BATH AND NORTH EAST SOMERSET LOCAL PLAN INQUIRY
BWR 1 FPlC FORMAL HEARING 6TH MAY 2005
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL
Issue A: Protection from Impact
Whether the retail development proposed at BWR would have a
harmful
impact on retailing within the historic core of Bath, or on the
successful
implementation of the redevelopment of Southgate and other sites
located
within or closer to the City shopping centre.
Mafters for discussion for fhis session:
1. Most of this issue was transferred to the RTS, including most
of discussion
matters 1 to 3. The remaining matters for discussion at this
session are:
(a) Do the criteria in GDS.1IBl provide protection for the
existing Bath
shopping centre and Southgate? [The first part of matter 21;
(b) Discussion matters 4 and 6 which relate to
phasing:
2. Matter (a) is the main issue for today, because phasing is
clearly not
possible within the plan period.
Background fo the issues:
3. Morley do not challenge the overall approach and methodology
of the NLP
study or the broad quantum of the 23,400 sq.m figure' derived
from it.
' In addition to Southgate
Indeed the methodology is consistent with the studies that they
have used
to support their own proposals.
4. It is not disputed that the maximum capacity for additional
comparison
retail floorspace within the centre during the plan period is
5000 sq.m.'
5. Apart from that Morley have not put forward any sites
that are sequentially
superior to BWR and can provide retail during the plan period.
Now that
we have a more detailed programme for the Southgate scheme it is
clear,
and accepted by Morley, that even on the most favourable
assumptions
Avon St and Manvers St cannot contribute during the plan
period.
6. So the position is that there is :
(a) An identified quantitative need of about 23,000 sq.m.
net.
(b) A maximum capacity during the plan period on sites
sequentially
preferable to BWR of about 5000 sq.m net.
7. There is no doubt that the plan should identify a range of
sites upon which
the need can be met during the plan period3, and that BWR is
sequentially
the best site to meet some of that massive gap.
8. There will only be 5 years left of the plan period by
the time it is adopted
and Southgate's earliest planned completion is April 2010, a
year before
the end of the plan period. It is clear that BWR cannot be
phased to come
forward after completion of Southgate and still make a
contribution during
the plan period.
B5.1.3 I p.85 I Table 1 I Comp.max I I* cumulative total.
See e.g. PPS6 para.2.45 and 2.52
9. The right approach must therefore be to allocate BWR but to
make sure
that appropriate criteria are applied to protect against impact
related
concerns. It has never been the intention that the plan should
provide for
retail development at BWR without such protection.
10. The plan as proposed allows retail proposals on BWR to be
considered
and for so much of the need to be met as can be made consistent
with the
protective criteria.
11. The alternative suggested by Morley would amount to
deliberately
planning not to even consider meeting any of that
identified need [23,000
- 5,0001 during the plan period. That is not positive planning,
and it is not
in accordance with PPSG.
12. Insufficient reference to the benefits of
Southgate:
13. Morley suggest that the supporting text of the plan should
say more about
the benefits of Southgate. Southgate has planning permission,
and it has
a specific policy in the plan GDS.l I~ 4Th~e t.ext of the plan
specifically
refers to the contribution which Southgate will make and that it
is in
sequentially in the most appropriate location5. The protection
of
Southgate is referred to both directly and indirectly in the
text6 and is given
clear effect in the criteria attached to GDSIIBI in particular7.
No further
reference is needed.
About which no complaint is made
B5.311 p.101
B5.321 G and B5.32 1 0
7 It is within the Centre so covered by criterion 2A(i)
and sequentially preferable retail allocations are
specifically included in the protection provided by criteria
(ii) and (iii).
Phasing:
Matters 4 and 6:
14. As already explained it is not possible to phase BWR within
the plan
period. It would also not be appropriate in policy terms to seek
to do so
within the 5 year period of the plan8.
15. If BWR were not allocated at all, as proposed by Morley,
then it would be
difficult for the masterplan, which will need to cover a period
considerably
longer than the 5 year plan period, to include retail.
16. That would have a very significant effect on the BWR
proposals. It would
remove a high value component of the mix, and would make it
very
difficult to achieve an appropriate relocation of Sainsbury's.
The relocation
of Sainsbury's is crucial to linking the site as a whole to the
City centre to
the north of the river. Good linkage would be difficult with the
existing
Sainsbury's store and car park remaining, and the relocated
store will
need to be connected to the east by links with a significant
shopping
character.
17. If the relocation and such links cannot be established the
whole nature of
the scheme would be affected and the result would be likely to
be
significantly less comprehensive and well integrated with the
existing City,
and to provide a less efficient use of the land and less
variation in the mix.
