Have Your Say on Current Planning Applications
This page provides planning guidance, example wording and the main planning considerations that residents may wish to refer to when preparing their own comments.
How to Comment on Current Planning Applications
Residents can comment on current planning applications through the North Somerset Council planning portal.
For help with writing your objection, including example wording, planning points and short phrases you can adapt, please scroll down to the section headed Help With Writing Your Objection.
For detailed Butts Batch objection points, including heritage, traffic, ecology, flooding, sewage, agricultural land and archaeology, please scroll down to the section headed Key Points You May Wish to Include in Your Butts Batch Objection.
Two current planning applications are now affecting Wrington. These are Butts Batch and Cox’s Green. Individual comments submitted to North Somerset Council are important and help show the strength of local concern.
This page explains how to comment and includes key points residents may wish to consider when writing and submitting their own objections.
Current applications affecting Wrington
Butts Batch, Wrington.
Application reference: 26/P/0948/OUT.
Outline planning application for up to 49 dwellings on land off Butts Batch.
Cox’s Green, off Whiting Way, Wrington.
Application reference: 26/P/0296/OUT.
Outline planning application for up to 80 dwellings.
How to Comment on Planning Applications
To comment, visit the North Somerset Council planning application search page and enter the application reference number.
Once you have found the application, select Make a Comment and submit your comments online.
Butts Batch: 26/P/0948/OUT.
Cox’s Green: 26/P/0296/OUT.
Help With Writing Your Objection
Many residents want to object but are not always sure what to write.
You do not need to write a long or complicated objection. What matters most is that you use your own words, include your own local knowledge where possible, and focus on planning issues.
Please do not feel that you have to include every point. Choose the points that matter most to you and adapt the wording so it sounds like your own voice.
The examples below are here to help you get started. Please do not simply copy everything word for word if you can avoid it. Planning comments are stronger when they include your own genuine concerns and your own local knowledge.
Please Keep Your Objection Focused On Planning Issues.
When writing your objection, it is best to focus on planning matters rather than personal preference.
Planning points can include traffic, road safety, pedestrian access, flooding, drainage, sewage, ecology, agricultural land, sustainability, public transport, heritage, archaeology, local infrastructure and the submitted North Somerset Local Plan.
Try to avoid comments about private views, house prices, or simply not liking development. Your objection will usually be stronger if it explains why the site is unsuitable in planning terms, and includes your own local knowledge wherever possible.
You may wish to mention some of the following points.
• Historical setting.
• Agricultural land.
• Ecology.
• Sustainability.
• Traffic.
• Road safety.
• Lack of public transport.
• Active travel.
• Pedestrian access.
• Flooding and drainage.
• Local amenities.
• Sewage and infrastructure.
• Archaeology.
Example Short Objection.
I wish to object to this planning application.
I do not believe this site is suitable for development. The proposal would place further pressure on Wrington, a village that already has limited infrastructure, limited public transport, narrow roads, traffic concerns, and increasing pressure on local services.
I am also concerned about the loss of agricultural land, the impact on the rural setting of the village, road safety, pedestrian access, drainage and flooding, and the effect on ecology and wildlife.
The site has not been allocated in the submitted North Somerset Local Plan, and I do not believe development of this scale in this location is appropriate or sustainable.
I ask North Somerset Council to refuse this application.
Example Objection Focusing On The Submitted North Somerset Local Plan.
I wish to object to this planning application.
This site has not been allocated in the submitted North Somerset Local Plan. I believe this is important because North Somerset Council has not identified this site as necessary or suitable for meeting its planned housing requirements.
The Local Plan is still going through examination, but I believe weight should be given to the fact that the Wrington sites were not progressed as allocations.
I am concerned that approving this application would undermine the Local Plan process and place further pressure on a village that is already facing repeated development proposals.
I ask North Somerset Council to stand by the submitted Local Plan and refuse this application.
Example Objection Focusing On Traffic, Roads And Pedestrian Safety.
I wish to object to this planning application.
My main concerns are traffic, road safety and pedestrian access. Wrington already has narrow roads, pinch points, parked cars, limited pavements in places, and busy routes used by residents, school children, walkers, cyclists and drivers.
Further housing would add more vehicle movements through the village and surrounding lanes. I do not believe the local road network is suitable for this level of additional development.
