THE BATH AND NORTH EAST SOMERSET
COUNCIL
(SOUTHGATE REDEVELOPMENT, BATH)
COMPULSORY
PURCHASE ORDER 2004
THE STOPPING UP OF HIGHWAYS (BATH AND NORTH
EAST
SOMERSm (No. SW 1 ORDER 200
OPENING SUBMISSIONS OF
BATH AND NORTH EAST SOMERSET
COUNCIL
Back~roundto Southgate Scheme
1. The Council's aspiration to redevelop the Southgate area
of
Bath city centre dates back to the 1980's. In 1988, the
Prudential Assurance Company, ' who were the then
.leaseholders of the Southgate Shopping Centre, made a
planning application for a major redevelopment scheme which
was submitted in the context of the Bath City Council's
published Objectives. Although discussions continued for a
long period, no acceptable scheme emerged, and in 1995 the
lease of the Southgate Centre, together with the bus
station,
was acquired by General Accident (now CGNU) and Shearer
Property Holdings. SPH no longer has any interest in the
site.
2. The Southgate Issues Report was produced by the Council
in
1996 as the basis for discussions with the landowners, and
in
1997 Chapman Taylor Architects, following site analysis and
the development of design options, prepared a Review paper
which was approved as planning guidance for the Southgate
area.
3. The first planning application was made in November
1997,
and the scheme continued to evolve thereafter. with public
exhibitions, and extensive consultation with relevant
organisations at national and local level. Sir William
WhiRiield
was appointed as architectural adviser, and (later on)
Wilkinson Eyre Architects were appointed to design the
proposed new transport interchange.
4. It was in May 2002 that the Council's Development
Control
Committee resolved to approve the Scheme. That decision
included not only the main planning permission, but also
listed
building consent for the alterations to the railway station
and
the Argyll Hotel building, Conservation Area consent for the
demolition of the unlisted buildings within the site, and
planning permission for works to alter the Southgate
footbridge.
'5. The main planning application was then referred to
the
Secretary of State, who decided in June 2002 not to call it in I
i
for his own determination.
6. Further changes to the design of the Scheme were
made
during 2002 and the first part of 2003, and the revised b
I
Scheme was then reported to Committee in June 2003. It was
again resolved that permission should be granted, and on
2sth
September 2003 the main Scheme planning permission was
granted. An associated Agreement under section 106 of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was signed the previous
day1.
Summary Scheme description
7. The. site presents the opportunity to meet retail
needs whilst
also regenerating one of Bath's less satisfactory 2ofh
century
developments through a mixed-use development which will
integrate far better with the aty's historic core and
also
provide a much needed new public transport interchange.
8. The Scheme will have a total retail floorspace
of 37,567 sq m
gross, of which about 17,094 sq m gross (about
14,000 sq m
net) will comprise additional comparison retail floorspace.
There will also be leisure and A3 uses, 91 residential
units,
and 724 car parking spaces (a net reduction of 95) at
basement level. It will include a modem department store, a
new Boots store, a new foodstore, and a range of unit shops
suitable to meet current retailer requirements. Pedestrian
flows around the centre will be strengthened by placing the
department store next to the station, with new diagonal,
eastwest
and northsouth routes through the new centre, and a
public square at the centre.
I
9. The Southgate redevelopment area comprises about five i
hectares of land in total, including the existing
SQ~sthgat~ 1
Centre, the Ham Gardens car park, the railway station and
car
The planning obligations are summarised
in BNES/5/2 para 5.21
park, the bus station, the Argyll Hotel building, the former
Co-
Op dairy, Churchill House, and WPD plant and equipment.
The site lies within a Conservation Area and a World
Heritage
site.
