RESPONSE TO 4.13 NAILSEA AS A STRATEGIC GROWTH LOCATION
Nailsea Action Group (NAG) is disappointed that Nailsea has been reinstated as a strategic development location. In the previous Local Plan (LP) consultation (2040 pre-submission), Nailsea was discounted by North Somerset Council (NSC) as a strategic location, and a convincing rationale was provided by NSC for this planning decision. This rationale still stands. In this iteration, Nailsea becomes a large sprawling conurbation, with an ineffective ‘centre’, offset at one end, and only easily accessible by a small proportion of the town.
NAG understand that North Somerset must comply with housing requirements as dictated by central government. NAG’s overall view is that the choice of Nailsea (and Backwell) as a strategic location is wrong. It is not sustainable in that most new residents will have to commute to other cities and town to work and the infrastructure provision will be completely inadequate. Locations closer to Bristol would be better able to provide the occupational, transport, educational, health infrastructure and leisure facilities needed by the new residents.
Nailsea cannot be defined as a strategic development site for the reasons provided in this submission.
Transport and commuting
Every entrance / exit from Nailsea has restrictions and pinch points. In addition, links to Bristol and other large towns are completely inadequate. A link from Nailsea to the A370 has been discussed many times, and indeed in the last LP, was discounted as too expensive.
The justification for ranking Nailsea and Backwell as a strategic location is given on the consultation paper’s page 24 at paragraph 4.13 (not the other paragraph 4.13 on page 23). It refers to the “… range of services, facilities and jobs and excellent public transport opportunities …”, which echoes the wording of Policy SP4. Unfortunately, that misrepresents the situation because services, facilities, jobs and public transport in the area have grossly inadequate capacity. As residents of Nailsea, our lived experience is certainly contrary to that wording. There are no clothing retailers selling new clothes. There is a three month wait for hearing tests at a local business whereas Weston’s residents can have this done within a week. The list goes on.
The public transport facilities in the area may be excellent by some measures, but they are not fit for purpose because there are far too few jobs in the area. The first table below shows that, like most of the other locations in North Somerset, most of the area’s working population drive to work. That is because public transport lacks sufficient capacity. Also, the need to change the public transport service during the commute prevents public transport from providing reasonable commuting times to the diversity of mid-distance workplace locations. The second table below shows that a third of Nailsea and Backwell’s (N & B’s) working population commute that sort of distance, between 10 and 20 km.
As no evidence is provided in the consultation paper to support the claims in paragraph 4.13 and there is sound evidence to the contrary, the N & B strategic location should be deleted.
Census table QS701EW – Method of travel to work
Census table QS702EW – Distance travelled to work
NAG also notes that some operational changes by public transport authorities affect NSC objectives. For instance, the reduced capacity of the High Speed Trains results in severe difficulties boarding an already full train at peak times in Nailsea Backwell train station.
NSC has endeavoured, in the past, to facilitate the delivery of net-zero and to remove the detrimental effects of transport. In the transition period between 2025 and 2040, it is important that the effects on residents’ lives and livelihoods are not unnecessarily adversely affected. For instance, creating a bus lane on the A370 is beneficial for public transport, but unnecessarily mandating it 24 /7 is not.
Schools and other educational requirements
In the current iteration of the Local Plan (2040 pre-submission), Schedule 4 shows no new educational provision for Nailsea despite extensive areas of land identified as most suitable or with other potential, let alone those sites already built on and inhabited or under construction. If, as is widely reported, Nailsea’s population is likely to rise by some 5,000 souls in the foreseeable future, to avoid overcrowding in the already existing schools or pupils having to travel unwarrantably long distances for their education and the delaying complications that capital funding such schools tends to generate, it is very important that at least indicative intentions for school development in Nailsea are provided. In the 310 pages of the Local Plan, only three seem to be devoted to education.
Health, GP services, hospitals and support services such as pharmacies
Nailsea currently has two GP practices. There are 17 doctors in the two practices. This may seem adequate in the overall scheme. However, a significant number of doctors work a reduced number of days in the Nailsea practices. Further analysis determines that there is the equivalent to 8-9 full time doctors supporting a current population of of approximately 16,000 residents. Whilst we have not compared these figures with national ‘ideal’ statistics, anecdotal evidence is that GP services work under considerable strain in attempting to support the current town population. Any increase in population will put additional pressure on these medical services. It is essential that a commensurate increase in doctors will be required IN ADVANCE of Nailsea’s potential increase in size and population.
There are currently two Pharmacy groups in three locations in Nailsea. One group (Boots) is undergoing a potential takeover. There is uncertainty about its subsequent retail structure, and this could result in potential closure. This could have a detrimental impact on a growing Nailsea population. As it stands, there regularly are long queues in all locations. As with the other services, there will have to be a planned expansion of pharmacy provision.
