Service highlights that the existing Early Years provision in Timsbury may not be suitable for expansion to cope with the increased demand caused by this development and thus a new facility would need to be provided. Currently the developer does not allow for this.

15) Education provision (Primary)

Numbers on roll at St Mary’s Church of England Primary School have increased markedly in the past year in part to its “Outstanding in all areas” Ofsted inspection in October 2024. As a result, the B&NES Education Service is forecasting that the school will be full, with no spare capacity to accommodate the 41.88 primary age pupils calculated to be generated by this development.

Although it is suggested that the developer would need to contribute £864,898.52 (£20,654.00 x 41.88 pupils) to the financing of an extension to the school this sum would not be sufficient to adequately expand the school and there would be a funding gap.

Critically the Education Service submission states:

This would mean that it would not be possible to expand the school to provide the necessary supporting infrastructure in a timely fashion.

There is no provision in this planning application for land for a new primary education space, nor the provision for any mitigating Highways works that may be deemed to be required as a consequence of expanding the school.

Therefore, the Parish Council believe this application is contrary to Policy LCR3A (paras 410 to 412).

16) Education Provision (Secondary and Sixth Form)

There is no secondary school in Timsbury and the village is in the catchment area of Writhlington school. Although there is projected to be sufficient capacity at Writhlington School to accommodate the 21.02 secondary and 6.46 sixth form pupils calculated to be generated, this will increase commuter traffic and carbon emissions.

17) Home to School Transport (HTST)

As stated earlier in this objection the walking routes to St Mary’s C of E Primary School are not currently sustainable due to poor pavements and unsafe crossing points along the entirety of its route. The 21.02 secondary pupils calculated to be generated cannot access school via sustainable methods of transport such as walking or cycling. Therefore, HTST will need to be provided, which creates a revenue cost burden to the already cash strapped B&NES Council. The Government’s Fair Funding Review is expected to significantly impact B&NES Council by potentially reducing central government funding by £13 million over three years, compounding existing financial pressures.

18) Cemetery provision

The parish church, St. Mary’s Church of England cemetery, as noted in the B&NES Local Plan Options document from the autumn 2025, is nearing capacity and no mitigation is offered for this within this outline planning application.

19) Landscape Setting and Unique Character

Timsbury is set in a unique of the village and its star shaped footprint and green wedges which enables access to the countryside. The significant increase in the current population of 2,636, indicated by this application, will impact negatively on the unique character of the village. Emlett Field has gateway setting for the village. There will be a high adverse impact on the visual aspect of the plateau landscape and rural setting, much prized by villagers, of Sleight Hill. There are no possible mitigations for these losses.

The landscape setting of is defined by its position on a ridge top, surrounded by steep slopes, agricultural land, and remnants of industrial heritage. As part of the B&NES Placemaking Plan, the village’s setting is considered important for its rural character, acting as a visual separation from surrounding areas.

Key landscape features and settings of Timsbury relevant to this application include:

  • Green Wedges and Open Spaces: The area is characterized by “green wedges,” such as Emlett Field and the land around Farmborough Common, which act as important open space bordering the village. Key visual spaces, such as those designated in the 2007 Local Plan, are protected to retain this character.
  • Ridge Top Position and Topography: Timsbury is a ridge-top settlement that maintains a strong, visually important association with its sloping surroundings. The topography includes steep south-facing slopes, particularly near Timsbury House and surrounding farmland.

This site and the whole of the Parish is covered by The Somer Valley Rediscovered Partnership which aims to:

  • Improve access and people’s connection to nature, supporting and enabling positive local action and improving health and wellbeing
  • Deliver initiatives that increase resilience to climate change, particularly within the Cam and Wellow catchment that enable communities and nature to thrive
  • Restore and enhance ecological, terrestrial and aquatic ecological networks to increase biodiversity and provide social and economic benefits
  • Improve land management to protect and enhance landscape character including habitats and historic features and sites
  • Promote exploration of the Somer Valley by walking and cycling and as a visitor destination for its landscape and natural and historic heritage

The Parish Council has serious concerns that the loss of this site to housing goes against the aims of this project agreed and supported by its member organisations which include:

  • B&NES Council (The Somer Valley Rediscovered Team, Public Health Team/Strategic Transport Team and Regeneration Team)
  • Bristol Avon Rivers Trust
  • Avon Wildlife Trust
  • Bristol Avon Catchment Partnership
  • Wessex Water
  • Natural England
  • West of England Nature Partnership
  • Environment Agency

The Arboricultural Survey mentions Cayzer Copse. This is at the end of the HaHa and there is a plaque saying this is “Cayzer copse in memory of Major Cayzer”. He was the benefactor who supported the Timsbury Horse Show held on Emlett Field and who lived at Parish’s House. This plaque can only be seen from Emlett Field.

Cayzer copse should be classed as an “important a piece of local landscape”. The survey submitted on behalf of the developer is unclear whether or not this part of the immediate local landscape and the views to it need to be protected9.

Overall, the Parish Council believes this application is against Policy NE2A Landscapes and the green set of B&NES.

20) Biodiversity loss

Bats are the key Important Ecological Feature (IEF) of the site. However, the Parish Council believes that although the developers commissioned survey states that:

Bat activity surveys confirmed light and dispersed use of the Site by several species, with the highest levels recorded along the western treeline and northern boundary corridor—key commuting and occasional foraging routes.

