Bath & North East Somerset Council
MEETING:	Council Executive
MEETING DATE:	6th September 2006	AGENDA ITEM NUMBER		11
TITLE:	Bath & NE Somerset Local Plan Inspector's Report	EXECUTIVE FORWARD PLAN REFERENCE:
		E	1368
WARD:	All
AN OPEN PUBLIC ITEM
List of attachments to this report: APPENDIX 1: Responses to Key Issues Arising from the Inspector's Report

1 THE ISSUE

1.1 This report sets out a review of options for the future of the Local Plan and proposes responses to key issues arising from Local Plan Inspector's report.

2 RECOMMENDATION

That the Council Executive:

2.1 agrees that the whole Local Plan should be progressed to statutory adoption and notes the amended timetable for adoption in Para 5.8; and,

2.2 endorses the proposed responses to the Inspector's recommendations in Table 1 (as amplified in Appendix 1) for consideration by Full Council.

3  FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

3.1 Budgetary provision has been made to cover the preparation of the Local Plan to adoption. Potential financial implications of reconsidering the future of the Local Plan are addressed in section 7 below.

4 COMMUNITY STRATEGY OUTCOMES

4.1 The modifications to the Local Plan arising from this report contribute to achieving the following Community Strategy outcomes:

> Taking responsibility for our environment and natural resources now and over the long term;

> Improving our local transport;

> Improving our housing situation for local people;

> Improving local opportunities for learning and gaining skills;

> Improving our local environment;

> Improving our local economy.

5 CORPORATE IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES

5.1 The modifications to the Local Plan arising from this report are particularly relevant to the following Corporate Improvement Priorities:

> Improving the environment for learning,

> increasing Affordable Housing;

> Improving the Quality of Public Transport/Roads/Pavements and easing congestion;

> Developing a sustainable economy;

> Improving the public realm.

6 CPA KEY LINES OF ENQUIRY

6.1 The modifications to the Local Plan arising from this report contribute to the following CPA Lines of Enquiry:

> Managing performance of community ambition to ensure we achieve what we say we will;

> Creating and developing a better quality of life for the area through

o Sustainable Communities and Transport

o Safer and Stronger Communities

o Healthier Communities; and

> Improving engagement with and a range of services for Older People and Children and Young People.

7 THE REPORT

The Inspector's recommendations

7.1 The Local Plan Inquiry Inspector's Report was published in May 2006 and the Council is in the process of formulating its responses. In order to facilitate a speedy adoption, the Inspector has suggested an approach which entails partial adoption of the Local Plan. In assessing the benefits of this approach, a wider assessment on the options for the future of the Local Plan has been undertaken.

Options for adoption of the Local Plan

7.2 Four options have been identified and an assessment of the advantages, disadvantages and risks of these options has been undertaken. The options and conclusions are summarised below.

> statutory adoption;

> non-statutory approval;

> partial adoption;

> withdrawal of the Plan.

Statutory adoption: summary of advantages & disadvantages

7.3 Taking the Local Plan through statutory procedures to formal adoption delivers a robust policy framework for development control and provides a statutory platform for Council initiatives such as Bath Western Riverside (BWR) and the delivery of housing. It provides a comprehensive policy basis for the District pending the adoption of new documents in the Local Development Framework. However, whilst the basic development control policies are unlikely to date quickly, the underlying strategic basis will be increasingly eroded by the Regional Spatial Strategy although it is not significantly out of step with emerging Visions. The risks of a modifications Inquiry and a successful legal challenge are limited.

Informal Approval: summary of advantages & disadvantages

7.4 This option still requires responding to Inspector's Report but does not entail the statutory adoption process. A modifications inquiry can be avoided and more rapid progress can be made on the Local Development Framework. Whilst many of the Local Plan policies can be used informally for determining planning applications, it will provide an ambiguous policy framework likely to give rise to successful planning appeals, awards of costs, and ombudsman investigations. The policy basis for the delivery of initiatives such BWR and Lower Bristol Road sites will be undermined. The risk of a successful legal challenge is high because there is a clear public expectation that the Plan will be adopted and substantial resources invested so far.

Partial Adoption: summary of advantages & disadvantages

7.5 Partial adoption has been suggested by the Government Office and the Inspector in order to expedite adoption. It appears to entail adoption only of those policies unlikely to give rise to a legal challenge/risk of a further inquiry. However, this would include deleting some key policies thereby undermining Council objectives (such as development site allocations). This would leave an unclear policy framework for Development Control with the implications for performance and costs. There is a high risk of legal challenge by aggrieved parties due to non-adoption and the risk of a modifications inquiry is heightened (i.e. non-adopted policies are in effect a modification to the Plan). There is no legal precedent or statutory provision for this approach. Partial adoption will therefore neither expedite the adoption of the Local Plan nor reduce the risk of legal challenge/ further inquiry. Furthermore, it would be a breach of Council's statutory duty to adopt a plan which did not cover the entire area of the District. Therefore, this is potentially the worst option.

Withdraw Plan: summary of advantages & disadvantages

7.6 Withdrawal of the Plan avoids a modifications inquiry and a legal challenge on SEA grounds and progress can be made on LDF. However, it removes the planning policy framework and the platform for Council initiatives, leading to severe difficulties for development control decisions, a deleterious effect on government targets, costs of appeals and increased risk of successful legal challenge on grounds of public expectation of adoption.

Conclusion

7.7 As a result of the above assessment, it is recommended that Statutory Adoption is the most appropriate of the four options. It is the one which most robustly achieves Council policy objectives and is subject to least risk and the most satisfactory outcome. Partial adoption will neither expedite the adoption of the Local Plan nor reduce the risk of legal challenge/ further inquiry.

7.8 It is now highly unlikely that the timetable published in the Local Development Scheme for the Local Plan can be achieved. The adoption date for the Local Plan will most likely be delayed until after May 2007. An amendment will therefore be required to the Council's Local Development Scheme.

Responses to the Inspectors recommendations


7.9 Key issues on housing were considered at the Council Executive in June and taking the Local Plan through to adoption requires consideration of responses to other key issues arising from the Inspector's Report. Full Council will need to formally consider all the responses to the Inspector's recommendations and any consequential modifications to the Local Plan.

7.10 The Inspector's Report supports many of the Council's policies and proposals in the Local Plan. Following the Inspector's Report over 85% of the Local Plan policies can be used routinely, being either unchallenged through the inquiry process or supported in principle by the Inspector. However, if the Council chooses not accept any of the Inspector's recommendations it must provide clear and convincing reasons why there has been a change in circumstances since the Local Plan Inquiry. Reliance on the same arguments made at the Local Plan Inquiry could attract a legal challenge which would lead to delays and further expense. Some of the recommendations raise issues which require further work which can be addressed through documents in the Local Development Framework in due course.

7.11 Appendix 1 sets out the response to key issues arising from the Inspector's Report in full. An outline of these issues is set out below in Table 1.

