In case you missed it, plans for 130 homes in Paulton on what was farming land, have been thrown out.

Cllr Grant Johnson said: "Its great to see the amount of local support that was received in refusing this awful scheme on multiple ground. I think the officers have done a fantastic job in highlighting the significant issues with the proposed development. The plans were anything but a logical extension, just more developers wanting to carve up our beautiful green countryside, putting profit over people and communities. Paulton has expanded massively over the last 10 years, but there needs to come a time when we say, enough is enough!"

The Local Democracy Reporter Stephen Sumner's report :

Top quality farmland in Paulton has been saved after "unsustainable" plans for 130 homes were thrown out.

More than 360 people opposed proposals for a 7.4-hectare site off Farrington Road, with many claiming the village has already taken its fair share of housing and is "fit to burst".

Gladman Developments claimed its scheme outside the development boundary was a "logical extension" to Paulton that would help to tackle the national housing crisis by "providing new homes for real people who are in real need now".

Parish councillors led the opposition, saying the project would put "extreme pressure" on local facilities and make the roads even less safe for pedestrians.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England said Paulton, Radstock and Midsomer Norton had already provided more homes than are needed, and with few jobs available locally, the new residents would have to travel to Bristol or Bath for work, adding to congestion.

Paulton Junior School said in its objection: "The traffic and surrounding estates are currently overrun with school traffic as such causing more complaints from residents to the school and surrounding areas are struggling to cope with current demand. Adding another 130 properties on greenbelt land will only exacerbate the current issues we have."

Rejecting the application, Bath and North East Somerset Council officers said: "The proposed development would result in the loss of grade 1 agricultural land. This is only permitted if significant sustainability benefits are demonstrated to outweigh this loss.

"The proposed development of up to 130 homes outside the development boundary of Paulton is not considered to be sustainable since it would not limit the need for future residents to travel and offer a genuine choice of sustainable transport options. The proposed development thereby undermines the council's sustainable transport ambitions and its climate emergency targets.

"There are multiple and significant conflicts with the development plan resulting from this development, and any benefits generated from the development proposal are not considered to outweigh the harm identified."