I am particularly concerned about the impact on pedestrians, including children, older residents, wheelchair users, pushchairs and those walking to school, shops, bus stops or village facilities. Safe and practical pedestrian access should be a basic requirement, not an afterthought.
I am also concerned that public transport is limited, meaning many future residents would be likely to rely on cars for work, school, shopping, appointments and daily life. This does not support sustainable development.
For these reasons, I ask North Somerset Council to refuse this application.
Example Objection Focusing On Agricultural Land, Landscape And Village Setting.
I wish to object to this planning application.
This land forms part of the rural setting of Wrington and should not be treated as simply an empty space waiting to be developed. Agricultural land contributes to food and animal feed production, landscape character, wildlife, and the wider setting of the village.
Once agricultural land is built on, it is gone forever.
Wrington is a historic village with a distinctive rural character. Further development on the edges of the village would affect that setting and would add to the cumulative pressure already being placed on the area.
I am concerned that this proposal would harm Wrington’s rural character, landscape setting and relationship with the surrounding countryside.
For these reasons, I ask North Somerset Council to refuse this application.
Example Objection Focusing On Flooding, Drainage, Sewage And Infrastructure.
I wish to object to this planning application.
I am concerned about the impact this development could have on flooding, drainage, sewage and local infrastructure.
Wrington already experiences pressure on its roads, drainage systems, local services and infrastructure. Adding further housing would increase that pressure.
Flooding and surface water are serious concerns in and around the village. Any development that increases hard surfaces, changes natural drainage, or places additional strain on existing systems must be looked at very carefully.
I am also concerned about sewage and wastewater capacity. Residents need clear reassurance that existing systems can cope before any further development is considered.
This proposal would add further pressure to a village that does not have the infrastructure to support repeated new development.
For these reasons, I ask North Somerset Council to refuse this application.
Example Objection Focusing On Butts Batch Flooding And Evacuation Concerns.
I wish to object to the Butts Batch planning application.
I am concerned about flooding, drainage and safe evacuation.
The developer’s own submitted flood documents identify flood risk affecting parts of the site. I am also concerned that the site requires a flood evacuation plan, which raises serious questions about whether this is an appropriate place to build new homes.
I understand that an earlier version of the evacuation plan referred to Wrington Primary School as an evacuation point, but that this was not accepted by North Somerset Council. The updated plan now refers residents to official guidance from the emergency services or North Somerset Council.
I am concerned that future residents could be placed in a vulnerable position during a flood event, especially if evacuation routes are affected by flood water.
I do not believe new homes should be built in a location where flooding and evacuation are already such clear concerns.
For these reasons, I ask North Somerset Council to refuse this application.
Example Objection Focusing On Ecology And Wildlife.
I wish to object to this planning application.
I am concerned about the impact this development could have on ecology, wildlife and natural habitats.
The fields, hedgerows, trees and surrounding green spaces are part of the local environment and provide habitat and movement corridors for wildlife. Development risks disturbing or permanently removing these natural features.
Wrington’s countryside is not only important visually, it is also part of a wider ecological network. Once these spaces are built on, they cannot easily be replaced.
I do not believe enough weight has been given to the ecological value of this land or the cumulative impact of repeated development around the village.
For these reasons, I ask North Somerset Council to refuse this application.
Example Objection Focusing On Heritage, Archaeology And Historical Setting.
I wish to object to this planning application.
Wrington is a historic village with an important rural setting. I am concerned that this development would harm the historical character of the area and the setting of the village.
The surrounding fields and approaches into Wrington form part of how the village is experienced and understood. Development in these locations can have a lasting effect on the character, appearance and historical setting of the village.
I am also concerned that the archaeological potential of the area must be properly understood before any decision is made. Once development takes place, any buried archaeology or historic landscape evidence may be damaged or lost.
For these reasons, I ask North Somerset Council to refuse this application.
Example Objection Focusing On Local Amenities And Village Services.
I wish to object to this planning application.
I am concerned that further development would place additional pressure on local amenities and village services.
Wrington already has limited facilities, and residents often need to travel outside the village for many everyday needs, including wider shopping, healthcare, employment and public services.
Additional housing would increase pressure on the existing village infrastructure, roads, parking, services and community facilities. I do not believe enough weight has been given to the cumulative effect of repeated development around Wrington.