Employment and associated infrastructure
In the current economic climate, a significant proportion of new employment is created by light industry such as basic manufacture and assembly, warehousing etc. Nailsea is inherently unsuitable for such light industry, mainly due to transport access difficulties detailed above. Anecdotally, it has been suggested that organisations have investigated Nailsea as a site for light industry but have been put off by the difficulty of getting large trucks and goods into and out of the town. Until this situation is remedied, the prospects of light industry in Nailsea is remote.
There are currently very few service sector, public services, and administrative organisations operating in Nailsea, and there have been no significant employers added over the last few years. Apart from Pelican Services which has a staff of over 300 people, there are no major stand-out employers, despite there being three trading estates: Blackfriars Road, Southfield Road and the old Coates site. (It is widely believed, that, if and when North Somerset Council implements car parking charges in the town, Pelican will leave.) Two large supermarkets – Tesco and Waitrose – and several medium sized stores such as Iceland employ almost exclusively from the immediate locality. The units on the trading estates all employ relatively small numbers of people with the possible exception of Brabantia and Proper Job. Most other employment is with retail in single figures. As at March 2025 some 30 jobs are advertised on the internet in Nailsea, mostly low paid and with small employers or for individual working. There is not a tradition of administration, services and public sector opportunities in Nailsea. For example, the Nailsea Business Directory identifies about a dozen small accountancy firms, about half a dozen IT establishments, and there are at least half a dozen solicitors, estate agents and refreshment outlets all in close proximity to each other. Without significantly better infrastructure – and there is none planned at present – it seems unlikely that Nailsea will attract major stakeholders in administration, services and the public sector.
Conclusion
NSC has identified and accepted these restrictive matters in past versions of the Local Plan. However, in every case, these have now been put aside and NSC Planning has discarded perfectly rational restricting factors during this planning process. NAG wish to state that these are real issues which need to be addressed in a practical and professional manner. What is needed is a definitive plan with timescales, with stated deliverables and a proper definition of conditions before each deliverable can be signed off. There also needs to be a critical path method probably based on housing numbers. For example, after X houses have been built, no new building can be started until a primary school, doctors surgery, pharmacy etc has been put on stream. Although it is now a long time ago, when in the 1960s, the then Somerset County Council planned for Nailsea to be developed from a small village into a dormitory town for Bristol, much of the infrastructure was in place before or at the same time as the residential areas were built. For example, spacious new roads were constructed such as Stockway North, Stockway South, Queens Road, Hannah More Road and others.
The process of delivering infrastructure currently significantly depends on S106 agreements, which in many cases do not actually work. Nailsea is not ready for development until the restricting conditions discussed above are addressed, planned and put in place in a timely manner. As the initiative to develop new areas (and the housing numbers) are imposed by central government, there is no reason why central government cannot be asked contribute to the development costs of necessary basic infrastructure.
Is the plan for Nailsea sound in terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the criteria against which the plan will be judged at inspection? In the light of the two paragraphs above, corroborated by too many instances to cite in detail here in Nailsea Action Group’s submission to this consultation, the plan for Nailsea is unsound chiefly in the area of insufficient positive and clear preparation for infrastructure planning. Furthermore, the plan for Nailsea is not sufficiently justified as being the most appropriate strategy for the town even when considered against the reasonable alternatives based on proportionate evidence.
RESPONSE TO 4.14
We note that Nailsea and Backwell are treated as a single broad location for the purposes of this consultation. Nailsea Action Group (NAG) is concerned that NSC will treat both locations a single unit. NAG wish to emphasise that each community has a distinct character and this status is valued by local residents in both Nailsea and Backwell. The long-standing strategic gap between Nailsea and Backwell is treasured by each community and any effort to merge the two towns by removal of this gap will be strongly resisted.