TABLE 1

ISSUE	PROPOSED RESPONSE
A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT SITES
A1 University Of Bath: Inspector endorses principle of removal of land from the Green Belt to enable University expansion, short of retaining St. John's Field in Green Belt. Further capacity exists within campus to meet remaining development needs. Whole site should be guided by an updated Masterplan.	Accept recommendation as it would enable development needs at the University to be met. Approximately 70% of the land proposed for removal from the Green Belt will be removed from the Green Belt. (NB see Annex 1 for more detailed recommendations on site requirements)
A2 Bath Western Riverside: Amend policy wording to:
· provide clarity for existing businesses within the site · confirm need for comprehensive approach	Agree, but with modified wording
Remove Renrod & Bath Press parts of the site	Agree with removal of Bath Press as it is different to the rest of the site but retain Renrod within the site due to its particular relationship with the rest of BWR.
Review the need to include the eastern part of the site (Sainsbury's and Homebase) within the BWR allocation	This part of the site is an integral part of the allocation which connects the western part of the site with the City centre.
Delete Rapid Transit Route in the absence of a detailed & programmed scheme.	Disagree. Since the LPI, the Final JLTP has included this scheme is now programmed.
A3 Greenway Lane: Inspector recommends consideration of site for residential use. Council Exec on 7th June 2006 requested reconsideration of development in this location.	Disagree with Inspector. This decision rests on further evidence that any additional residential development at the scale proposed would significantly exacerbate existing highway problems associated with the lane. Any residential development on that site would also mean removing a considerable length of the wall/hedge thus inevitably having a material impact on the character of the lane, and to that part of the Conservation Area, to its detriment.
B RETAIL
B1 Hayesfield School playing field/St Martin's Garden Primary School: Consider redevelopment for mixed use development, including a food store & new school.	Allocate the site for mixed use development as recommended by the Inspector, with additional adjoining land to the west (Odd Down Open Space) to be included in order to ensure that recreational open space can be provided. Allocation of the site will enable acknowledged need for a food store in this part of Bath to be met; provide educational benefits resulting from improvements to Hayesfield School and construction of a replacement new primary school; and provide accessible recreational facilities. Transportation impacts associated with the development will need to be fully investigated and addressed by the development.
B2 Prime Shopping Frontages: The Inspector considers that it is not clear how Policy S.5 which protects A1 uses in primary frontages relates to Policy S.6 which allows A3 uses in Bath city centre.	Partially accept. Clarification would be beneficial but wording recommended by the Inspector would significantly weaken protection of the primary shopping frontage in Bath. Amended form of wording proposed.
B3 Retail Provision: Local Plan relies on over optimistic assessment of retail floorspace needs to 2011. · Priority should be redevelopment of Southgate to benefit the city centre. · Retain of the allocation of the Podium/Cattlemarket site · Premature to allocate Avon Street Car Park for mixed use redevelopment in Plan period. · BWR is primarily an out-of-centre site & may compete with the city centre & is not supported by the Inspector. · Recommends preparation of a long term retail strategy to assess city centre/edge of centre opportunities to secure organic growth of city centre retailing.	To ensure that improvements in the city centre allow for the provision of necessary infrastructure and the city centre to consolidate after episodes of growth it is considered prudent to agree with the Inspector's recommended approach. This approach should ensure that the redevelopment of Southgate progresses and the early phases of BWR are not hindered. Retail growth needs to be properly planned over the longer term, within the framework of a clear retail strategy to ensure economic stability, job provision & provide a good choice of shops for local residents. This strategy will need to be progressed quickly so that the best solution for providing retail growth can be established & start to be implemented soon after 2011. This approach is consistent with conclusions of Bath Vision work which highlights the unique nature of retailing in Bath city centre & the need to carefully and holistically assess the way forward. Any significant retail development at BWR will need to achieve better integration of the Green Park area into the wider city centre. Work on a retail strategy will enable these issues to be addressed. transportation
C EMPLOYMENT
C1 Safeguarding employment sites Amend policy framework on safeguarding employment land (with minor changes). Addition of new core employment sites/areas to prioritise retention of best employment land.	Accept the amended policy framework as the primary objective of retaining necessary employment land for economic health whilst continuing to allow flexibility for brownfield redevelopment & regeneration. Agree to add new core employment areas.
C2 Old Mills business allocation Delete as there is insufficient justification for this allocation	Disagree as circumstances since the inquiry support the need to maintain the allocation.
D HOUSING
D1 Affordable Housing: Inspector endorses Plan's challenging site size thresholds for seeking affordable housing & provides opportunity to increase the proportion of affordable houses sought on housing sites from 30 to 35% where required.	Accept recommendations. Enables Council to seek up to 35% of new housing sites to be affordable but retains the flexibility on the proportion depending on the individual site circumstances
E ACCESS/TRANSPORT
E1 Road Schemes
Whitchurch bypass Delete as scheme not programmed or timetabled.	Disagree as since the close of the LPI the RSS proposes an urban extension at Whitchurch which includes the extension of the Avon Ring Road from Hicks Gate on the A3 around the south of Bristol to a junction on the A370 in area of Ashton Vale.
Clutton/Temple Cloud Bypass Delete as scheme not programmed or timetabled.	Retain route as JLTP 2006 now lists as requiring further work between 2011 and 2016 & it may be required to meet RSS housing allocations.
E2 Newbridge Park & Ride: Park & Ride should not be a decked scheme but a single level proposal and should exclude redevelopment of recreational land south of A36. Reinstate Green Belt.	Since Inquiry, proposals have been superseded by proposal to expand existing Newbridge Park & Ride on A3. Therefore do not allocate site in the Green Belt north of the A36 & accept re-instatement of Green Belt .
Delete proposal for relocation of Civic Amenity Site at Newbridge there is insufficient justification to release land from the Green Belt for this purposes.	Accept.  Further site searches are being carried out to identify whether there are any other possibilities not previously considered.
F NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
F1 Important Hillsides: Delete this designation which relates to Bath & Norton Radstock as the objectives can largely be secured through other policies.	Accept but emphasize importance of hillsides in preamble to landscape policies. Also highlight the importance of the hillsides in Bath in the pending Conservation Area assessment.
F2 Bat Protection Zones: Delete designation as the species protection policies offer sufficient protection to the bats.	Accept recommendation. Species protection policy is the overarching policy.
G BUILT ENVIRONMENT
G1 Visually Important Open Spaces: Inspector recommends review or deletion of designation.	A review at this stage increases risk of 2nd Inquiry. Important open spaces are protected through design, landscape & Conservation Area policies Emphasize the importance of open spaces to local character in the text of the Plan. Therefore delete policy and revisit in Local Development Framework.
G2 Policy BH.16 Village Buffers: Inspector recommends policy deleted as it is covered by other policies. Help to retain separateness of villages outside Green Belt in south of District.	Agree to delete the policy but emphasize the importance of the distinctiveness/ separateness of these settlements in the text of the Plan. The role & relationship of settlements in south of District is being reviewed via RSS/emerging Vision work and any new policy framework can be covered in the emerging Development Plan Documents.

8 RISK MANAGEMENT

8.1 The report author and Lead Executive member have fully reviewed the risk assessment related to the issue and recommendations, in compliance with the Council's decision making risk management guidance.

