|
|
Archive |
|
| Home | Archive Introduction | Related Local Plan Information | ||
| ||||||
C1.8 In addition to the need to address minor anomalies, changes to the Green Belt boundary are proposed in two locations. At Keynsham where JRSP policies 2(l), 9 and 16 provide for a change (see paragraphs C1.17 to C1.24) and at Weston in Bath where an alteration is proposed (see paragraph C1.11). The detailed Green Belt boundary is shown on the Proposals Map. Bath Inner Green Belt BoundaryC1.9 The Green Belt plays a vital role in maintaining the setting of the World Heritage Site of Bath and the surrounding villages. It is also important in preventing the coalescence of these villages with the City. C1.10 The detailed Bath Inner Green Belt boundary is defined in the Bath Local Plan and the Wansdyke Environs of Bath (WEB) Local Plan, both of which have been adopted. The Wansdyke Local Plan carried forward the boundary as set out in the WEB Local Plan other than a minor change to address an anomaly at Batheaston. The boundaries defined in these local plans were determined within the general framework set by the Avon County Structure Plan and carried forward by the JRSP. C1.11 An alteration to the Green Belt boundary is proposed at Weston where land immediately to the east of The Weal is to be included within the Green Belt. This land, which is rural in character and slopes upwards to the higher parts of the hills surrounding this part of Bath, makes an important contribution to the setting of the City. Its inclusion in the Green Belt will serve the purposes set out in PPG2. C1.12 Other than this alteration, only changes to address minor anomalies are proposed. These changes include a minor alteration to the Green Belt boundary on the eastern side of the University of Bath Campus at Claverton Down. Discussions are taking between the Council and the University to assess the University’s future needs and whether this will require a more significant change to the Green Belt boundary. Land in this locality also lies within the Cotswolds AONB and therefore, should the Green Belt boundary be altered the type and scale of development would continue to be strictly controlled. Bristol Inner Green Belt BoundaryC1.13 The inner Green Belt boundary for Bristol that falls within B&NES was defined in the adopted Keynsham and Chew Valley Local Plan and carried forward in the Wansdyke Local Plan. It was drawn to follow generally the limits of existing development in line with the Avon County Structure Plan and the JRSP does not provide for further changes. Therefore, no change to this detailed boundary is proposed. Outer Green Belt BoundaryC1.14 Policy 16 of the JRSP describes the general extent of the outer Green Belt within B&NES as running 'south of Chew Valley Lake and north of Clutton, High Littleton, Timsbury and Peasedown St. John to the boundary with the Somerset County Council area'. This description remains the same as that set out in the Avon County Structure Plan which provided the strategic framework for the Local Plans that define the current detailed outer Green Belt boundary. C1.15 Only part of the detailed outer Green Belt boundary has been defined in an adopted local plan, i.e. the boundary extending from the North Somerset Council area to land north of Hinton Blewett (covered by the Keynsham and Chew Valley Local Plan). C1.16 The remaining part of the outer boundary, although not statutorily defined, has recently been defined in the Wansdyke Local Plan as amended in September 2000 following consideration of the Public Local Inquiry Inspector's Report. It is not considered that there are any exceptional circumstances which would warrant altering the detailed outer Green Belt boundary as defined in the above mentioned local plans and therefore, no change is proposed. Town and Village InsetsKeynshamC1.17 The urban area of Keynsham is highlighted in the Settlement Classification (Section B, Living and Working) as being a town that is suitable for significant levels of development. The town is excluded from the Green Belt and an Inset boundary is defined on the Proposals Map. C1.18 The exclusion of Keynsham from the Green Belt continues the policy set out in both the Keynsham and Chew Valley Local Plan and the Wansdyke Local Plan which define the detailed boundary. However, it is proposed that the Inset boundary defined in these local plans be amended as described below. C1.19 The JRSP through policies 2(l), 9 and 16 states that a change to the Green Belt boundary should be made at Keynsham to provide primarily for new residential development and associated local employment and social infrastructure. Keynsham has both good rail and bus links to Bath and Bristol and also has a good range of local facilities and services. C1.20 In line with the need to ensure that the separate identity of the town is maintained it is proposed that the Inset boundary be altered to exclude land on the south western side of the town. See policy GDS.1. C1.21 In altering the Green Belt in this area it is proposed that the locally important employment site at Lays Farm also be excluded. This site was formerly in agricultural use and was therefore, closely associated with the countryside. It is now occupied by two established industrial estates, is densely developed and effectively forms part of the adjoining urban area. As such it no longer serves Green Belt purposes. C1.22 In the Broad Mead area the current detailed Inset boundary runs through the site of the former tip which lies to the north of the sewage works. This boundary was defined following discussions with the National Rivers Authority (NRA) at the time of the adoption of the Keynsham and Chew Valley Local Plan. C1.23 More recently the Environment Agency (who superseded the NRA) has confirmed that the whole of the former tip site lies outside the floodplain. The detailed Green Belt boundary has therefore been amended so that it follows not only the flood plain boundary but also the field boundary that delineates the former tip site. This results in the boundary following a readily recognisable feature in accordance with advice set out in PPG2. VillagesC1.24 PPG2 suggests that existing villages within the Green Belt should be inset or excluded from it if limited development, more than infilling, is proposed. For the purposes of the local plan infilling is defined as the filling of small gaps within existing development. C1.25 The settlement strategy of the Local Plan set out in policy SC.1 classifies settlements according to their ability to accommodate development. As a result of this assessment and classification it is proposed that a number of villages be excluded from the Green Belt and Inset boundaries defined. These villages are defined in policy SC.1 as R.1 settlements and include the Green Belt villages of Bathampton, Batheaston, Bathford, Farmborough, Saltford and Whitchurch. C1.26 Inset boundaries have been defined in previously adopted local plans for these villages, with the exception of the Farmborough Inset which was