updated 07 06 2025
Proposed Developments
Woolavington is a large Somerset Village currently subject to five proposed housing developments all of which with the exception of the associated Gravity housing element have been proposed without any wider cognizance or consideration of the adjacent village and how their proposals should fit together.
Development is also a consequence of the new Bridgwater Tidal Barrier forcing development (5000 houses) that should be north of Chilton Trinity and connected to Dunball/jct 23 being forced out of Bridgwater by the failure of Sedgemoor District Council and the pursuit of environmental objectives of the EA and associated nature businesses to adequately consider the wider impacts of it’s decisions on the wider area.
Woolavington is fast becoming the perfect example of the failure to deliver any form of control or vision for the future whilst the public only gets to see individual bits of a wider picture when asked to comment. They represent the continuing failure of the UK’s housing model to provide a wide and affordable housing offer that places the UK at the bottom of Europe’s housing offer in terms of sustainability, affordability, and width of offer.
It is a house or house regardless of one’s age or circumstances.
Ignoring planning policy, that will come later when these schemes attempt to move to planning applications and best dealt with there. The present consultations seek public engagement; this post attempts to look at the wider context of some of these proposals and how they bring nothing to the host community of Woolavington.
Woolavington: planned and proposed housing and Gravity site.
Note: Some individual properties may be within but not part of the indicated wider Persimmon scheme
Each development promotes its proximity to the Agratas Giga Factory as a factor regarding need despite a clear message within the gravity development plans that it expects people to commute in a sustainable manner even providing a railway station and cycle paths. It is worth noting that the when the Gravity site was a munitions factory employing 4000 people and the original estate had been built by the UK government on top of Woolavington Hill the workforce was bussed in from surrounding towns. No wider car ownership in those days.
These proposals also imply local jobs at Gravity. These developments are unlikely to be of interest to well paid operatives at Gravity as the houses built on these sites will invariably comply with and be built down to UK minimum housing standards. Table 1 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6123c60e8fa8f53dd1f9b04d/160519_Nationally_Described_Space_Standard.pdf
| Site | Houses |
| Gravity | 720 |
| Persimmon | 1400 |
| East Woolavington | 170 |
| Woolavington Road ( Notaro) | 85 |
| Cossington Lane (Bloor) | 150 |
| Land at Woolavington Hill | 100 |
| Total | 2625 |
Despite all of the housing being proposed by developers and the Wainright application 54/19/00008 lapsing no other developer is proposing to construct a new roundabout at Woolavington corner, the junction of the B3141 with the A39.
All developments except Gravity are silent regarding this increasing traffic on the unclassified roads in and out of the village and in particular the unclassified road between Woolavington and Puriton. Equally the larger proposed Persimmon development will use the same road to travel east.
Each development talks about public space, exercise on the use of bicycles etc. The usual things. The potential to link to Cossington’s cycleway on the old Somerset & Dorset permanent way ignored. Only the proposals for the Gravity site have any detail and any hope of being built as they already form part of the development agreement for the site. The other four developments including the one that has lapsed form a disjointed and disparate set of proposals that may or may not come to fruition. What we do know is there is no single guiding light behind this village might improve and benefit from these developments. It is an unfolding planning disaster.
Woolavington – Geography and Geology
It is important to understand that Woolavington is one of a series of Polden Hills villages that form a string of north facing spring line settlements from Puriton to Shapwick.
If you drive from Woolavington to Street you will notice that all the old houses are to the left and at the foot of the hills. So called because the Polden Hills ground water comes out of the ground towards the bottom of the hill. The water in the old village well on what is called the batch is usually just 1m below ground level. and can be easily checkedif so inclined . The old 1913 ordnance survey map below shows the many wells (W and P) that provided drinking water. These wells are shallow and receive their water from the near surface ground water within the lias rock that makes up the Polden Hills. The relevance of this geology and groundwater migration will become apparent later.
Section looking west through Woolavington Hill and how the village developed.
1913 OS Map of Woolavington
“P” means a well under and “W” means a well.
Drainage
Woolavington lies on the north facing slope presently rapidly drains to the Levels below with water courses rarely holding water. As such there is little standing water.