9 RATIONALE

9.1 See section 7 above.

10 OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED

10.1 Alternative options for the adoption of the Local Plan and an assessment of these options are set out above together with the reasons for the preferred option (paras 7.2 - 7.8).

11 CONSULTATION

11.1 The Regulations require that any modifications to the Local Plan are published for public comment, along with the Council responses to the Inspector's Report before the Local Plan is adopted.

12 ISSUES TO CONSIDER IN REACHING THE DECISION

12.1 The Local Plan modifications also have implications for: social inclusion; customer focus; sustainability; property; young people; corporate issues; Human Rights and other legal considerations.

13 ADVICE SOUGHT

13.1 The Council's Monitoring Officer (Council Solicitor) and Section 151 Officer (Resources Director) have had the opportunity to input to this report and have cleared it for publication.

Contact person	Simon de Beer - 01225 477616 simon_debeer@bathnes.gov.uk
Background papers	Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan Inspector's Report 2006 Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan including minerals & waste policies & 2004 pre-inquiry changes
Please contact the report author if you need to access this report in an alternative format

APPENDIX 1

RESPONSES TO INSPECTORS REPORT ON FURTHER KEY ISSUES

A DEVELOPMENT SITES

A1. Policy GDS.1/B11: University of Bath

Issue

A1.1 The Inspector considers that the Council and the University have made a generally sound case for affording weight to national educational priorities as an exceptional circumstance, and that appropriate expansion of the University would make a significant contribution towards meeting national priorities for higher education by consolidating and building upon strengths and realising potential.

A1.2 The Inspector considers the estimated spatial requirements for the likely expansion of the University is also considered to be reasonable. In addition she supports the objective of focussing development on the campus and dismisses the alternative sites put forward by objectors. However, she considers that some land within the built-up part of the campus (currently outside the Green Belt) has greater potential to accommodate expansion than stated by the University. She also concluded that out of the land proposed to be removed from the Green Belt in the Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan (RDDLP) St. John's field serves more of the Green Belt purposes and has a greater affinity with the character of the Cotswold AONB than the rest of the land.

A1.3 As a result of the above analysis she concludes that `exceptional circumstances' exist to justify removing some of the land from the Green Belt that was proposed in the RDDLP i.e. land to north of the Avenue and west of Norwood Avenue, thereby leaving St. John's field in the Green Belt.

A1.4 In order to ensure comprehensive consideration of the University's expansion she recommends that the whole of the University campus (including the land recommended to be removed from the Green Belt) is identified within the site allocation, that a Masterplan be prepared to guide development across the whole campus and that the requirement to produce a Masterplan be referred to in policy GDS.1.

A1.5 In addition to the above main issues a number of other changes to the development requirements set out under policy GDS.1 are recommended by the Inspector. These include:

> Reference to uses and approximate floorspace figures;

> Precise identification and protection of a `green heart' (to include St. John's field) and other visually/ecologically important landscape areas;

> Strengthened wording with respect to Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) impact and ensuring development appropriately designed and landscaped.

Implications

A1.6 The Inspector's recommended change to the Green Belt boundary and allocation of the land for University related uses should enable the University's expansion requirements to be met. The recommended boundary will mean that approximately 70% of the land proposed for removal from the Green Belt will be removed from the Green Belt.

A1.7 Discussions have taken place with the University who, subject to further work to more accurately assess the development potential of both the reduced area of land that would be removed from the Green Belt and the land identified by the Inspector with greater potential within the built-up part of the campus, consider that the recommended change will enable them to meet their expansion requirements.

A1.8 The Inspector identifies two areas of land with greater potential for development within the built-up part of the campus i.e. land at western end of campus between Chemistry building and Quarry Road and undeveloped areas south of Eastwood, through towards the car park/bus arrival area and south of Sports Institute. In the current endorsed University Masterplan these are not shown as areas for built development and this was broadly the position presented by the University at the Local Plan Inquiry.

A1.9 However, following the Inspector's conclusions it will be necessary for these areas to be reassessed as part of the process of preparing a revised Masterplan. In order to help ensure that expansion requirements can be satisfactorily met it may be necessary for the Council to show some flexibility in this reassessment process having regard to the Inspector's Report. It is worth noting that in the Environmental Capacity Report which informed the current Masterplan the areas south of Eastwood are identified as `less sensitive with capacity for development', whereas other than the western car park the areas close to the Chemistry Building are shown as `highly sensitive and sensitive' having no or limited development capacity respectively.

A1.10 The recommended change to the Green Belt results in a stronger Green Belt boundary than is the currently the case and will provide greater long term certainty for both the University and residents.

A1.11 Inclusion of the whole University campus within the allocated site and reference to a university-wide Masterplan in the development requirements will enable the Council and the University to properly assess and plan expansion comprehensively. This should enable the most appropriate solution across the whole site to be found and implemented. The University is understood to be keen to prepare such a Masterplan as, following endorsement by the Council, as it will provide them with greater certainty.

A1.12 The floorspace figures which the Inspector recommends should be referred to in the policy are those presented by the University as an initial estimate of the likely expansion requirement at the Inquiry. The University remains satisfied that the broad quantum is appropriate, but has concerns that the balance between residential accommodation and other uses may need to change in the future, as funding streams are secured and expansion plans consolidated. Therefore, it is suggested that the policy should be modified to refer to approximately 83,000m² of university related uses (listing the uses as per the Inspector's recommendation). This would mean that control in relation to the overall approximate quantum of development and the range of uses is maintained.

A1.13 The implications of the Inspector's other recommended modifications to the development requirements need further consideration and will be reported to the Executive in September.

Suggested Response

A1.14 Agree with the Inspector's recommended Green Belt boundary change, allocation of the whole University campus and reference to a Masterplan in the development requirements under policy GDS.1.

A1.15 Partially agree with the Inspector's recommended reference to floorspace figures and the range of uses in the policy by referring to the overall approximate figure and listing uses.

A2 Policy GDS.1/B1: Bath Western Riverside

Issue: Existing businesses within the site

A2.1 In order to provide clarity for businesses currently operating within the BWR site, the inspector recommends the additional policy wording 93There will be no requirement for existing businesses to be relocated during the plan period. Those business uses wishing to remain within the site and which are compatible with the redevelopment scheme, will either remain in their current locations or be relocated within or adjacent to the redeveloped area.94

Suggested Response

A2.2 Whilst it is accepted that clarity for businesses within BWR would be beneficial, the form of wording recommended by the Inspector is not accurate as it may be that some existing businesses will need to be relocated during the life of the Plan. It is therefore recommended that the Inspector's wording is modified as follows, 93Existing businesses wishing to remain within the site and which are compatible with the SPD will either remain in their current locations or be relocated within or adjacent to the redeveloped area or elsewhere if appropriate94

Issue: Comprehensiveness

A2.3 The inspector recommends the addition of the following clause in order to secure a comprehensive approach to development, 93Any planning application will need to demonstrate that it is consistent with and contributes to the comprehensive development of the whole site by reference to the Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document which accords with this policy.94

Suggested Response

A2.4 This addition is helpful although it should more accurately refer to the `BWR Supplementary Planning Document'.

