Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan
Deposit Draft January 2002

B1. Settlement classification

Introduction

B1.1 In order to implement the Overall Strategy, a settlement strategy is proposed which classifies settlements according to their ability to accommodate new development. This is based on an assessment of each settlement’s level of and accessibility to a range of services, facilities and employment and the impact development would have on the environment including character, setting, the historic environment and biodiversity. This classification provides the basis for other policies in the plan on the level and type of development appropriate to different settlements.

Urban Areas

B1.2 Joint Replacement Structure Plan (JRSP) Policy 2(a) defines Bath as a Main Urban Area where the general policy is to concentrate development for jobs, housing, shops, recreational and community facilities within and, where it is in accordance with Green Belt policy, immediately adjoining the urban area.

B1.3 Not all development can be concentrated in Bath. In accordance with JRSP policy 2(d) the next priority should be those settlements which have significant existing advantages over other locations in respect of public transport access to major employment areas and other important facilities. The Urban Area of Keynsham has both good rail and bus links to Bath and Bristol and also has a good range of local facilities and services. The town is therefore suitable for significant levels of development. To accommodate this JRSP Policy 2(l) provides for a change to the Green Belt.

B1.4 The Urban Area of Norton-Radstock does not have the same level of accessibility enjoyed by Keynsham. Whilst there are good bus services to Bath there is no rail link and accessibility to Bristol is more limited. However it does have good access to a range of local facilities and services and while some development is anticipated it will be at a much lower level than in the past.

Top of page

Rural Areas

B1.5 Within the rural areas outside Bath, Keynsham and Norton-Radstock there are many villages and hamlets which have varying degrees of accessibility to services and facilities, housing and employment areas. In line with the Overall Strategy and JRSP locational strategy the overriding objectives for development in these locations are the protection and enhancement of the character of the countryside and its settlements, and the maintenance of economic and social vitality of rural areas.

B1.6 Provided these objectives are met JRSP Policy 2(h) allows within, or subject to Green Belt policies, immediately adjoining settlements, limited development which is appropriate to their character, setting and accessibility to local facilities and employment.

B1.7 Within the context of providing only limited development in rural settlements and in line with PPG3, PPG7 and PPG13, the main focus of development in rural areas should be in local service centres. These act as focal points for housing and transport and may serve other nearby villages or be the key villages in settlement clusters where a range of services may be shared. They are defined in the Plan as those villages which have a good level of provision of local shops, community facilities and services and which have reasonable access to major employment areas and other important facilities.

B1.8 Limited development is likely to be appropriate in these local service centres except in cases where lack of local employment opportunities and Green Belt, character, setting and other environmental constraints militate against this. The villages meeting these criteria are referred to as R.1 Rural Settlements. They are Bathampton, Batheaston, Bathford, Paulton, Peasedown St John, Saltford and Timsbury.

B1.9 Chew Magna acts a local service centre but environmental and other factors limit development opportunities and it is excluded from R.1.

B1.10 There are a number of other villages included in the R.1 category because, although not acting as local service centres, they do have at least reasonable provision of local services and reasonable public transport accessibility to a local service centre, town or City and are not washed over by Green Belt designation. In some cases they also contribute to provision of services for village clusters. These are the villages of Whitchurch, Bishop Sutton, Farmborough and High Littleton.

B1.11 Clutton and Temple Cloud are also included under R.1 as they are in close proximity and combine to provide a reasonable level of local services and facilities and there is reasonable accessibility between them.

B1.12 In so far as development is required to maintain economic and social vitality of rural areas, development will be focussed at R.1 villages.

B1.13 A second category of villages, R.2 Rural Settlements, are those where limited provision and accessibility to local facilities, services and employment, and environmental constraints means development should be further restricted. This approach will avoid exacerbating unsustainable travel patterns and protect the countryside. Many of these are also washed over Green Belt which further restricts development to infilling and these are categorised as R.3 Rural Settlements.

B1.14 There are a number of other villages and hamlets which have very limited accessibility to local facilities and employment and in some cases are very small. The promotion of development in these locations would be contrary to the aims of sustainable development, and increase the need to travel for nearly all purposes. In some cases it would adversely affect the character and setting of the settlement.

B1.15 Policy for development for these villages as for other hamlets and small groups of dwellings together with the open countryside is therefore restrictive.

Top of page

Top of page