defined for the first time in the Wansdyke Local Plan. There are no exceptional circumstances which would justify amending these Inset boundaries and therefore, they remain unchanged. DEVELOPMENT IN THE GREEN BELTC1.27 In addition to the various policies set out in the Local Plan which seek to control development in the countryside there is a general presumption against inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Only appropriate uses may be permitted, unless very special circumstances can be demonstrated where the harm to the openness and purposes of the Green Belt is clearly outweighed by other considerations. C1.28 The categories of development that are appropriate in a Green Belt are detailed in PPG2. These include the construction of new buildings for agriculture and forestry purposes. Limited infilling in existing villages (classified as R.3 Rural settlements under policy SC.1) is acceptable subject to the provisions of other policies (e.g. see policies HG.6 and ET.4). Limited affordable housing to meet local community needs may also be permissible where the criteria of policy HG.9 are met. C1.29 The role of the countryside within the Green Belt in providing opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation is recognised. Essential facilities for these and other uses of land that preserve the openness of the Green Belt, such as cemeteries, may be acceptable. Other appropriate development may include the limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings (dealt with under policies GB.1, HG.14 and HG.15), the re-use of existing buildings (within the scope of policy ET.9) or the limited infilling or redevelopment of designated existing major developed sites (policy GB.3). C1.30 Policy GB.1 sets out the broad types of development that are acceptable within the Green Belt. The fact that a proposal may be acceptable in principle in terms of policy GB.1 does not mean that it will necessarily be granted planning permission. Other policies of the plan will need to be satisfied.
Visual Amenities of the Green BeltC1.31 In addition to controlling development in order to maintain the openness of the Green Belt, visual amenity is an important quality which should be protected. Development either within or visible from the Green Belt can be visually detrimental if it is inappropriately sited or designed or constructed of inappropriate materials. Policy GB.2 seeks to ensure that such development is not permitted.
MAJOR EXISTING DEVELOPED SITESC1.32 PPG2 recognises that Green Belts contain some major existing developed sites (MEDS), which may be redundant or in continuing use. These sites are subject to the Green Belt policies controlling development. However, MEDS can be identified in the Local Plan and a policy set out for limited infilling within them or their redevelopment. C1.33 In defining and identifying MEDS the advice set out in PPG2 has been used and a two stage approach adopted. Firstly, it has been established whether there are any MEDS within the Green Belt in the District by using the following criteria: site size, building floorspace, footprint, height and mass, area of additional hardstanding and overall pattern of development. Secondly, these sites have been assessed as to whether limited infilling and/or redevelopment is appropriate. Those sites where such development is appropriate have been identified on the Proposals Map and a policy for their development is set out below. C1.34 The MEDS identified in the Local Plan are as follows:
C1.35 Limited infilling and/or redevelopment at the MEDS in employment use can help to support economic activity, thereby securing local jobs. At the educational establishments development may be necessary as part of ongoing changes and improvements to education helping to secure social and economic benefits to the local community. C1.36 To be acceptable infilling must be of an appropriate scale and should not lead to a major increase in the developed proportion of the site. This is necessary in order to ensure that the purposes of the Green Belt are not threatened. C1.37 The complete or partial redevelopment of MEDS, whether redundant or in continuing use, may, in addition to realising the benefits outlined above, provide an opportunity for environmental improvement e.g. through the removal of unsightly buildings and better integration of development with its surroundings. C1.38 Redevelopment should have no greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it. As such it should not exceed the height of existing buildings nor occupy a larger area of the site, unless a reduction in height benefiting visual amenity is achieved. Redevelopment proposals will be considered within the context of the whole site and should be sensitive to their surroundings and take account of all relevant considerations. Therefore, the provisions of policies in addition to GB.3 will need to be met. C1.39 Policy GB.3 sets out whether infilling and/or redevelopment is appropriate. The sites where redevelopment is appropriate include the vacant employment site at Chew Stoke. This site was formerly occupied by Radford Retail Systems for the manufacture of shop refrigerated display units. Its redevelopment for mixed uses, which should include substantial employment provision to ensure that the local economic benefits of the site are maintained, is acceptable subject to the provisions of policy GB.3 and other relevant policies. It is allocated for development under policy GDS.1 which also sets out detailed development requirements. C1.40 Clutton Hill Farm and Burnett Business Park are not identified as sites where redevelopment should be pursued. Whilst redevelopment could lead to environmental improvement, these sites provide accommodation suitable for small or new businesses (starter units). These are crucial to the local economy and as such should be retained.
SAFEGUARDED LANDC1.41 When preparing new local plans PPG2 advises local authorities that any proposals affecting Green Belts should be related to a time-scale which is longer than that adopted for other aspects of the plan. Green Belt boundaries should not need altering at the end of the plan period and in some cases this may mean safeguarding land between an urban area and the Green Belt which may be required to meet longer term development needs. WhitchurchC1.42 In line with both the Keynsham and Chew Valley Local Plan and the Wansdyke Local Plan the Green Belt boundary at Whitchurch runs along Sleep Lane to the south east of the village. The open land between Sleep Lane and the existing built up limits of the village to the west is safeguarded for development pending the outcome of the review of the A37 by-pass (the route for which crosses this land). C1.43 The review will take place as part of a comprehensive study of the A37 corridor. It is intended that the safeguarded land identified on the Proposals Map remains open during the plan period and is treated as Green Belt until such time as the review has been carried out.
| | ||||||||||||||||
|