Issue: Site Boundaries

Bath Press & Renrod

A2.5 In addition to the provision for existing businesses, the Inspector goes on to recommend the removal the Renrod and Bath Press from the BWR boundary. The Inspector's reasons for excluding the Bath Press site are that:

· it is physically separated from the main BWR site by the Lower Bristol Road

· it is substantially taken up by the main building and costs of equipment would make it difficult for the company to relocate;

· the numbers of employees make it one of the City's larger employers;

· other policies of the plan would provide sufficient control to ensure that any future redevelopment accords with the character of the area as it is regenerated.

A2.6 The Inspector does not consider that the exclusion of the Renrod site would compromise the achievement of a comprehensive scheme and she considers that the policies of the Local Plan should ensure any redevelopment by the site owner would accord with the character of the regenerated area. Furthermore, in the event that part of the site is affected by transport requirements in the future (eg the rapid transit route), it is not necessary for the site to be within the BWR boundaries for that part to be acquired.

Eastern part of the site

A2.7 The Inspector recommends that the Council assess whether or not Sainsbury's and Homebase and associated land should continue to be included within the BWR allocation. This is linked to her recommendation to delete the retail elements of BWR for the time being (see section B below). She notes that Sainsbury's and Homebase take up large areas of land but because this issue was not a matter for debate at the Inquiry she makes no proposal either way. She recommends instead that the Council considers the issue.

Suggested Response

A2.8 Bath Press: Agree. The particular circumstances relating to Bath Press and associated land south of the Lower Bristol Road make it different to the rest of the BWR site.

A2.9 Renrod: Disagree. Unlike Bath Press, this part of the site is an integral part of BWR both physically & functionally. Its inclusion contributes to the BWR design and townscape objectives. The Inspector's view that 93its exclusion would not compromise the achievement of a comprehensive scheme94, is inaccurate as if removed from the site, it would not be subject to the requirements of the policy and its associated SPD. Furthermore, removal of this site might set a precedent for other thriving business to seek exclusion. The Inspector already accepts that the needs of existing businesses within the site can be accommodated and she proposes amendments to policy to provide the necessary clarity.

A2.10 Eastern part of the site: Further consideration concludes that this eastern part of the site is an integral part of the allocation as it connects the western part of the site through to the City centre. Its retention within the site is essential in order to achieve an integrated relationship with the City centre in terms of layout, design & transport links, for both pedestrians and public transport. It also contributes to realising the objective of taking full advantage of the river and it provides the opportunity for a high quality waterfront open space along a key access route. The SPD clarifies the role that this part of the site plays within the comprehensive approach for the whole site.

Issue: Rapid Transit System

A2.11 Delete Rapid Transit Route in the absence of a detailed and programmed scheme.

Suggested Response

A2.12 Since the Local Plan Inquiry significant changes have occurred in relation to rapid transit in Bath. In the first instance, the Regional Assembly have recognised the importance of The Bath Package, including Rapid Transit, by identifying it in table 1 of their priorities for regional funding allocations for schemes to be completed prior to 2016. These priorities have now been accepted by the DfT. The JLTP 2006-2011 submitted in July 06 also identifies the Bath Package as a priority for construction in the period to 2011, and indeed a Major Scheme Bid for the package was also submitted in July 06 to central government for funding.

A2.13 This bid identifies a clearly defined route for bus based Rapid Transit in Bath, therefore it is now essential that the route identified is afforded protected status to ensure it is protected from development. A precise route is now defined which will be shown on the Local Plan Proposals Map.

A2.14 The omission of this proposal from the Local Plan and the failure to safeguard the whole of the former railway between Western Riverside and Newbridge could seriously impede progress on regeneration which is dependent on a 93step change94 in public transport provision and reduction in traffic growth. Circumstances have therefore substantially changed since the Inquiry to justify the rejection of the Inspector's recommendation.

A3 Policy GDS.1: Beechen Cliff School Playing Fields, Greenway Lane, Bath

Issue

A3.1 The Inspector is recommending that land at Beechen Cliff School, Greenway Lane is allocated for housing on the basis that there is inadequate land allocated to meet strategic housing requirements during the plan period and that this site could contribute to meeting this requirement.

A3.2 The Secretary of State for Education and Skills has identified the site as surplus to requirements and whilst this is not in itself justification for its development, the Inspector considers that as it is not currently in use by any other organisation and therefore its development would not represent a loss. The conditions set out by the Secretary of State for the disposal of the site require the provision of new all weather sports facilities elsewhere at the school which, in the Inspector's opinion, would be of greater recreational benefit to the school, and in view of the potential for shared use, the community, than the retention of this narrow and sloping area of open space.

A3.3 The Inspector goes on to highlight the Council's objection to the allocation of the site on the grounds of highway safety, having regard to the narrowness of the lane and the poor junctions to either end. However, in the Inspector's view 18 dwellings (proposed allocation) is unlikely to add significantly to the level of traffic using the lane and its junctions and this issue would need to be discussed and resolved in relation to any future planning application.

Implications

A4.4 Council Executive considered the allocation of this site for housing on 7^th June 2006 and resolved that no decision be made on this site pending further investigation.

Highway Issues

A3.5 The Inspector is of the opinion that that a development of 18 dwellings is unlikely to add significantly to the level of traffic using the lane and its junctions. However, an assessment of the impact of this additional number of dwellings on the immediate road network by the Council's Transportation and Highways Service suggests otherwise.

A3.6 An initial traffic assessment indicates that existing traffic flows along Greenway Lane are 2800 vehicles in a 24 hour period. In terms of impact, however, the initial assessment suggests a development of 18 houses could generate approx 150 vehicular movements a day (depending on the size of dwellings and mix). However this equates to only approx 15 vehicles during the peak hours.

A3.7 The additional traffic generated by the development will add 5.5% more vehicles. In terms of the nature of the road i.e. rural aspect, no footpaths for a considerable length of Greenway Lane, the narrowness of the road and its varying width with bends and junctions with limited visibility. The additional traffic is thought to be significant for this type of road. The road is relatively busy for this type of road during peak times especially during the morning peak (8 am to 9 am) with 597 vehicles per hour (10 vehicles per minute) and any additional traffic during this period is considered undesirable.

A3.8 Whilst the impact would normally be assessed as a percentage of existing flows on the network, a 10% increase would be considered 'material'. However in locations already considered to be at capacity, much less might be considered significant. This is likely to be the case with Greenway Lane especially in the light of issues already identified on this route and at the junctions at both ends.

A3.9 A comprehensive traffic survey is also currently being undertaken by consultants commissioned by the Council in response to concerns expressed by local residents.

A3.10 In conclusion, the Council considers that the highway impacts are more damaging than the Inspector considered in her Report.

Impact on Character

A3.11 Creating a safe access onto Greenway Lane from the proposed site will necessitate the introduction of a junction with correct radii and visibility splays, based on the speed of traffic along Greenway Lane. This will require the existing hedge/wall to be removed for a considerable distance and possibly road-widening thus changing the rural aspect of this section of Greenway Lane. A new wall and/or embankment will also be required to be constructed behind the visibility splay, within the site.

