Objector

Grounds of Objection

Summary Response in Statement of Case to grounds of objection

Status of Negotiations

Wallis

1.      Lack of acquisition negotiations.

2.      The business may not be able to relocate and jobs may be lost.

Late objection received after submission of Statement of Case.

Objection withdrawn on 15 March 2005.

Boots

1.      Order is defective because:

·          it was not made under seal;

·          it does not expressly refer to statutory powers under which it was made.

2.      The purpose of the Order is to achieve commercial leverage.

3.      Inclusion in the Order is premature as owner willing to treat.

1.      The Order is not defective. The Order was made under seal and is stated to be made under section 226(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2.      The purpose of the Order is to ensure the delivery of the Scheme and to achieve the Council’s planning policies and objectives for Southgate and Bath City Centre.

3.      The Council and CGNU will continue to seek to acquire interests by agreement but the Order is still necessary to ensure the delivery of the Scheme within the timescale identified by the Council.

Heads of terms with Boots for the surrender of its lease and relocation to alternative premises are close to  being finalised.

Rosebys

1.      Lack of acquisition negotiations.

2.      Disruption/inconvenience to operations.

3.      Failure to explain how the Scheme overcame the criticisms of earlier schemes, particularly in relation to the public transport interchange.

4.      Failure to demonstrate that the scheme is in the public interest.

5.      Alternative layouts would avoid need to include the claimant’s interest in the Order.

1.      Claimant occupies pursuant to a lease from the Council which is subject to a break clause. The Council will secure possession by service of a break notice.

2.      Compensation issue.

3.      The Council is satisfied that the Scheme overcomes the criticisms of earlier schemes and that it is the best available option for redevelopment. This is evidenced by the fact that full planning permission, listed building consent and conservation area consent have been granted for the Scheme.

4.      The Council is satisfied that the use of compulsory purchase powers is justified and in the public interest. The Scheme is the best available means for delivering the adopted and emerging planning and regeneration objectives and has been granted full planning permission.

5.      The Council is satisfied that the Scheme is the best available option and that all the Order Land is needed.

A notice under section 25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 has been served on Rosebys.

The Council wrote to Walker Morris on 22 March 2005 to request details of the alternative scheme layouts referred to in their letter of objection.

During telephone conversations with Rosebys on 15 April 2005 and 17 May 2005, the objector confirmed that it intends to maintain its objection to the Order.

No details of alternative scheme proposals have been put forward by Rosebys.  

Stylo

1.      Loss of goodwill.

2.      Failure to demonstrate planning need.

3.      The Order is premature.

4.      The viability of the scheme has not been fully tested by the Council. 

5.      Lack of environmental impact assessment.

1.      Compensation issue.

2.      The Council is satisfied that the Scheme is consistent with national, regional and local planning policies and is the best means for delivering the adopted and emerging planning and regeneration objectives for Bath City Centre and Southgate in particular.

3.      CGNU have been in negotiations with Stylo Barratt since August 2003.  CGNU and the Council will continue to seek to acquire interests by agreement but the Order is still necessary to ensure delivery of the Scheme within the timescale identified by the Council.

4.      The Council and CGNU are satisfied that the Scheme is capable of achieving a level of financial viability which will enable it to be implemented.  CGNU has indemnified the Council on all costs relating to the implementation of the Order and has already spent considerable sums on scheme design and land assembly.  Both the Council and CGNU are satisfied that the Scheme will be fully deliverable once the Order has been confirmed.

5.      An environmental impact assessment was undertaken as part of the planning application process.

Heads of Terms with Stylo for the surrender of its lease and relocation to alternative premises are close to being finalised.

Comet

Acquisition of car park/service area at rear of its unit will render trade impossible.

Alternative land for parking/servicing will be provided. In any event this is a compensation issue.

Objection withdrawn on 15 April 2005

Freehold owners of Blenheim House

Confirmation is sought that alternative access provision will be made to replace the existing right of way over land to the rear of Blenheim House which is to be extinguished by the Order.

An alternative right of way will be provided.

Objection withdrawn on 11 April 2005

Avon Valley Cyclery Limited

1.      Disruption/inconvenience to operations.

2.      Security concerns due to loss of passing traffic in respect of revised vehicular access arrangements at Bath Spa Railway Station.

3.      Unsatisfactory service arrangements for unit in proposed Scheme.

4.      Possibility of not being allowed to return to existing unit following completion of works.

1.      Compensation issue.

2.      The Council is satisfied that there will be no increased security risk as a result of the revised vehicular access arrangements.

3.      The Council is satisfied that the Scheme is the best available option. In any event, compensation issue.

4.      Compensation issue.

Objection withdrawn by letter dated 12 May 2005, submitted to the inquiry on 18 May 2005.