The submissions of local residents’ observations to the Parish Council would suggest “light” and dispersed” use of the site by serval species is an under estimate.

The Parish Council believes that the proposed development does not incorporate a robust and proportionate package of avoidance, mitigation and enhancement measures designed in accordance with current best practice. This including the developers plans around lighting for the site and the impact of light from the 170 houses.

We do not believe that these measures will avoid significant effects on bats during both any potential construction and operational phases and will not deliver measurable improvement in the Site’s long-term ecological value. The Parish Council the lighting plans for this site

In addition, there are several records and continuing sightings of both Tawny and Barn owls and Swallows on Emlett. There are three trees on the site with preservation orders.

The south and west of the parish is part of the Limestone Link project and this site is immediately adjacent to the zone on its southern and western boundary. The Limestone Link project aims to improve the connectivity of the landscape between the Mendip Hills and the Cotswolds National Landscapes. The project seeks to enable wildlife to move more easily between the two protected areas and adapt to climate change, as well as improve access to the natural environment for local communities and visitors. This is a priority project in the West of England Nature Partnership Prospectus. This development could negatively impact this project, its aims and obviously the wildlife

21) Loss of agricultural land

This site is Grade 3 agricultural land and its loss would negatively impact local food production.

22) WECA Growth Strategy

The WECA Growth Strategy10, does not include Timsbury as an area for growth, whereas Bath and the Somer Valley are included. How does adding 170 or more houses to a village with no jobs and major infrastructure issues support this Growth Strategy?

The Forward by Helen Godwin, WECA Mayor, specifically states that her aim is to deliver “Thousands of new homes in the right places, …”. The Parish Council agrees with this aim but Timsbury for the reasons outlined in this objectionis not one of those “right places”! Building on a site not currently allocated for housing does not “The protection of the stunning landscapes and nature that attract people to the region.” Neither does it “… cut pollution, as we progress towards net zero.”

Mayor Godwin and WECA including B&NES want to deliver economic growth and the conditions for regional success by:

Creating and building homes and communities that are affordable, attractive and sustainable.

The Parish Council believes Timsbury to be one of the least sustainable locations to deliver new housing when there are no new employment opportunities for these potential new residents with the Parish, and the village is nowhere near one of WECA’s Growth Zones.

Disappointingly the WECA 2026/27 Budget approved on 30th January 2026 has ended capital support for the “Heat from Mines” project11. After nearly £1.75m of funding12 locally it is a shock that this has been defunded as this would have boosted climate resilience in Timsbury in the medium term.

WECA states it wants to “Align our transport, housing and climate resilience plans”, and it is the Parish Councils belief this application couldn’t be further away from this aim if it tried!

23) Impact on Neighbouring Parishes

Many of the points in opposition to this planning application and the cumulative impact of multiple planning applications equally apply and impact our neighbouring rural parishes: Farmborough, Priston, Dunkerton, Camerton, and High Littleton.

This includes: Poor connectivity, Lack of local employment opportunities, The Biodiversity and Climate Emergencies, Poor highway infrastructure and impact of outward commuting, Inadequate public transport i.e buses, Reduced Air Quality, Impact on Primary Health Care capacity (General Practice and Dentistry), Education Provision and WECA Growth Strategy.

24) Not community-led, but Developer led

It is obvious to us, Timsbury Parish Council, and to the vast majority of our community, that this speculative outline planning application is totally led by Waddeton Ltd and their profit motive and is not a “bottomup”, “community-led or supported” application wanted by our community.

25) Poor stakeholder engagement

Given this speculative approach you would have assumed Waddeton Ltd would have wanted to balance this out with exemplarily stakeholder engagement. However, this couldn’t be further than the truth; their attempts to work with our community, its residents and the Parish Council has been extremely poor. No face-to-face consultation has happened and their “Statement of Community Involvement” is laughable and misrepresents their actions to gain feedback from our community.

26) Community opposition

Finally, most of our residents are against this application, with a petition supported by c.1,400 people (the vast majority online13) to date. And at time of submission of the Parish Council unanimous objection around 150 objections from local residents have formally been submitted and uploaded to the B&NES Planning Portal.

  1. Page 373 of E3636 – Appendix 1 – Local Plan Options Document 2025 ↩︎
  2. Government Transport Connectivity Metric ↩︎
  3. BaNES Local Plan: DfT Connectivity Metric ↩︎
  4. B&NES JNZ FINAL – ACCESSIBLE WEB VERSION.pdf ↩︎
  5. 2011 UK Census (Table WU03EW) ↩︎
  6. B&NES Active Travel Master Plan ↩︎
  7. Timsbury Rocks Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/5338763065/posts/10165133014938066/ ↩︎
  8. UK Parliament. Question for Department of Health and Social Care: Dental Services and General Practitioners. UIN 10838, tabled on 23 October 2024: ↩︎
  9. The end of the article outlines the narrative of the copse and the plaque in the field. https://timsburyparish.gov.uk/timsbury-horse-show/ ↩︎
  10. WECA Growth Strategy (Executive Summary) ↩︎
  11. WECA Mayoral and Combined Authority Budget 2026/27. Appendix 10 Page 57. ↩︎
  12. BBC News article: Flooded mines in South West could be used to heat homes. ↩︎
  13. Oppose the Proposed Housing Development for Emlett Field on change.org ↩︎