A3.12 Although the issue of detrimental impact of the development on the distinctive semi-rural character of this historic lane, not least the character of that part of the Conservation Area, was highlighted at the Local Plan Inquiry, it appears the Inspector underplayed this aspect of the case in her Reasoning. Therefore Council considers development of this site would be far more harmful to local character than concluded by the Inspector.

Suggested Response

A3.13 Disagree with the Inspector's recommendation to allocate part of the Beechen Cliff School Playing Fields, Greenway Lane under Policy GDS.1 for residential use.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B RETAIL

B1 Policy S.3: Hayesfield School playing field/St. Martin's Garden Primary School site

Issue

B1.1 The Inspector recommends that the Hayesfield School playing field/St. Martin's Garden primary school site at Odd Down should be considered for allocation for mixed use development, including a food store. A new food store in southern Bath would relieve pressure on the Sainsbury's store while also reducing the need for the residents in a densely developed part of the city to travel into or across the city centre for convenience shopping.

B1.2 The need to retain the playing fields in the light of the overall conclusions of the Council's Green Space Strategy (which was not available to the Inquiry) should be considered. If they are not required, or if adequate alternative provisions can be made, the Inspector recommends that a positive allocation for mixed use (including retail) should be made in the plan. Consideration should then be given as to the replacement of the primary school and other facilities which should be provided as part of a mixed development.

Implications

B1.3 Through the Further Pre-Inquiry Changes (FPICs) to the Local Plan the Council has accepted the need for additional convenience floorspace in Bath and that there is greatest need for an additional food store in south Bath. Allocation of the site as recommended by the Inspector requires consideration of a number of issues:

Recreation issues

B1.4 PPG17 (Planning for open space, sport and recreation) makes it clear that in considering whether open space is surplus and should be developed its ability to serve other recreational functions and meet a recreational deficit should be considered. Work on the Council's Green Spaces Strategy has advanced significantly since the Local Plan Inquiry. The strategy sets out a hierarchy of green spaces and assesses the need for different types of green space in the District. The strategy identifies that there is a need for informal neighbourhood green space and facilities for young people in south Bath as opposed to formal playing pitches. An area of about 2 hectares is required for a neighbourhood green space. This could include the grassed area of land adjoining to the west of the St. Martin's Garden Primary School site (known as Odd Down open space) which is also owned by the Council.

B1.5 Currently the Hayesfield school playing fields that occupy just over 2 hectares of the site are not available for community use. Therefore, if comprehensive development of the site included provision for an accessible neighbourhood green space this would provide recreational benefits to the residents of this part of the city. The neighbourhood green space could (in consultation with the community) also include provision of young people's facilities e.g. multi-use games area, children's play facilities.

B1.6 With regard to formal sports provision Hayesfield School intend to invest the capital receipt from the sale of its playing fields in improving its indoor and outdoor sports facilities at its split campus. Subject to negotiation with the school it is likely that these facilities would also be available for community use. Given that the existing playing fields are not used by the school or the community Sport England are generally supportive of the school's proposal as it leads to improved sports facilities for school and community use. The Council's Active Leisure department has also confirmed that redevelopment of the playing fields would be acceptable as long as provision is made for a suitable replacement which could be off-site. This would be addressed by the proposed Hayesfield school improvements to its outdoor sports facilties.

Education issues

B1.7 As noted above sale of the playing fields will enable Hayesfield School to improve its facilities on its lower and upper campuses. In addition disposal of the playing fields could benefit other schools (see also section on disposal process below).

B1.8 St. Martin's Garden Primary School lies within the site recommended for allocation and provision of a replacement school on site therefore needs to be considered. Whilst a sure start children's centre and autistic unit have only recently been constructed (and would need to be replaced) the school itself dates back to the 1950's and is expensive to maintain. Its layout is also not space efficient. Allocation of the site would therefore have the benefit of providing a new purpose built replacement school occupying a smaller area than is currently the case. The existing school occupies nearly 3.5 ha of land and Education Services suggest that a replacement `one form' entry school, together with replacement sure start children's centre and autistic unit would occupy approximately 2 ha.

B1.9 In order to ensure continuous provision of education by the primary school and to keep disruption to a minimum development of the site would need to be phased so that the replacement school is built and occupied before the food store is constructed. This could be addressed by the development requirements in the Local Plan.

Playing fields disposal process

B1.10 The process for disposal of playing fields is a complex one. Implementation of the allocation would clearly be dependent on approval for disposal being granted. Hayesfield School has commenced the disposal process. Once an application is submitted the Secretary of State's decision regarding disposal and allocation of the capital receipt is usually reached within 8 weeks to 6 months.

B1.11 As Hayesfield School is a Foundation School the Council does not control the land or the capital receipt, but is able to submit its comments to the Secretary of State on the allocation of the capital receipt. Education Services have confirmed that they will be seeking that part of the capital receipt is made available to benefit other local schools. The decision will then be made by the Secretary of State.

Transportation Impacts

B1.12 Given the location of the site on the heavily trafficked Wellsway and Frome Road and the fact that the potential development would be a substantial traffic generator the transportation impacts are likely to be significant. A widely scoped Transportation Assessment (TA) examining all modes of travel would be necessary. This would identify the impacts (both strategic and local) that need to be mitigated by the development. The Local Plan site requirements would need to refer to the requirement for a TA and that all identified impacts (relating to all modes of transport) are satisfactorily addressed.

Retail issues

B1.13 The FPICs to the Local Plan suggest that a significant proportion of the convenience floorspace needed in Bath is likely to be provided by the extension of the Waitrose store in the redevelopment of the Podium/Hilton site and the relocation and extension of Sainsbury's as part of the redevelopment of BWR. Indications at the Local Plan Inquiry were that around 2,000 to 2,500m² of the overall need would not be met by the above extensions.

B1.14 In addressing the deficiency of food stores in south Bath it is sensible to provide a store that is able to sell a wide enough range of goods to ensure that resident's needs are substantially met. However, it is also important that the food store is of a size that will primarily serve a `local' catchment area. A larger superstore would be likely to draw in customers and therefore traffic from a wider area, potentially resulting in significant numbers of cross city journeys and journeys into the city from surrounding areas.

B1.15 Taking account of the considerations set out above and the Council's priority to facilitate the redevelopment of the Podium site and BWR it is prudent to limit the size of the food store to about 2,500m². This should be sufficient to ensure the needs of this part of Bath are met, including during the longer term RSS period the additional population potentially arising from an urban extension south of Bath. Furthermore, limiting the store to this size will help to ensure there is sufficient land available to meet the other required uses on this site.

Other issues

B1.16 In responding to the Inspector's Report an initial urban design assessment has been undertaken. This suggests that the uses described above could be accommodated on the site. In order to ensure that the development is not cramped and that sufficient land is available for any necessary landscaping it is recommended that the adjoining grassed area of land (Odd Down open space) to the west of the primary school is included within the allocation for the purposes of contributing towards providing the informal neighbourhood recreational space (in total around 2ha in area). Whilst significant land is unlikely to be available to accommodate additional uses such as housing or other community facilities it is considered that the development requirements should refer to an element of residential uses enabling the potential for residential dwellings above the food store to be further investigated.