The current proposals propose to use the SUDs system of ponds/pit to attenuate flows will change this as these ponds really do not work with any degree of speed resulting in
- The contamination of the groundwater including multiple poisonous and harmful substances. Previous research by the Environment Agency and highways England identified copper, zinc, cadmium, fluoranthene, pyrene and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (Ref: Highway runoff and the water environment; May 2024) https://www.stormwatershepherds.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Highway-runoff-and-the-water-environment-report-combined-LR.pdf
- The creation of stagnant water suitable for the breeding of mosquitoes that now carry many dieases new to the UK. This risk could be attenuated by discharging to the Levels albeit with the consquence oof loweing grownd water levels. It is a complicated balance that developers and the LA simply ignored having been pemitted on application 54/119/00008 https://ukhsa.blog.gov.uk/2023/12/11/health-effects-of-climate-change-the-health-threat-from-vector-borne-diseases/
This type of housing is a singularly unpleasant way of degrading the environment notwithstanding now the construction of these houses involving the cutting into the underlying rock to form foundations and drains will invariably release large amounts of surface water and as a consquence lower the existing groundwater with the detrimental effects on the habitat on the hills side. However a small crumb of comfort is Condition 16 of planning application 54/19/00008 that seemingly makes residents of developments responsible for their drainage system if implemented on these new schemes creating a path for reparations to those impacted by the developers use of pits rather than the alternative of direct discharge of runoff to the Levels.
Large amounts of surface water running on the road are already a problem in Woolavington on these proposals what scene designed to make the situation worse. It is difficult not to appreciate the irony a statement such as net biodiversity gain when the development model is likely to have a far wider negative impact beyond the boundary of these developments.
Map of Woolavington showing house building consultations east of the B3141
Cossington Lane
Consultation Bloor Homes – Land at Cossington Lane
Bloor homes propose to build 150 houses on top of Woolavington Hill and suggests that this development will provide worker accommodation for the nearby Agratas giga factory presently under construction at Puriton.
As a proposal it does not reflect the needs of the village. With an older population there is a considerable need to downsize that would free up houses that this scheme and others purports to address. 150 homes could be provided by 4 to 5 apartment blocks rather than 150 unneeded houses.
Highways
Access to the development will be from the unclassified road between Woolavington and Cossington. The proposal neglects to mention that in order to reach the Giga factory from this site drivers will invariably take the shortest route and that is the unclassified road between Woolavington and Puriton. This road will also be used by people living on Gravity’s 725 housing units on the Gravity site, the 1400 units on the planned Persimmon site and the 170 houses on the Woolavington East site Weather where traffic from the northern part of that development will seek to cross the B3141.
Following the lapse of planning consent 54/19/00008 the requirement for modifying the junction between the B3141 and the A39 should be placed on this development or the East Woolavington site depending on which site comes first if both were permitted.
Landscape
With climate change any drainage system within the village should discharge the full volume immediately to the Somerset Levels. The vague suggestion of discharge into a watercourse that has no description and might be assumed to be nothing more than an open soak away discharging highway run off into the groundwater is unacceptable. All highway runoff should be fully treated to remove the chemicals before being allowed to enter water courses and invariably contaminate the groundwater below.
East Woolavington
https://woolavingtonhill-consultation.com/the-proposals
This is a land promoter’s speculative proposed development of 170 dwellings on 2 fields of around 8.4 Ha (21 Acres) to the east of Woolavington Hill seeks to create a single development crossing the main agriculture route, Combe Lane, that connects Woolavington and Cossington Levels through the northern part of the development. It seeks to gain access to the B3141 via two substandard road junctions.
It is a proposal that has been put together with no consultation with the local industry adjacent to it and who will be negatively impacted should it be permitted. It represents the worst of all approaches to development that rather than work with peopleand preserve rural employment it chooses to run roughshod over their interests and threaten their livelihoods through the invariable conflict between homeowners and employment centres. The public consultation appears to be little more that a way to get the public to do the work the proposers agents should have completed before going public with its consultation.
As a proposal it does not reflect the needs of the village. With an older population there is a considerable need to downsize that would free up houses that this scheme and others purports to address. 170 homes could be provided by 4 to 5 apartment blocks rather than 170 unneeded houses and have minimal impact on the environment.