A village should not be expected to keep absorbing more housing without the infrastructure, services and transport links needed to support it.
For these reasons, I ask North Somerset Council to refuse this application.
Example Objection Focusing On Sustainability, Public Transport And Active Travel.
I wish to object to this planning application.
I am concerned that this site is not suitable or sustainable for further housing development.
Wrington has limited public transport, which means future residents would be likely to rely heavily on private cars for work, school, shopping, appointments and daily life.
I am also concerned about active travel. Walking and cycling need to be safe, practical and realistic. In and around Wrington there are narrow roads, limited pavements in places, and routes that may not be suitable for increased pedestrian and cycle use alongside additional traffic.
A development should not be described as sustainable if residents are likely to be dependent on cars because public transport and safe active travel options are limited.
For these reasons, I ask North Somerset Council to refuse this application.
Simple Phrases Residents Can Use.
I am concerned that this proposal would add more pressure to a village that is already under strain.
I do not believe this site is suitable for development.
I am concerned about the cumulative impact of more development around Wrington.
The site has not been allocated in the submitted North Somerset Local Plan.
I believe North Somerset Council should stand by the submitted Local Plan.
Wrington has limited public transport, so this development would be likely to increase car dependency.
I am concerned about active travel and whether walking and cycling routes are safe, practical and realistic.
I am concerned about road safety, especially for pedestrians, school children, older residents and cyclists.
I am concerned about pedestrian access, particularly where pavements are limited or roads are narrow.
I am concerned about flooding, drainage, sewage and the ability of existing infrastructure to cope.
I am concerned about the loss of productive agricultural land.
I am concerned about the impact on wildlife, hedgerows, trees and natural habitats.
I am concerned about the impact on the historic setting and rural character of Wrington.
I am concerned that further development would place more pressure on local amenities and village services.
I am concerned that the archaeological potential of the site has not been fully understood.
I ask North Somerset Council to refuse this application.
Final Reminder.
Please use your own words wherever possible.
Your objection does not need to be long. A short, clear objection with genuine local knowledge can still be very valuable.
Please include the planning application reference when submitting your comments on the North Somerset Council planning portal.
______________________________________________________
Attend Planning Committee Meetings:
If either application goes to a planning committee meeting, residents may be able to request to speak. KWAW will share further information if a committee date is announced.
Guidelines for Effective Comments
When submitting your comments, focus on material planning considerations such as:
- Traffic generation and highway safety.
- Access and pressure on narrow local roads.
- Landscape and visual impact.
- Impact on heritage assets and the setting of the village.
- Flooding and drainage.
- Pressure on local infrastructure and services.
- Sustainability and whether the site is appropriate for development.
- Loss of productive agricultural land, where relevant.
- Conflict with local planning policy and the submitted North Somerset Local Plan.
Please avoid relying on non-planning matters such as loss of property value or purely personal circumstances, as these are not normally taken into account in planning decisions.
Every clear, well considered comment helps show the strength of local concern. Please do take the time to make your voice heard.
Key Points You May Wish to Include in Your Butts Batch Objection
When writing your objection please do add your own experiences and local knowledge, whether it be accidents or near misses on the roads, the views as you walk around the village, flooding of the roads and fields in past years, or local archaeology and local history. This makes it more relatable for the North Somerset Council (NSC) Planning Team, who we wish to support, as they have already drawn up the Local Plan, which did not include any Wrington sites, and for NSC councillors who may be asked to vote on this application.
The following points are those that Keep Wrington as Wrington have identified as significant and go against NSC policies, referred to as Core Strategies (CS) and Development Management (DM).
1) HISTORICAL SETTING
This was the reason for the Planning Inspector refusing permission for the previous application just 3 years ago. It is still relevant and was highlighted by the NSC Conservation Officer in their advice at the pre-application stage. The proposed development would impact the way the Grade I listed Church of All Saints is viewed from the permissive footpaths around the south and west of the village, the impact on the western boundary of the village and the Conservation Area.
Relevant NSC policies: CS5, DM3, DM7 and DM10.