Suggested response

B1.17 Partially agree with the Inspector's recommendation and allocate Hayesfield School playing field/St. Martin's Garden Primary School/adjoining Odd Down open space for mixed use development including a food store, replacement primary school, sure start children's centre and autistic unit and neighbourhood recreational space. In allocating the site development requirements set out in the Local Plan will need to ensure that the recreational and educational benefits outlined above are delivered and that any potential adverse impacts (e.g. in relation to transportation) are fully addressed. This can be done through the development site requirements.

B2 Policy S.5: Primary Shopping Frontages

Issue

B2.1 The Inspector considers that it is not clear how policies S.5 (protection of A1 uses in primary frontages) and S.6 (A3 uses in Bath city centre) operate together in determining applications for A3 uses and considering contribution to overall city centre vitality. She therefore recommends that policy S.5 is cross referenced to S.6 by inserting the words `Subject to policy S.6' at the start of policy S.5.

Implications

B2.2 The Inspector's recommended change will not just link the policies clarifying that they operate together, but would significantly weaken protection of the primary shopping frontage in Bath. The Inspector does not refer to this in her reasoning and therefore, it is considered that this was not the intended effect.

B2.3 Whilst policies S.5 and S.6 are both relevant in determining proposals for A3 uses within the parts of the central shopping area defined as primary frontages the operation of one is not intended to be over ridden by the other. Inserting the words `Subject to policy S.6' at the start of S.5 could suggest that S.6 will over ride S.5 in the Bath central shopping area. This could result in a proposal for a change of use of a ground floor premises from a shop (A1 use) to an A3 use in the primary frontage being acceptable as long as it preserves/enhances character of the Conservation Area, does not have unacceptable impact on residential amenity or does not have an unacceptable impact on the vitality and viability of the city centre. The final qualification is a suggested addition by the Inspector to policy S.6 which would be difficult to demonstrate in relation to an individual application.

B2.4 Protection of A1 uses within the compact city centre retail core would be significantly weakened and indeed would be considerably weaker than the protection of such uses in the District's town centres. Policy S.5 as worded is a robust policy that is successfully operated in the circumstances particular to Bath.

B2.5 In order to clarify that both policies operate together in applying to applications for A3 uses in the primary frontage as intended by the Inspector it is suggested that policy S.6 be modified by inserting the words `Subject to policy S.5' at the start of it. This would ensure that within the identified primary frontages policy S.5 continues to protect ground floor A1 uses and that outside the primary frontages proposals for an A3 use will be acceptable subject to the qualifications listed in that policy. Legal opinion advises that there is sufficient justification to disagree with the Inspector as the recommended policy wording change will lead to undesired and unintended effects on the primary shopping frontages in Bath.

B2.6 The Inspector's other recommended modifications to policy S.6 which clarify the spatial extent of its operation and to add a reference to city centre vitality and viability should be accepted.

Suggested Response

B2.7 Partially accept Inspector's recommendation but modify Policy S.6 by inserting at its beginning the words `Subject to Policy S.5'.

B3 RETAIL PROVISION

Issue

B3.1 The Inspector considers that the NLP study provides a useful, but rather bullish assessment of quantitative capacity for additional retail floorspace. Some of its assumptions may be over optimistic and in terms of large format retail warehousing may not accord with government policy set out in PPS6 which advocates flexibility of retail development format. She therefore considers that the Local Plan should not have allocated sites to meet the maximum capacity figures and recommends a more balanced and cautious short term response.

B3.2 The Council's priority should be to secure the redevelopment of Southgate which will extend the retail offer of the city centre. It is sequentially the best site and is now at the `starting blocks'. The Inspector concludes it is fundamentally important that it is not undermined by commitments made in the Local Plan.

B3.3 The Inspector supports retention of the allocation of the Podium/Cattlemarket site, but considers it premature to allocate Avon Street Car Park for mixed use redevelopment mainly because it is not likely to be able to provide retail floorspace during the Plan period.

B3.4 With regard to retail at BWR the Inspector considers that it is primarily an out-of-centre site. Furthermore, given the limited presence of retail, leisure and other related uses between Green Park station and the existing retail core it would become a competing, rather than complimentary, shopping destination to the city centre. Planning permission for retail development at BWR before 2011 would damage the prospects of full completion and occupation of Southgate. Allocation of high street retail floorspace at BWR in the Local Plan is not supported by the Inspector.

B3.5 In addition the Inspector recommends that large format retail warehousing should not be provided at BWR as there is not sufficient evidence justifying such provision and large format stores represent a form of development that is generally not compatible with the character and appearance of the World Heritage Site (WHS) or the high density and high design quality principles underpinning the regeneration of BWR.

B3.6 The Inspector also recommends that a long term retail strategy is prepared as a Development Plan Document (DPD) to guide retail growth in a number of phased and carefully monitored steps. This would enable a number of city centre/edge of centre opportunities to be thoroughly investigated to see if more organic growth of city centre retailing could be secured. In addition the retail strategy could review the appropriateness of providing large format retail floorspace in light of PPS6. In conjunction with this review the suitability of the Lower Bristol area (through consolidation of Weston Lock Retail Park) to accommodate additional stores should be examined through Master planning for this area.

B3.7 Summary of key recommendations:

> Retain allocation of Podium/Cattlemarket site for mixed use development

> Delete Avon Street car park allocation and retail elements at BWR specified in FPICs

> Prepare long term retail strategy DPD

> Amend Local Plan text to reflect this more cautious approach

Implications

B3.8 Some of the Inspector's conclusions regarding the NLP study and its assumptions could be challenged and more importantly so could the apparent failure of the Inspector's recommendations to meet the minimum need identified in the NLP study. It is important that identified need is planned for so that Bath's retail role is maintained in the longer term. This is important for a number of reasons, including economic stability and related job provision (retail is an important economic sector in Bath) and providing a good choice of shops for local residents.

B3.9 However, the long term sustainable future of the city centre will not be best achieved through ill conceived short term growth. In addition, it is vital that the redevelopment of Southgate is implemented as the first stage of improving Bath's retail offer and its environment and thereby, helping to maintain the city centre's role. In order to ensure that improvements in the city centre are implemented `step by step', to allow the provision of necessary infrastructure and for the city centre to rebalance and settle down after each episode of growth it is considered prudent to agree with the Inspector's recommended approach.

B3.10 It is vital however, that work on planning for further need beyond the plan period is progressed quickly i.e. through preparation of the retail strategy identified by the Inspector. Major Projects and Development are in the process of preparing a brief for this work. The strategy should sit within a sub-regional framework in order to ensure that the relationships between major centres such as Bath and Bristol are properly considered. The strategy will also need to be properly integrated with this Council's Core Strategy and could inform a Development Plan Document such as an Area Action Plan.

B3.11 The retail strategy will enable the level and type of retail need to be re-examined. It will need to assess a number of options for meeting this need and examine a range of potential edge of centre opportunities (as identified by the Inspector). Preparation of this strategy will also accord with PPS6 and should enable the best solution to managing longer term retail growth to be achieved. Through its preparation and consideration of options, analysis of the appropriateness of comparison retailing at the eastern end of BWR can also be undertaken within a city centre framework. This approach is also consistent with conclusions of Ernst & Young's work on the Bath Business Plan. They highlighted the unique nature of retailing in Bath city centre and the need to carefully and holistically assess the way forward in light of the NLP study which estimated the quantitative and qualitative capacity for additional floorspace using what they considered to be a somewhat `standard' approach.