Network Rail

Concerns over the inclusion of operational land. 

The Council and CGNU are in negotiations with Network Rail to secure the implementation of the improvement works to Bath Spa railway station and the withdrawal of this objection. The Council is satisfied that the proposed works will not have any adverse impact on rail services and that the Scheme will have a positive effect on the station environment.

An undertaking to secure the withdrawal of this objection has been agreed and is in the process of being executed by the relevant parties.

First Great Western

No grounds stated.

The Council and CGNU are in negotiations with Network Rail to secure the implementation of the improvement works to Bath Spa railway station and the withdrawal of this objection. The Council is satisfied that the proposed works will not have any adverse impact on rail services and that the Scheme will have a positive effect on the station environment.

First Great Western's position is understood to be dependent upon that of Network Rail (see above).

O2 (UK) Limited

Impact on mobile phone coverage leading to need for alternative site provision.

Compensation Issue.

Objection withdrawn on 6 May 2005

FirstGroup Plc

1.      Concern over design of replacement bus station.

2.      Inclusion of interest in the Order not necessary as owner willing to treat and is in negotiation with CGNU.

3.      Unresolved issues relating to operation of public transport interchange.

1.      The Council is satisfied that the design of the replacement bus station, which was developed in consultation with FirstGroup, is the best available option. The Council will demonstrate that the replacement bus station provides an effective  integrated transport solution.

2.      CGNU have been in negotiations with FirstGroup since May 2003.  The Council and CGNU will continue to seek to acquire interests by agreement but the Order is still necessary to ensure the delivery of the Scheme within the timescale identified by the Council.

3.      The Council is satisfied that there are no significant outstanding issues in relation to the operation of the public transport interchange.

Negotiations on heads of terms with FirstGroup plc are ongoing. Revised draft heads of terms have been sent to FirstGroup for comment.

The Council and CGNU gave an undertaking to FirstGroup on 23 May 2005 to use their best endeavours to enter into an agreement on the latest draft heads terms.

Western Power Distribution

Concerns over impact on service provision. 

The Council and CGNU are in negotiations with Western Power to provide relocated facilities and to ensure continuity of services. 

A legal agreement for the relocation of Western Power Distribution's substation has been agreed and is in the process of being executed by the relevant parties.

Game

1.      Inclusion of interest in the Order not necessary as owner willing to treat and is in negotiation with CGNU.

2.      The acquisition of the land has not been justified and there is no compelling case in the public interest for acquisition of this property. 

1.      The Council and CGNU will continue to seek to acquire interests by agreement but the Order is still necessary to ensure the delivery of the Scheme within the timescale identified by the Council.

2.      The Council is satisfied that the use of compulsory purchase powers is justified and in the public interest. The Scheme is the best available means for delivering the adopted and emerging planning and regeneration objectives and has been granted full planning permission.

Objection withdrawn on 9 May 2005.

Somerfield

1.      The Order is premature.

2.      CGNU are not developers.

3.      No development partner is committed to the Scheme.

4.      Planning conditions require the approval of further details prior to the commencement of the main development. The Council has no power to approve details which amount to significant changes to the approved Scheme

5.      The Planning Agreement requires the approval of a phasing programme prior to the commencement of development. Concern is expressed as to whether the Council will be able to approve a phasing programme given the uncertainty regarding the impact of the phasing programme on car park provision in the City Centre during the construction phase.

6.      Existence of a number of outstanding planning conditions  and planning obligations which must be satisfied prior to the commencement of development.

7.      Infringement of rights under Article 1 of First Protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998. No compelling case in the public interest for the use of compulsory purchase powers.

1.      The Order is necessary to ensure the delivery of the Scheme within the timescale identified by the Council.

2.      CGNU will enter into an arrangement with a development partner to implement the Scheme.

3.      The Council has agreed heads of terms with CGNU for the development of the Scheme. The Building Agreement is currently being negotiated and is close to being finalised. It is the intention of the Council and CGNU to enter into the Building Agreement prior to the commencement of the Public Inquiry.

4.      The Council is satisfied that these conditions either have been or will be satisfied without the need for a fresh planning application.

5.      The Council is satisfied that the phasing programme can be agreed.

6.      The Council is satisfied that all outstanding planning conditions and planning obligations will be discharged within a reasonable timescale.

7.      The Council is satisfied that the use of compulsory purchase powers is justified and in the public interest. The Scheme is the best available means for delivering the adopted and emerging planning and regeneration objectives and has been granted full planning permission.

A notice under section 25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 has been served on Somerfield.

Negotiations for the acquisition of Somerfield's leasehold interest are ongoing.