18. Such a change would obviously significantly delay the
production of the
masterplan.
See PPS6 para.2.52
19. If BWR were to be amended to allow for the possibility of
retail but phased
to follow the completion of Southgate, or Southgate and other
sites, that
would inevitably mean no retail within the plan period, and
probably no
retail for almost 10 years.
20. Such a delay would also have a very significant effect on
BWR. Quite
apart from the uncertainty created by being dependent upon
other
schemes and being involved in a further development plan, the
delay in
securing the redevelopment and rearrangement of the eastern end
and
the linkage to the City Centre would be very damaging. This is
an element
of the overall scheme which should be secured early in the
programme,
both to achieve the linkage, and because of the knock on effects
of
delaying the movement of Sainsbury's and Homebase. It would also
be
likely to affect the implementation of the eastern part of the
Rapid Transit
route.
21. Such a delay and uncertainty in relation to the retail
element of the
proposals would again be likely to delay the masterplan and the
bringing
forward of the core outline application, and could have a
similar effect on
the nature of the scheme as a total lack of allocation.
22. Against this background it is important not to rule out
comparison retail at
BWR at any stage , provided the stringent criteria can be
satisfied. To do
so would seriously damage the potential of a hugely
important
regeneration project, and it would do so unnecessarily.
23. Policy GDSIIBI has to allow for comparison retailing
to be contemplated
otherwise it will be difficult for the Masterplan to consider
it.
24. The Masterplan will cover a period significantly longer than
the plan period
and the criteria will cover and protect in relation to proposals
at any stage
during the development, whether before or after the end of this
plan
period.
25. If compliance with the criteria cannot be demonstrated then
retail will not
be permitted, but particularly in the light of the massive
quantitative need
gap and the evidence of a corresponding quantum of demand, it
would be
quite wrong to rule it out without even testing it.
26. Regeneration benefits potentially material in relation to
phasing:
27. Morley seek to have para.B5.32P deleted on the grounds
that
regeneration is not a component of retail needg.
28. The plan does not seek to make regeneration a retail need in
relation to
BWR. It simply makes it clear that retail floorspace will help
to deliver
regeneration at BWR and that that may be a material
consideration in
terms of the phasing of retail development at BWR.
29. Retail development is intended to play an important part in
securing a
comprehensive regeneration of BWR, and the provision of
retail
development at the eastern end at an early stage would have
significant
benefits. B5.32P accords with the approach to site selection in
PPSG" in
pointing out that this may be a material consideration. It does
not suggest
that it is part of retail need. It is likely to be very material
in these particular
local circumstances especially in relation to timing.
Adams Proof 2965A I p.23 I
para.6.36
'O PPS6 / para.2.37 and para.2.51
GDS. 7/51 Criteria:
30. The plan has been drafted to ensure that retail development
at BWR will
only be permitted if it does not harm the vitality and viability
of Bath. All the
edge of centre and out of centre sites identified have criteria
requiring
impact to be assessedl1. In relation to BWR the requirements are
referred
to in the text of the shopping chapter1* and include the
following:
i) "2A. ..... subject to the quantum and type:
(i) not harming the vitality and viability of any of the
shopping
centres .. .: and
(ii) complementing retail provision within the shopping
centres
. . . ..and the sequentially preferable retail allocations in
Bath
. . .; and
(iii)being appropriately phased and not prejudicing the
implementation of the sequentially preferable sites; and . .
.
31. These are comprehensive and rigorous criteria. Both quantum
and type
have to be justified and in most situation criterion (i) would
be considered
sufficient protection on its own. Although Morley seek to have
the BWR
retail allocation completely deleted, they make no suggestions
for
alteration of these criteria in the event that the allocation is
not deleted.
32. If Morley's concern was that BWR might cause unacceptable
impact in
planning terms on Southgate then it is difficult to see why
these criteria do
not satisfy that concern. Of course if they are seeking to
maximise their
commercial rental return by ensuring that they have no
competition for as
long as possible then their position is more understandable,
but
unjustified.
" BWR: GDS.1 B1 2A(i), (ii), and (iii) and 2B(i) and (ii). Lower
Bristol Rd: B12 2A (i) and (ii). Avon St.
B 1 7 1 (a)(i).
IZ A2.1.27 Shopping Section p.103 1 B5.32M - 0.