It makes the statements about EV’s yet the population is ageing and by 2050 30% of our population will be over 65 on reduced incomes whilst the impacts of AI will have further reduced the ability of people through unemployment to own and operate a vehicle of any kind. Just imagine that this development and the others imagine that in order to live in a home they must purchase maintain operate and drive a vehicle all funded from a pension regardless of their age and circumstances. This development does not even allow for bus to go through it. It is a fantasy based on the assumption that the near future will look like the recent past when clearly that is not possible. The statements based on information from the ONS and other reputable sources indicate that they are incorrect.
Statements about decarbonising are made. It is simply not possible to decarbonise any car-based housing development where each dwelling will create on average 1.2 additional cars increasing embodied carbon and having high annual operational carbon due to the need to drive everywhere. The geology is such is that there will be massive over break when excavating foundations increasing the volumes of embodied carbon. Almost none of the statements in this consultation stands up to scrutiny or are explained in any detail.
Building this type of housing in a village and pretending it is sustainable is simply not credible. There is nothing sustainable about car dependent low rise housing.
Following the lapse of planning consent 54/19/00008 the requirement for modifying the junction between the B3141 and the A39 should be placed on this development or the East Woolavington site depending on which site comes first in the event that both were permitted.
North Section
Housing
The developer seeks to construct lower density housing (15) at the North End of the North field. This housing will back directly onto the industrial site and will invariably bring into conflict the occupants of these houses and the industrial activity of the joinery works to the west. Previous applications for housing in this area have taken cognizance of these industrial processes and been refused.
Road Access
The developer proposes a new access into Vicarage Rd (5) that obstructs and interferes with the operations of the adjoining joinery works. Vicarage Rd is an unclassified road that exits onto Woolavington Hill (B3141) where visibility is particularly bad. The road is also too narrow and the gradients from the B3141 junction exceeding good practise and there is insufficient width to satisfy highway requirements. The developer has shown no enthusiasm to improve the road or more importantly improve the junction with the B3141. It seems that no land has been aquired or is under the control of the propmoter to permit the construction of a safe access.
Landscape
The developer suggests that the use of attenuation basins at low points with parcels designed for biodiversity net gain is a way forward. This area is already prone to flooding with runoff leaving the field and eventually discharging to the levels via School Lane and Reeds Drove. This proposal will invariably pollute the existing groundwater and the many local wells. It will also create standing water suitable for the breeding of mosquitoes due to climate change are becoming more prolific in the UK and now carrying a number of dangerous diseases. With climate change any drainage system within the village should discharge the full volume immediately to the Somerset levels that starts at the bottom of Reed Drove.
South Section
Road Access
The developer proposes an equally poor solution to the B3141 that doesn’t comply with Highway Standards. It seems that no land has been aquired or is under the control of the propmoter to permit the construction of a safe access.
Landscape
The developer suggests that the use of attenuation basins at low points with parcels designed for biodiversity net gain is a way forward. This area is already prone to flooding with runoff leaving the field and eventually discharging to the levels via School Lane and Reeds Drove.
This proposal will invariably pollute the existing groundwater and the many local wells. It will also create standing water suitable for the breeding of mosquitoes due to climate change are becoming more prolific in the UK and now carrying a number of dangerous diseases. This proposal will fundamentally change the environment for the existing people within the village and those who might occupy the development. Clearly there is no investigation work regarding the geology of the site because the proposal would understand but the use of Suds as proposed is neither sustainable or to be encouraged.
Directly to the north active springs continuously discharge ground water through existing properties to the north of the south section,
The surface wate drainage system should discharge the full volume from this part of the site immediately to the Somerset levels via Woolavington Hill.
Land off Woolavington Road
Consulation can be found at https://your-views.co.uk/woolavingtonrd/#firstPage
85 Houses off Woolavington Road
Road Access.
85 houses accessing an unclassified road (Woolavington Road/Higher Road) that all the the other promoted developments described here will used for primary access to work, shops (Woolavington COOP) and school. The only redeeming feature of this location will be that people can walk to the doctors surgery.
Drainage
The use of open drainage basins suggested to deal with stormwater. No investigative work has been done that would confirm the unsuitability of this situation. It is unfortunate that the promoter has already used this strategy at Puriton/
Summary
None of the proposals described produce a coherent and compelling reasons to come forward and the lack of any joined up thinking simply exacerbates the problem.
As someone with a interest in seeing Woolavington prosper it seems the village is destined to become a large poorly connected sink housing estate slowly poisoning the environment and habitat that will invariably fail to deliver what an ageing and poorer population needs.
You must be logged in to post a comment.