B3.12 If significant retail development at BWR is to be appropriate, it will be necessary to achieve better integration of the Green Park area into the wider city centre. Work on a retail strategy, and also a transportation strategy which reflects the policies of the JLTP, will enable these issues to be addressed. This will include a strategy relating to how the areas between Green Park and the existing retail core can be made more attractive, interesting and vibrant thereby enhancing the potential for most shopping trips to include both destinations.

B3.13 It is also considered sensible, in light of the approach set out in PPS6, to follow the Inspector's recommendation and review whether flexibility in relation to retail format and the splitting of proposals into constituent units could mean that single smaller units, potentially accommodated on sites closer to the city centre, could address the need proposed to be met through large format/retail warehouse development. Having reviewed the appropriateness of providing for this type of retailing in Bath (through the retail strategy) the potential for additional provision at Weston Lock Retail Park could (if necessary) be assessed via preparation of the Lower Bristol Road area SPD (which is currently referred to in the Council's Local Development Scheme).

B3.14 With regard to the regeneration of BWR, accepting the Inspector's recommendations on retail does not conflict with the draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) or threaten its delivery. The draft SPD is flexible in relation to the eastern end of the site. The Spatial Masterplan shows the area as `mixed use' which could include retail, office, cultural/leisure and residential uses. Specific provision for an identified amount of retail development is not made, rather the SPD allows for retail development in this area during the full development period (but beyond the Local Plan period) i.e. up to about 2021. This is a balanced and reasonable approach that enables Southgate to be implemented and for its impacts to be monitored and which allows for the phased development of BWR to progress i.e. earlier residential/mixed use phases on more western parts of the site can be implemented, whilst the potential for retail development at the eastern end is examined further. Similarly the draft SPD does not make provision for large format retail warehousing on BWR, which as the Inspector notes, would probably be contrary to the design, density and transportation principles central to the redevelopment.

Suggested Response

B3.15 It is considered that the Inspector's recommended approach to retail growth in Bath city centre and the potential provision of large format retailing in the city should be accepted. Retail growth needs to be properly planned over the longer term, within the framework of a clear retail strategy. This strategy needs to be progressed quickly so that the best solution for providing retail growth can be established and start to be implemented soon after 2011. Modifying the Local Plan to adopt this more cautious approach should ensure that the redevelopment of Southgate progresses and the early phases of the regeneration of BWR are not hindered.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C EMPLOYMENT

C1 Employment Land safeguarding policies

Issues

C1.1 The Inspector recognises the need to safeguard existing employment land but considers that the Local Plan policy framework would benefit from greater focus and clarification. This includes:

> linking the policy framework more closely to the monitoring of trends of employment gain & employment loss;

> more prescriptive guidance on the location of new employment development;

> definition of new core employment areas to prioritise safeguarding employment land.

Suggested Response

C1.2 Accept the proposed modifications to the policy framework, with minor amendments, because they maintain the overarching objective of retaining necessary employment land for economic health whilst continuing to allow flexibility for brownfield redevelopment & regeneration. With reference to Core Business Areas, it is proposed that in addition to the existing areas at Brassmill Lane & Locksbrook Rd in Bath, the list of Core Business Areas should include:

1. Brassmill Lane, Locksbrook Rd, Wessex Water site at Claverton Down, Wansdyke Business Centre & premises Midford Road, Odd Down.

2. Keynsham: Broadmead/ Ashmead/ Pixash Lane Industrial Estate, including Keynsham Paper Mill.

3. Norton Radstock: Westfield Industrial Estate; Mill Road, Radstock, Midsomer Enterprise Park, Radstock Road; Haydon Industrial Estate; Norton Hill Factories [Coates and Alcan]

4. Villages: Old Mills, Paulton; Cloud, Hallatrow Business Park; Farrington Fields; Cloud Hill Factories; Bath Business park at Peasedown St John

C2 Old Mills Business Allocation

Issue

C2.1 The Inspector acknowledges the Council's wish to attract economic development to the Norton Radstock area, but considers that there are other opportunities for the regeneration of existing industrial sites in the area with mixed use development. She is not convinced that there is sufficient justification for the allocation of this site and therefore she recommends its deletion.

Implications

C2.2 Since the Local Plan Inquiry, there has been a significant loss of employment in the wider Norton Radstock area including the unanticipated closure of some of the largest employers in the area, specifically Paulton Printing Factory and the Alcan Factory. Further work undertaken by consultants on behalf of the Council has emphasized the over-dependence of the economy in the south of the District on a few large employers in the declining industrial sectors. Limited local employment opportunities and low wage levels are masked by the high levels of outcommuting from the area. The Council is now considering an economic lead regeneration approach in the context of the Regional Spatial Strategy and this site is the only greenfield employment development opportunity left in Norton Radstock area.

Suggested Response

C2.4 Disagree with the Inspector and retain the Old Mills business allocation under Policy GDS.1/V4.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D HOUSING

D1 Policy HG.8: Affordable Housing: Council's Case Supported

Site size threshold

D1.1 The Inspector has confirmed the site size threshold set out in the Local Plan for affordable housing is justified.

Affordable housing percentage

D2.2 The Inspector recommends an increase in the affordable housing percentage in that a 35% target will be regarded as an average proportion of affordable housing to be achieved across all sites granted permission from now until the end of the plan period.

Suggested Response

D3.3 Accept as the site size threshold will carry significant weight in planning decisions and the higher target will enable Council to seek up to 35% of new housing sites to be affordable but retains the flexibility on the proportion depending on the individual site circumstances.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E ACCESS/TRANSPORT

E1 Policy T.17: Road Schemes

Issue

E1.1 This policy safeguards land for three schemes:

> the widening of Lower Bristol Road Bath;

> Clutton/Temple Cloud Bypass;

> Whitchurch Bypass.

Bypasses

E1.3 Previous studies have indicated that neither of the two A37 bypasses are justified by existing traffic levels but this is likely to change as a result of the Regional Spatial Strategy proposals for south Bristol development including the proposal for an Urban Extension at south west Bristol. There are new proposals for a South Bristol Ring Road in the Final Joint Local Transport Plan 2006 (JLTP) and these are recognised in the Government's Regional Funding Allocation in 2006. It is therefore inopportune to release land that has long been safeguarded for the Whitchurch bypass until the precise land needs of the Ring Road are known. In addition and since the Local Plan Inquiry, the JLTP now lists the Temple Cloud/Clutton Bypass as sub-regional priority requiring further work between 2011 and 2016. The inspector's recommendations on Lower Bristol Road scheme in Bath is programmed to be considered at the Council Executive in October.

E1.4 The release of land safeguarded by Policy T.17 could seriously compromise the proper planning of parts of the District where considerable development is envisaged.

Suggested Response

E1.5 Disagree with the Inspector and retain Policy T.17 as circumstances have changes since the Local Plan Inquiry.