33. Their suggestion that any retail is delayed until after
Southgate is
completed and its impact within the City Centre assessed13 is
simply
another way of seeking the deletion of the allocation in so far
as the plan
period is concerned. It would effectively prevent a start to
retail
development at BWR until at least a year or so after the end of
the plan
period. Effectively a 10 year moratorium on retail at BWR. Each
year that
passes after the end of this plan period will of course bring
substantial
additional need to be met.
34. It is also worth noting that the evidence that you do
have about demand
makes it quite clear that there is far more retail demand than
can be met
by Southgate and the Podium.
35. The strength of need and demand is evident in the
evidence for the CPO
which makes it quite clear that there is an overwhelming case
for going
ahead, that the whole scheme will be committed as soon as the
CPO is
confirmed, and that it is anticipated that the scheme will be
commenced
and fully committed in September. That is before the report from
this
Inquiry is published, and well before the adoption of the
plan.
36. The likely quantum of demand is also clear from the Feb 1999
DJ
~ e p o r t ' ~T.h at states that in 1998, well before the
scheme could have
been available to let15, 90 retailers had expressed an interest
and only 50
could be ac~ommodated'~Th. at was 7 years ago and there will
have been
significant growth since than and up to the end of the plan
period. It also
states that demand for floorspace exceeded 100,000 sq.m gross in
1998,
and that 60% of that was from retailers not represented at all
in ~ a t h ' ~ .
l 3 Adams Proof 296SA / p.26 / para.6.63
l4 B5.1.7
l5 Actual demand will always be more apparent once
opening approaches
l6 BS.1.7 / para.16.7
17 BS.1.7 / para.16.8
That 60% translates into demand for about 40,000 sq.m. net in
1998".
Southgate and the Podium together provide less than 20,000 sq,m
net
additional f~oorspace'~.
37. The conclusion to be drawn is that there is a
correspondingly massive
demand for additional comparison floorspace.
38. The criteria will also require Avon St to be taken
into account in impact
terms even if it is not coming forward during the plan period.
It is worth
remembering that the NLP work concluded that there would be
a
significant need for comparison retail on BWR during the plan
period even
if Avon St were to come forward during the plan period2'. The
more it is
delayed the greater the need that is to be met.
And that is without counting the floorspace needed to provide
bigger premises for existing retailers in
Bath!
l9 Southgate 14,000 - 15,000 and Podium 4000 max [see
B5.1.3 1 p.85
20 B5.1.3 1 p.85 / cumulative total of 13,000 against
need of 23,400.
Conclusion:
39. PPS6 requires the plan to assess need during the plan period
and to
allocate a range of sites capable of meeting that need. That is
what the
GO told us we had to do, and what we have done.
40. There is a massive quantitative need gap in the plan period
after
Southgate and the Podium have been taken into account.
41. The indications are that that is matched by a
correspondingly massive
demand for additional floorspace, which will not be met by
Southgate and
the Podium.
42. The plan seeks to allow comparison retail to be contemplated
at BWR,
during or after the plan period, provided very rigorous and
comprehensive
protective criteria are met.
43. Ruling out that ability to contemplate comparison retailing
is unnecessary
and amounts to deliberately planning not to meet a significant
identified
need.
44. The lack of that capability to contemplate comparison
retailing at BWR
both during and after the end of this plan period is likely
significantly to
inhibit the masterplanning, quality, and delivery of the hugely
important
BWR comprehensive regeneration project.
Issue C:
Whether Policy GDS.I/BI and the reasoned justification should
provide
more certainty for the relocation of the Sainsbury store as part
of a
redevelopment of BWR.
Matter 7:
Should the Policy and the relevant parts of the explanatory text
be changed to
include a specific reference to a new and enlarged foodstore to
replace the
existing Sainsbury's foodstore at Green Park Station? Or is the
wording in paras
B5.29 and B5.32 (FPICs) sufficient to secure the future of the
store?
45. As has already been made clear, relocation of Sainsbury's is
important to
the concept of the emerging masterplan. It would be a very
significant
change not to do it. It would result in a scheme which was
significantly
less ambitious in terms of linkage and overall
comprehensiveness. So
there is no issue as to the desirability of moving
Sainsbury's.
46. The plan does refer to the relocation of Sainsbury's at
B5.29 and B5.32M
The only question is whether it needs to go further.
47. The Council does not believe that it is necessary to say
more. Sainsbury's
are certainly not going to get moved without the provision of a
suitable
alternative and they do not need more in the plan to secure that
position.
Commercial realities and national policy would secure that. We
do not
believe that we are yet at stage where an accurate figure can be
put on
the quantum and breakdown of any expansion in floorspace.
48. We don't believe that it would be particularly harmful to
say more, but we
don't think it appropriate or necessary to do so.