10. North of Dorchester Street, the new Southgate Centre
will
comprise six principal blocks which will endose new open
spa=and streets in a neoclassical architectural style. The
subdivision of the buildings into separate blocks has
enabled
variety in building height, elevational treatment and
roofscape
to be introduced into the design. The Scheme successfully
meets UU3E's stated urban design obbves. '
1 The new transport interchange will lie 'south of
Dorchester
Street and includes the existing railway station and the
proposed new bus station, as well as Western Power
Distribution plant and equipment. The Scheme locates the
rail
and bus stations either side of a new public plaza on the
site
of the former Goods Shed ramp. This requires alterations to
the fabric of listed buildings in the rail station which all
have
listed building consent.
12. In order to provide the new bus station, it is
necessary to
demolish the unlisted Churchill House, for which
Conservation
Area consent has been granted. The potential for the
retention of this building whilst still meeting the
requirements
of First Bus was fully explored during the Scheme design
process, and it proved impossible to do so. Churchill House
does perform an important townscape role in Bath by
providing 'closure' for a number of key views, and the
proposed replacement building, designed in the form of a
'rotunda', will perform a similar role.
13. A number of changes are proposed to the railway
station, in
order to improve the way it functions and to improve its
setting. Changes to vehicular circulation and the relocation
of
the taxi rank and short term parking to the rear of the
station
will significantly assist pedestrian movement in and around
the
station area.
14. In transportation tenns, all modes of travel would be
improved, and the proposed arrangements would play an
important supporting role in the retail improvements the
Scheme will deliver.
15. The transportation and highway aspects of the Scheme
have
been integral to its conception, and were considered in a
series of Transport Assessments culminating in the transport
chapter to the Environmental Statement of 2001. At each
stage, the sub-standard quality and disposition of the
existing
bus and train interchange facilities were addressed in order
to
find the optimum solution. That involves re-locating the bus
station to the south side of Dorchester Street, and
reorganising the access to both the bus station and the
railway station for all modes.
It;. For pedestrians, the existing situation is marred by a
number
of conflicts between pedestrians and traffic, notably in
Dorchester Street and around the existing bus station. The
main pedestrian approach to the railway station is poor,
involving a difficult traverse of the station forecourt. There
is
only one signalised pedestrian crossing that connects the
station with the Southgate area and the rest of the City
Centre. The Scheme will provide simpler and safer crossings
of Dorchester Street, enable the bus station and railway
station to function much more as a single transport
interchange, and create a legible and safe pedestrian
environment at the railway station forecourt and approaches.
The proposed new bus station will replace substandard
existing facilities, severed from the railway station by
Dorcheskr Strm with a state of the art facility designed in
conjunction with the Council as highway authority and First
Group as bus station operator. A series of detailed
discussions
led to the final design of the proposed bus station,
which
provides sufficient capacity in a safe and workable layout.
This will provide immediate benefits and underwrite the
continuing growth and improvement of bus services in line
with policy at all levels.
18. Improvements will also be made to the arrangements
for
taxis, cyclists and for those using the station by private
car,
including the provision of a secure underground car park.
Policy
19. In general terms, the Scheme plainly complies with the
objectives of national and regional planning policy to
strengthen the role and function of town centres. This is of
particular importance in Bath, a city of immense historic
and
architectural interest and significance.
20. The Joint Replacement Structure Plan (2002) supports new
retail development in the city, and the adopted Bath Local
Plan (1997) supports all of the principal land use elements
of
the Scheme, as well as including policies and text which
identify the Southgate area for comprehensive redevelopment.
21. The draft Replacement Local Plan was prepared following
a
Study carried out by Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners (NLP)
in
2000, which lent strong support to the need for the
redevelopment of Southgate as soon as possible. The
draft
Plan itself again includes general and Southgatespecific
policies with which the Scheme is fully in accord.
Retail need
22. In terms of quantitative need, NLP's 2000 Study
identified
substantial capacity for additional comparison goods
floorspace in the city: 17,711 sq m net by 2006, and 31,867
sq m net by 2011. Allowing for an increase in the
turnover of
existing floorspace in Bath from 2003 of 2.5% p.a., the
figures
are 16,799 sq m (2006) and 28,324 sq m (2011). These
make
no allowance for any increase in the city centre's market
share
as a result of new development in the centre.