2) AGRICULTURAL LAND
This site is now under cultivation with a crop of maize being grown. This is at odds with the developer’s application, showing it to be pasture land. There is no land assessment report from the applicant, so it can be assumed that under the Government’s own guidance this field is Grade 1, excellent quality agricultural land with no or very minor limitations, or Grade 2, very good quality land with minor limitations that affect crop yield. Either classification means that the land is better protected from development under the National Planning Policy Framework. This is because agricultural land is classed as a national asset, providing a sustainable food source, thereby reducing carbon emissions with food miles and reducing reliance on imported foods.
This is supporting CS1, CS9, CS10 and DM2.
3) ECOLOGY
The site is within the North Somerset and Mendip Bats Special Area of Conservation. The latest guidance and update from NSC shows that this field is of the highest importance for bat migration to food sources, the Yeo to the south of the site, and of medium importance for actual foraging. Any development on this field will prevent bats using this route due to light pollution and human activity and will prevent any foraging opportunities.
There are also other wildlife impacts, with badgers, dormice, grass snakes, foxes and deer all being recorded in the fields. The developer is also proposing street lighting on poles and external lighting on PIR sensors. This is not best practice, as Cox’s Green has no street lighting. This preserves the dark corridor towards Congresbury and minimises the effects on bats.
NSC Strategies: CS2, CS3, CS4 and DM8.
4) SUSTAINABILITY
The NSC Local Plan is with the Government Planning Inspectors and awaiting ratification. Wrington sites of Butts Batch, Cox’s Green and the Alburys were deliberately not included, as they are judged to be unsustainable and at odds with many NSC planning objectives of preventing further climate change through emissions, efficient use of land and to create and strengthen local economies.
The sites chosen are all things that Wrington sites cannot provide, mass transport, buses and trains, active travel, walking, hire scooters and cycling, economic opportunities, employment that is local and easily accessible without using a private car, and local amenities, medical care, large food supermarkets, retail parks, cinemas and other leisure options.
By objecting to this planning application you are supporting NSC’s vision of a better place to live and work for all residents. As detailed further below, this application is unsustainable and contrary to CS1, CS2, CS4, CS10, CS12, CS14, CS15, CS20 and CS21.
5) TRAFFIC
The very rural location of Wrington makes any further development unsustainable, due to the lack of a suitable road infrastructure for modern vehicles. All the approach roads are narrow and tortuously twisty. It is an intrinsic part of Wrington’s appeal.
The Transport Plan, submitted by the developer and using an automated vehicle counter, strips in the road, shows that Butts Batch / Half Yard, as the only southern approach to the village, has an average of 771 vehicles a day. This is shockingly high and just demonstrates how the lack of any meaningful public transport and the isolated position of Wrington means that residents are forced to use their cars to access work, secondary education and even basic services like medical care and large supermarkets.
771 is an average, with some days showing this total to be even higher. The proposed development would add at least 98 vehicles, two per household, but often three or four as grown-up children now remain living at home longer. So assuming they only go out once a day and return, that is 200 more vehicle movements per day. In reality, this will be more like 300, when shopping trips are included.
CS1, CS10, DM2 and DM24.
6) ROAD SAFETY
The Transport Plan only includes the recorded collisions within 250 metres of the site. This is meaningless, as currently this part of the highway is relatively straight and hazard free. The data should include the junctions in Lower Langford and the A38, where the traffic from the village joins the faster flowing traffic.
The one recorded collision shown in the Transport Report shows that it involved a cyclist. This is extremely important, as this road is part of the National Cycle Network.
DM24.
7) LACK OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT
This is linked to the above problems. The 125 bus only goes to Weston-super-Mare every 2 hours and only between 7am and 6pm. Any levies upon the developer for money to fund a bus service will be limited and only last for 12 months, so can be discounted. This links back to the site being unsustainable and CS10, CS2, CS10 and DM2 apply.
8) ACTIVE TRAVEL
The aim of all new developments, as set out in the Local Plan currently under review by the Government Inspectors, is to encourage active travel, walking and cycling. The developer references the proposed cycle route along the old railway line that extends beyond Westward Close. This has been a desire for many, many years.
It could be a great recreational facility, provided it is well surfaced and widened to accommodate two-way pedestrian and cycle traffic and not surrounded by housing estates, as is the case along the Yatton stretch of the existing Strawberry Line cycleway. It will not encourage people to commute by bicycle and is therefore irrelevant to this application and should be ignored.
CS10, CS2, CS3, CS10 and CS26.
9) PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
The proposed layout includes pedestrian access from the north of the site and widening footpaths from the access in Half Yard. Both of these are flawed, impractical and potentially dangerous.
The widened footpath along Butts Batch would require the removal of the 20mph road narrowing island, thereby reducing the effectiveness of the current traffic control, already shown to be required due to the applicant’s own figures of 15% of 771 drivers daily speeding along this stretch. And the applicant wants to relocate a number of telegraph poles, which would cause disruption and inconvenience.
The north pedestrian access from Westward Close is also dangerous, due to the number of Wessex Water vehicles and other traffic that use the storage facility at the old pig farm. Whilst a previous planning application was allowed by the Planning Inspector, this has since expired and was before the treatment works were expanded in 2024.
This has led to an increase in daily vehicle movements by Heavy Goods Vehicles that barely fit through the gap between the hedgerows. This will also be an issue for any future cycle path, but at least those users will not be suddenly emerging from behind the hedge line.
With this entrance / exit to the proposed housing estate being unsuitable, it means that walking and cycling to local facilities is via Half Yard and the impractical and dangerous footpath there.
This conflicts with CS1, CS2, CS10 and DM2.
10) FLOODING
The applicant has not provided sufficient detail regarding flooding. The plan shows that surface water would drain away into the Yeo via a SuDS pond. This assumption fails to appreciate that the Yeo regularly floods and would prevent the additional surface water, previously slowed and slowly released by the agricultural land, from draining away.
The area at the south of the site is within Flood Zone 2. This would cause further flooding, if not on the new housing estate itself, then for other properties and roads in the local area.
CS3 and DM1.
In addition, it has already been noted on the application by the NSC Emergency Management Unit that, in the event of a Flood Warning being issued, residents could not presume to use Wrington Primary School, as stated in the application, as a safe place and would have to follow guidance issued by the emergency services. This shows the lack of concern that the developer has for future residents.
11) LOCAL AMENITIES
The applicant highlights the local amenities. However, experience shows that these are limited, the lack of a GP surgery is an example. And this is reflected in point 4, with the high number of vehicle movements throughout the day, not just at morning and evening commuting times.
CS1, CS2, CS10 and DM2.
12) SEWAGE
The developer’s application states that the Waste Treatment Works, sewage farm, has not increased in size since 2020. This is incorrect, with it being expanded in 2024. This means the submitted odour assessment, smell from the works, is inaccurate.
In addition, on a national level there has been a lot of reporting of sewage spills and river pollution. These spills are driven by development in unsustainable locations, where the treatment works cannot cope with the additional demand. Water companies are expected to increase their facilities to cope but this takes time and cannot always be accommodated.
Data available online shows that Wrington Sewage Works, during 2021 to 2024, discharged sewage 435 times for a total of 6403.4 hours, or for 0.73 years. This is from Floodmapper.co.uk. This is unsustainable and harms our environment.
CS2, CS3, CS4, CS7, CS14 and DM8.
13) ARCHAEOLOGY
Wrington is, in essence, a medieval village. The Church of All Saints is a Grade I listed building built in the 14th century, replacing a Norman church on the same site. The funds required to build it would have been enormous, but the village was affluent enough at that time to afford it.
The Conservation Area also preserves and demonstrates how old the village is. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that this site, and others like Cox’s Green and the Alburys, also potentially under threat of imminent development, have historical artefacts under them.
Cox’s Green is currently undergoing a further survey, the reason why the original development was curtailed to its present size. A survey should be undertaken before any further permissions for development are granted.
CS5 and DM10.
14) UNSELLABLE HOUSES
The Gatcombe Farm development for 39 houses was granted 3 years ago. To date, they have built phase 1 of around 15 houses, of which a third are still available to buy.
They are priced competitively, so the only reason they have not been snapped up is because Wrington is no longer as desirable a place to buy, with threatened airport expansion, lack of infrastructure and employment opportunities, the cost of fuel and house running costs.
Stay Informed and Connected
- Join Our Facebook Community: Connect with over 330 residents to share updates and discuss strategies: https://www.facebook.com/groups/3348144378563131
- Attend Parish Council Meetings: Regular meetings are held in the John Locke Room. Check the https://wringtonparishcouncil.gov.uk/about/meetings-minutes/ for dates and agendas.