RESPONSE TO 4.16: SITES IDENTIFIED AS MOST SUITABLE
(I will add each site identified as most suitable here and we can add our comments)
| SHLAA REF | NAME | SIZE(ha) | Ind Capacity | NAG Comments |
| HE20136 | Land north of Nailsea | 25 | 381 | The justification for Nailsea as a strategic location is misinformed. See comments on consultation questionnaire in section 8a as pdf NAG response 20250320.. Consequently, no green belt sites including this one should be carried forward into the emerging plan. The proximity of this area to SSIs, ancient hedgerows and an abundance of wildlife will gravely endanger the local environment and its ecology. Developers, as in this case, constantly – and planning officers sometimes – misunderstand or ignore the need for a substantial buffer zone beyond the technical boundary of the land on which they apply for permission to build, and the impact on the quality of the water flowing through the site on the environment downstream of the site. |
| HE20225 | Land off Pound Lane, Nailsea | 5.6 | 100 | The justification for Nailsea as a strategic location is misinformed. See comments on consultation questionnaire in section 8a as pdf NAG response 20250320. Consequently, no green belt sites including this one should be carried forward into the emerging plan This could not be closer to the flood zones if it tried: an extremely unwise location on which to build and in which to purchase a property. Caveat Emptor applies of course, but it would be from an ethicless builder. |
| HE203006 | Poplar Farm, Nailsea | 7.2 | 130 | This site should not be carried forward. The justification for Nailsea as a strategic location is misinformed. See comments on consultation questionnaire in section 8a as pdf NAG response 20250320.. |
| HE20591 | Youngwood Farm | 7.4 | 120 | See comment under HE20612 |
| HE20612 | North and south of Youngwood Lane, Nailsea | 15.8 | 316 | NAG is pleased that the wholly inappropriate application proposed by Gleesons in 2023 does not seem to feature in this site plan. However, it seems this this area, together with the adjacent HE20591, HE202016 and HE203020 sites have replaced the original Gleesons application. This area has been the strategic gap between Nailsea and Backwell over many decades and our objection to building in this area still stands. There are many other reasons why this good agricultural land is not suitable for housing, some of which are listed below: 1) Access. The proximity of the end of Sedgemoor Close to the northern extremity of the site suggests that this might be applied for as an additional access point. This would turn a very quiet residential cul de sac into a busy road, and would necessarily also take up some land from one of the few green spaces in Nailsea. 2) Commuting. The 500 dwellings in South Nailsea would have significant impacts on the issues detailed on the transport matters discussed above. 3) Flooding. This area is prone to flooding, particularly at the southern end. |
| HE202016 | Land at Youngwood Lane, Nailsea | 2.22 | 66 | See comment under HE20612 |
| HE203020 | Land near the Perrings, Nailsea | 4.1 | 80 | See comment under HE20612 |
Response to 4.17: OTHER POTENTIAL LOCATIONS
| SHLAA REF | NAME | SIZE(ha) | Ind. Capacity | NAG Comments |
| HE20504 | Land at West End, Nailsea | 22.7 | 450 | With area HE20611, this is a very substantial tract of land identified as having ‘other potential’ for development. Its situation well into the countryside to the west of Nailsea accessible only by very narrow lanes suggests that adequate transport links to, from, and for this area of housing would be unachievable. Furthermore, at such a distance from the town centre, the residents on these developments would almost certainly feel the need to use a car every time they left the house which runs contrary to the aspirations of the climate emergency, and accentuates the need for good road links already considered above as extremely unlikely. Nevertheless, it is far from unknown for developers to be given planning permission on an understanding that ‘infrastructure will follow’, only to find that it doesn’t. Members of the public who have attended recent NSC led public consultation meetings have been told that there is to be a Nailsea and Backwell transport plan, but, as this is not yet in the public domain, it is not possible to peruse it for any comment on this particular area – HE20504 and HE20611. By the time the Nailsea and Backwell transport plan appears, the consultation on the Local Plan will have closed, so it will not be possible to align the comments on the one with the other. There are a number of sites around Nailsea that, not so long ago, were declared as very unlikely to be developed, but now are. HE20611 and HE20504 must not be allowed to slip from the ‘other potential’ category seamlessly into ‘most suitable’ as the pressure on the local authority to secure sites increases, and certainly not without detailed planning on all infrastructure, transport and amenity issues. It would seem that the challenges presented by this area and the problems it would create are unmitigatable to the point that the inclusion of this area in the plan is unsound with particular regard to not being effective in its delivery of a sound infrastructure delivery plan. |
| HE201080 | Land north of Youngwood Lane, Nailsea | 2 | 30 | |
| HE20226 | Southfield Estate, Nailsea | 5.9 | 118 | This site should not be carried forward. The justification for Nailsea as a strategic location is misinformed. See comments on consultation questionnaire in section 8a as pdf NAG response 20250320.. High levels of out-commuting highlighted in those comments attest to the need to retain employment sites in the town. The importance of this site to employment in the town is underlined in the Council’s Economy Team response to LVA’s planning application 24/P/1586/OU2, which includes “The units in the Southfield Trading Estate and the Coates Trading Estate are currently used for general industrial (B2) and storage and distribution (B8) uses and these units are well occupied. This suggests that there is a strong demand for B2 and B8 space at this location and that this is a good location for these use classes”. |
| HE20233 | Northeast of Nailsea | 13.1 | 120 | The justification for Nailsea as a strategic location is misinformed. See comments on consultation questionnaire in section 8a as pdf NAG response 20250320.. Consequently, no green belt site, including this one, should be carried forward into the emerging plan |
| HE20501 | West of Netherton Wood Lane, Nailsea | 35.4 | 490 | Comments on HE20612, 202016, 203020 apply. |