23. The sequential approach requires that this need
should be met
on city centre sites first.
24. The Scheme is likely (if the CPO and SUO are
confirmed) to be
fully open for trading in 2010, with the first phase opening
in
2008. There is plainly sufficient capacRy to absorb the net
additional turnover that will be generated by the Scheme in
that year.
25. The qualitative need for the regeneration and
redevelopment
of Southgate is, if anything, even stronger. Whilst, as
retail
destination, Bath city centre remains relatively attractive,
there has been very little provision in the centre of modem
retail floorspace over recent years. The environment of the
existing Southgate centre is now very outdated - it is an
obvious candidate for redevelopment, as the Council and
many others (including the Bath Chamber of Commerce) have
recognised for so many years.
26. Retailer demand for floorspace in Bath is very sbong,
but
these requirements cannot be met without the Scheme. The
evidence clearly shows a lack of units of the kind that are
needed.
27. It is only through the comprehensive treatment of the
whole
of the Southgate area that a successful scheme can be
achieved. The scheme must:
(0 be well related to the existing prime and secondary
retail
areas in Bath;
(ii) be sufficiently large to include a department store, MSUs,
a
range of unit shops, and adequate servicing and car
parking;
(iii) build on existing pedestrian routes; and
(iv) have the necessary critical mass.
28. The approved Scheme achieves these objectives. In
addition,
sufficient land has to be included in the scheme area in
order
to secure the provision of an efficient and attractive new
transport interchange.
TCPA section 226(1)(a) and the need for compulsorv
ac~uisition
29. All of the land included in the CPO is suitable for
and required
in order to secure the canying out of the Southgate
redevelopment scheme, as approved.
30. The requirement for all the land to be included in
the CPO is
essentially a matter of fact The land take has been
determined by the scope of the permitted Scheme, which
itself
is the outcome of years of design development and the
testing
of the proposals, as they have evolved, for commercial
soundness. The CPO includes only those interests and rights
that are required in order for the Scheme to be built. It
follows that the omission of any of the interests and rights
included in the CPO would mean that the Scheme as
approved
could not be built, and the benefits it will bring, in
accordance
with long-standing objectives of the Council, would not be
achieved.
31. The Council can also confirm that all the relevant
procedural
requirements in relation to the making and publication of
the
CPO have been met.
32. The land included in the CPO is suitable for
development and
redevelopment because:
(0 it has the benefit of planning permission, listed
building
and Conservation Area consent. Whilst a number of
detailed matters remain to be approved, there is no reason
why these approvals should not be secured within the
necessary timescale. There are therefore no planning
impediments to the Scheme proceeding;
(ii) the Scheme is compliant with the provisions of the
development plan;
(iii) other material planning considerations also support
the
confirmation of the CPO. In particular, the Scheme will
bring a wide range of really significant benefits to Bath
city
centre, notably massive investment in the city's
infrastnrcture, greatly improved shopping provision, a large
number of new flats (including 23 affordable dwellings),
new and improved bus and train facilities, and new
buildings and public spaces of a very high quality.
33. There are also no financial impediments to the
implementation
of the Meme once the CPO and SUO have been confirmed.
The redevelopment of Southgate presents a highly attractive
commel-cia1 opportunity: Bath has a large catchment
population, is a world-renowned visitor destination, and
there
is strong demand from retailers for representation there.
34. CGNU Life Assurance has very extensive experience of
developing major town and city centre schemes of this kind.
Both CGNU and Morley are wholly-owned subsidiaries of
Aviva
plc, the UK's largest insurance group. Morley manages
CGNU's property fund interests, and is one of the UK's
leading
institutional investon. A developer partner or manager will
be
appointed to ensure delivery of the Scheme, and now that the
Building Agreement between the Council and CGNU has been
completed this pmess will move forward. This is how CGNU
and Morley undertake city centre redevelopment schemes, and
there is no reason whatever to doubt that a suitable
development partnerlmanager will be appointed shortly.