E2 Policy T.12: Newbridge Park & Ride

Park & Ride proposal Issues

E2.1 The Local Plan proposed the removal of land from the Green Belt to develop a decked Park & Ride and rapid transit terminus at Newbridge. This proposal was part of an integrated package of improved public transport options and was part of the Council's transport strategy and contributed to achieving progress towards modal shift. The additional park & ride capacity would also play an important role in achieving the redevelopment of central areas of Bath in particular Bath Western Riverside.

E2.2 The Inspector concluded that there were no firm proposals or funding for the proposal and therefore considered that there is insufficient justification to remove land from the Green Belt to develop a decked Park & Ride & rapid transit terminus. The Inspector considers ideally the Council should look to expand the existing Newbridge Park & Ride site rather than develop across the road. She went on to recommend that, in the event that this was not feasible, then the land north of the A36 should be considered for a ground level car park which is properly landscaped and designed to maintain the openness of the site and to minimise the effect on the rural character. With this approach, there is no justification to remove land from the Green Belt.

Proposed Response

E2.3 Since Inquiry, funding has been secured to expand the existing Newbridge Park & Ride on A3. Therefore it is proposed that the Park & Ride allocation north of the A36 is deleted and the Green Belt is re-instated.

Relocation of Civic Amenity Site issues

E2.4 On the area of land to the south of the proposed park & ride and separated by the A36 the Council proposed to locate a civic amenity facility and other facilities. The Inspector considers that alternatives have not been adequately investigated and there is insufficient justification to release land from the Green Belt for this purpose.

Proposed Response

E2.5 It is proposed to accept this recommendation whilst alternative locations for the civic amenity site are being investigated. If no suitable alternative is identified then special circumstances must be argued for this development to occur.  The Waste Services Project board will make recommendations on this issue in due course.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

F1 Policy NE.3: Important Hillsides

Issue

F1.1 The Inspector is recommending the deletion of the Important Hillsides in Bath and Norton Radstock. She is of the opinion that there is inadequate justification for this additional layer of policy protection as Policy NE.3 duplicates protection afforded by other policies in the Local.

F1.2 In Bath the Important Hillsides fall within the World Heritage Site designation and, with one small exception, the Conservation Area. Many are also designated nature conservation site and so any development proposal would be assessed against the relevant policies on these issues. This, she considers, would protect the landscape setting and character of Bath from potentially harmful development and the Important Hillside designation is therefore superfluous.

F1.3 With regard Norton-Radstock, the Important Hillsides are included in the landscape character assessment and any development proposals would be assessed against Policy NE.1 (Landscape Character) which would provide protection from the adverse affects of development. The Radstock Conservation Area includes extensive open areas around the town and in particular clause (v) of Policy BH.6 recognises the need to protect landscape contributing to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The designated hillsides are also outside the defined HDBs and new housing development would not normally be acceptable in such areas.

Implications

F1.4 As highlighted by the Inspector, whilst the Important Hillside designation provides a specific layer of protection, the deletion of Policy NE.3 would not leave these areas vulnerable to the adverse affects of development.

Suggested Response

F1.5 Agree with the Inspector's recommendation to delete Policy NE.3 and the Important Hillsides from the Proposals Map. Therefore it is proposed that the policy is deleted and the preamble to landscape policies emphasizes importance of hillsides. The importance of the hillsides in Bath can also be highlighted in the pending Conservation Area assessment.

F2 Policy NE.7 - Bat Protection Zones

Issue

F2.1 The Bat Protection Zones aim to afford protection to the Horseshoe & Bechstein's bats' feeding grounds from the adverse impact of development. The main areas inhabited by the bats are Special Areas of Conservations protected through European legislation. The Inspector points out that because both the species of Bats are afforded protection under national legislation, Policy NE.7 is superfluous. Similarly, she states, Local Plan policies should not contain policies for the protection of species and sites which have statutory protection through international conventions and European Directives. As a result, the Inspector concludes that Policy NE.7 should be deleted.

Implications

F2.2 It is accepted that Local Policy NE.10 which protects internationally or nationally important species and their habitats is a robust policy which affords the necessary protection to any species from the adverse affects of development.

Suggested Response

F2.3 Accept the Inspector's recommendation to delete Policy NE.7 and the Bat Protection Zones from the Proposals Map.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G BUILT ENVIRONMENT

G1 Policy BH.15: Visually Important Open Spaces

Issue

G1.1 The Inspector is concerned that the evidence base used to justify the selection of Visually Important Open Spaces (VIOS) shown on the Proposals Map appears to be insufficiently substantiated. She also states that given the extent of the Conservation Areas within settlements and the tightly defined HDBs and policies protecting playing fields (others are protected parks & gardens), the deletion of the policy is unlikely to undermine the protection of the environmental quality of the District.

G1.2 On this basis she is recommending the deletion of Policy BH.15 and the VIOS from the Proposals Map. However, if the Council wants to keep the VIOS designation then she recommends that sites are assessed against clear criteria and reasons for each selection made explicit.

Implications

G1.3 As tight timescales would prohibit undertaking properly such an assessment, and without substantiated further justification for retaining this designation, the Council is left with the option of deleting the VIOS. However, as development proposals can be assessed against a number of policies which seek to resist harmful development including (where applicable) Policy BH.6 (Conservation Area), Policy NE.9 (Nature Conservation), Policy SR.1A (recreational open space), Policy BH.9 (Historic Parks & Gardens) together with Policies HG.4 - HG.6 (residential development in HDBs).

G1.4 It is considered therefore that sufficient protection exists for safeguarding important open spaces throughout the District although the text in the Local Plan could be beefed up to emphasize importance of open space. A review at this stage increases risk of 2^nd Inquiry, therefore it is proposed that the policy is deleted. The issue of safeguarding open space can then be addressed more thoroughly through the emerging LDF.

Suggested Response

G1.5 Agree with the Inspector's recommendation to delete Policy BH.15 and the Visually Important Open Spaces from the Proposals Map.

G2 Policy BH.16 Village Buffers

Issue

G2.1 Policy BH.16 safeguarded areas of land between Paulton and Midsomer Norton, Paulton and Hallatrow, High Littleton and Hallatrow, and Temple Cloud and Clutton. The principal purpose of the policy is to bolster the separateness of the settlements against unsympathetic development. It purposely introduces an additional layer of protection.

G2.2 The Inspector, however, is of the opinion that this policy is unnecessary as there are other policies which can help the Council achieve its objective of protecting the separateness of settlements i.e. policies to protect the rural landscape and to strictly control new housing and employment development in the countryside.

Implications

G2.3 Deletion of Policy BH.16 would not necessarily leave a policy void. There are a number of policies which can help maintain the separateness of the settlements including Policy NE.1 which protects the character of the rural landscape and Policies HG.4 - HG.6 which restrict residential development to within HDBs. Therefore it is proposed that the policy is deleted and the preamble to landscape/ design policies is beefed up to emphasize importance of village distinctiveness/separateness. The relationship of settlements in south of District is being reviewed via RSS/emerging Vision work.

Suggested Response

G2.4 Agree with the Inspector's recommendation to delete Policy BH.16 and the Village Buffers from the Proposals Map.