35. CGNU will- fund the Scheme from internal resources.
This has
full Board- approval. There is no doubt therefore that the
necessary financial resources are in place to ensure the
delivery of the Scheme.
36. As is entirely usual, the Building Agreement contains
a number
of preconditions, which (subject to waiver by the developer)
must be satisfied before the developer is obliged to
construct
the development. CGNU has already committed very
significant resources to this project, which it would not
have
done if it were not very confident that the Scheme wac
likcly
to proceed. There is again no reason to doubt that the
preconditions will be met and that the Scheme will therefore
.
proceed.
37. The Council and CGNU already hold freehold and
leasehold
interests in a large part of the Order land2. As landowner,
the
Council has long been aware of the deficiencies of the
existing
Southgate Centre and the need to address these. The Centre
is leased to CGNU and the Counal and CGNU together
consider that there is a compelling need to redevelop the
area
in order to reverse the decline in Southgate as a retail
destination. It is dear that the Scheme is only likely to
proceed if the remaining property interests in the Order
land
are acquired compulsorily.
38. The Council is satisfied that (in accordance with
paragraph 14
of Circular 02/03) there is a compelling case in the
public
interest for making the CPO, and that the purposes for which
it has made the CPO sufficiently justify any interference
with
the human rights of those with an interest in the land
affected.
Outstandincl CPO obiections
39. A total of 14 objections were made to the CPO.
Of these, as
at the opening of the inquiry five have been withdrawn. Of
1
the remaining nine, four have submitted evidence and intend
to appear at the inquiry. The Council intends to submit
before
the close of the inquiw a comgndious written response to
those objections that are outstanding but where the objector
BNES/1/3 Appx 2
has not appeared at the inquiry. It is not intended to
address
these in opening.
40. Avon Vallev Cvclery are concerned about the
disruption to
their business that will result from their having to
relocate
from their existing premises (at arches 36 and 37) at the
rear
of Bath Spa Station.
41. Alternative premises (in arches 43 and 44) have been
identified for potential occupation by AVC. An Undertaking
has been offered to AVC under the terms of which AVC will be
able to remain in their existing premises until the new
premises are available for occupation, together with other
mmmitments on the part of the developer including using
reasonable endeavours to procure that Network Rail grants to
AVC a lease of the new premises.
42. Since it is in the end for AVC and Network Rail to
agree a new
lease, it is submitted that the Undertaking indudes
everything
that could reasonably be included in order to address AVC's
legitimate concerns. I f a new lease cannot be agreed, AVC
will of course be entitled to compensation accordingly,
under
the statutory code.
43. Network Rail and First Great Western are pursuing
identical
objections. Neither raises any issue with the detail of the
Scheme as it affects Mth Spa Station, nor contcnds that the
CPO as it affects their interests is unnecessary in order
for the
Scheme to proceed. Indeed, both support the Scheme and
improvements it will bring to the station. Rather, it is said
that
certain agreements need to be entered into in order that the
proposed works to the station can be camed out in a way that
does not unacceptably affect the safe and efficient
operation
of the station.
44. The Council and CGNU agree that the proposed works
must
not have such an effect. Substantial progress has been made
in negotiating a number of proposed agreements, and there is
no reason why these should not be concluded within a
reasonable timefmme. However, the outstanding issues are
of a commercial nature, and it would not be reasonable to
expect CGNU in such arcurnstances to agree to the CPO
(if
confirmed) not being implemented until the agreement for
works and lease has been conduded. The Undertaking that
has been offered, which includes a commitment by the Council
not to exercise its CPO powers under a confirmed Order
until
the new basement car park and works to the lifts have been
completed, is in the Council's submission sufficient to
protect
the objectors' legitimate interests.
45. WPD have important plant and equipment within the
Order
land, and have made (in addition to an objection to the
CPO)
representations to the Department of Trade and Industry
under section 16 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, in
respect of which a separate Inspector has been appointed.
46. The Council and CGNU fully accept the need to protect
WPD's
existing plant and equipment, and to make provision for
replacement equipment where that is necessary. To that end
discussions have been taking place which are likely to result
in
full agreement being reached shortly.. In the meantime, an
Undertaking has been offered which includes a commitment to
comply with WPD's operational requirements, so that the
supply of electricity to Bath is not compromised at any
time.
47. Somerfield Stores have .an existing store in the
Southgate
Centre, and in their letter of objection expressed an interest
in
trading from a new store in the Scheme.
48. The evidence submitted on behalf of Somerfield raises a
number of issues related to the likelihood of the Scheme
proceeding, which are fully addressed in the Council's
evidence and Rebuttal evidence and which have been touched
on briefly above. In short, it is the Council's submission
that
there are no planning or other impediments to the Scheme
proceeding promptly once the CPO and SUO have been
confirmed.
The Sto~pinaU D Order
49. The Scheme requires certain modifications to the
existing
highway in order to be implemented. Figures DHY 2 and DHY
3' illustrate the existing and proposed highway layout
within
the site.
50. The draft Stopping Up Order is proposed to be made
under
section 247 of the 1990 Act. Its justification can be
subdivided
into (1) the underpinning justification for the Scheme,
which requires the proposed modifications to the highway,
and (2) the precise areas of highway proposed to be
affected.
51. The justification for the Scheme as a whole is covered
elsew here. Significant highway and transportation
improvements would be brought about by the Scheme, as
noted above. Those improvements and benefits underpin the
Stopping Up Order as well.
52. .The draft Order plans 40008fSU-01D and 40008fSU-02B
indicate the 27 areas of highway that are proposed to be
stopped-up, and 11 areas of new highway proposed to be
created. The draft Order was the subject of consultation
with
the Council as highway authority, which did not object to
it.
All the changes are required in order to implement the
Scheme.
53. The necessary formalities have been completed
in relation to
the draft SUO~.
54. Only one objection has been received to the proposed
Stopping-Up Order, from First Group. Burges Salmon on
behalf of First Group wrote referring to their earlier
objection
to the CPO, adding that the timing of the Scheme's
implementation should not detrimentally affect the ability
of
the bus station operator to continue its operations. These
BNES/8/5 paragraph 4.1 and
BNES/8/6 Appendix C
points are repeated in First Group's Written -Representation
(which covers both CPO.and SUOobjections).
55. Disruption to the operation of bus services is
covered by the
terms of the s 106 agreement signed in relation to the
planning permission for the Scheme. In any event, the
phasing of the Scheme's implementation will be designed so
as to preserve the operation capacity of the bus station
during
the implementation of the Scheme. The objector and the
Secretary of State can have confidence that the operation of
the bus station will be amply protected.
Conclusion
56. The Bath Southgate redevelopment scheme has undergone a
lengthy and thorough process of evolution, involving close
cooperation
between the public and private sectors. The
redevelopment of the Southgate area is a longstanding
objective of the Council, and is expressly included in
relevant
planning policy. It accords with planning policy at all
levels,
and in particular accords with the provisions of the adopted
and emerging development plan.
57. The Scheme has planning permission, and the necessary
listed
building and Conservation Area consents have also been
granted.
58. The requirements of section 226(1)(a) of the 19%)
Act are
met. All of the land included in the C ~iOs re
quired in order to
build the Scheme, and (having regard to the matters set out
in
17
sub-section (2)) the land is plainly suitable for
development,
redevelopment and improvement.
59. The Scheme will create exciting new buildings and public
spaces and routes, and will provide Bath with a modem
transport interchange. It will also meet a clear
quantitative
and qualitative need for new (mainly comparison) retail
floorspace, and provide a large number of new dwellings, in
a
highly sustainable city centre location.
60. The Council and CGNU are strongly committed to the
Scheme,
which can only proceed, and will proceed, if the CPO and SUO
are confirmed.
61. There is therefore a compelling case in the public
interest for
the confirmation of h e CPO, and no reason why the
SUO
should not be made.
Landmark Chambers
NEIL KING Q.C.
RUPERT WARREN
1 7M~ay 2005
