Local Plan - List of Revisions

PM Inset 31

B7/A

5001/B151

PM Inset 31

B7/B

2979/B1, 3297/B1, 5001/B83

B7.5

B7.5/B

Editorial changes

B&NES BATH & NORTH EAST SOMERSET CONTEXT

Local Plan policies take forward these national and strategic policies into the B&NES Bath & North East Somerset context. The Council’s Planning Services have worked jointly with the Housing Services in assessing the range of needs for different types and sizes of housing across all tenures in the area.

Para B7.7 to B7.10

B7.10 Having undertaken an Urban Housing Capacity study it is anticipated that B&NES is in the position to contribute to meeting this figure by increasing its provision to 6,200 dwellings. This figure is proposed in a Further Modification to the JRSP placed on Deposit in December 2001. The Plan therefore is based on this level of provision as an interim position prior to agreement on the Secretary of State's Direction.

Para B7.17 and new paras B7.17A & B

5001/B138

B7.17D In terms of the role of the Local Plan, the provision of affordable housing through Policies HG.8 and HG.9 may help to address homelessness. A variety of forms of temporary accommodation can also provide preferable accommodation, e.g. living over the shop type accommodation, which is encouraged through Policy HG.12. Proposals for purpose built temporary accommodation (e.g. hostels) will be treated on their merits and will be judged against a range of policies in the Plan.

(last row)

TAB2/A

Editorial change

All of B&NES Bath & North East Somerset

9

24

45

22

(last row)

TAB3/A

Editorial change

Table 3: Future Housing Requirements of Existing Households and Concealed Households* seeking to move now or in next five years (2000-2005)

All of B&NES Bath & North East Somerset

14

31

36

19

B7.19

2466/B3

In the first 5 7 years of the Plan period about 2,330 2,870 dwellings were completed in the District – 980 1,210 in Bath, 90 160 in Keynsham, 310 400 in Norton-Radstock and 950 1,100 in the rural areas.

B7.20

B7.20/A

Changes to reflect updated housing figures

B7.21

B7.21/A

695/B8

B7.22

B7.22/A

Editorial update

To inform this approach the Council carried out an Urban Housing Capacity Study (UHCS) during 2001 2003. The study aimed to establish how much additional housing could be accommodated in the urban areas of Bath, Keynsham and Norton-Radstock and therefore how much greenfield land will be needed to meet the JRSP requirement. The summary findings of the study have been published.

B7.23

B7.23/B

3233/B7 (60%...)

Meeting the JRSP Dwelling Requirement

B7.25/I

5001/B187

Diagram 8

DIAG8/A

2466/B9,

Amend to reflect the situation at 1 April 2003.

Para B7.27

B7.27/A

New para B7.27A

B7.27A/A

721/B29

B7.27A Where planning permissions lapse through non-implementation applications for their renewal will be reviewed and considered in light of the approach set out in PPG3 and the Overall Strategy of the Plan, including the priority for developing brownfield sites.

B7.29

B7.29/B

2/B49, 3264/B9, 3264/B8

In accordance with the Plan’s Overall Strategy, Bath offers the greatest potential and sites with a total capacity of about 1,000 1,480 dwellings are identified under Policy GDS.1. Key among those are large mixed use developments on land at Western Riverside and the MoD site at Foxhill. Together these sites are expected to contribute around 800 1,100 dwellings during the Plan period.

B7.30

B7.30/B

Change arising from deletion of site GDS.1/V2

At Keynsham there is a limited number of large brownfield sites, primarily the Somerdale factory. At Norton-Radstock, the regeneration of the Radstock railway land site will contribute around 90 of the expected total of 240 dwellings on previously developed sites. 100 dwellings, although the capacity could be greater provided a robust mixed-use scheme is achieved, ecological interests are taken into account, the character of the town is maintained or enhanced and the transport corridor is retained. Development of this site will have a significant impact on the rest of the town centre. Any proposals coming forward for development on other town centre sites and their relationship with the railway land site will need to be assessed carefully against the Local Plan policy framework. In rural settlements there are few opportunities for sustainable development of brownfield land. Three Two sites are identified; one at Paulton which utilises former printing work buildings; one at Peasedown St. John on the former abattoir site and one at the Major Existing Developed Site at Chew Stoke (see Policy GB.3).

B7.31

B7.31/A

3233/B8, 3251/B23

PPG3 advises that an allowance should be made for windfall sites which comprise previously developed sites that unexpectedly come forward. Based on assessment of future potential through the UHCS and analysing past trends this source is expected to provide some 260 270 dwellings over the next 10 8 years. Over half of this total is expected to arise within Bath with more limited contributions in the towns and rural areas. Proposals can come forward within the ambit of policies HG.4, 5, and 6.

B7.32

B7.32/A

3233/B8

An allowance is also made for the contribution that will be made by small windfall sites and residential conversions within the Plan period. These are sites with an area of under 0.5 ha and with a dwellings capacity of under 10. Based on past experience and an assessment of potential an average of around 73 dwellings will be built each year on such sites until 2011. This gives a total of 730 580 and most of these will come forward as infill sites in Bath, the towns and villages, within the ambit of policies HG.3, 4, 5 and 6.

B7.35

5001/B189

With more than 400 200 long term empty properties in the District in 2001 2003 it is clear there is great potential for their re-use to make a significant contribution to the housing stock. Targets in the Council's 2001 Housing Strategy could be achieved if appropriate new measures to encourage their re-use are introduced. The Council is proactively seeking to reduce the number of empty properties and it is estimated that at least 150 about 90 (15 11 per year) can be brought back into use by 2011.

B7.37

3092/B5, 3233/B10

In Bath there is limited capacity for greenfield development because of character and Green Belt constraints. However, four One sites are is identified which are is carried forward from the previous local plans after assessment against PPG3 sustainability criteria. These sites at The site in the Bailbrook area, rear of Englishcombe Lane, rear of Bloomfield Drive and at Bailbrook Lane have has an overall a capacity of about 150 20 dwellings. Requirements needed to bring the sites forward are set out in policy GDS.1.

B7.38

B7.38/A

Change arising from deletion of site GDS.1/K2, 3299/B21, 2466/B9, 3092/B5, 2306/B9, 3299/B22, 3233/B10

At Keynsham the JRSP policies 2(I), 9 and 16 provide for changes to the Green Belt towards housing requirements while maintaining the town’s separate identity. Around 20 ha of land is identified adjoining South West Keynsham which will provide some 500 homes, local employment, community facilities and environmental enhancements.

B7.39

B7.39/A

Change arising from deletion of site GDS.1/K2, 3299/B21, 2466/B9, 3092/B5, 2306/B9, 3299/B22, 3233/B10

It provides an opportunity to create a high quality built environment utilising and enhancing the existing advantages of the town. The proximity to the Community Forest presents a unique opportunity to utilise and add to the woodland setting of this part of the town. Policy GDS.1 set out the site requirements to enable the site to proceed.

B7.40

Change arising from deletion of site GDS.1/NR1, 3092/B5, 3233/B10

With considerable existing housing commitments the priority in Norton-Radstock is to promote additional economic development. Only limited two greenfield housing sites are required sites are identified, these being and two of these at Folly Hill, Chilcompton Road and Kilmersdon Road, Haydon, both of which carry a forward previous commitments. The third on land south of Charlton Park, Midsomer Norton is part of a mixed-use scheme which also includes employment, recreational and community facilities. Policy GDS.1 sets out site requirements to enable development.

B7.43

B7.43/A

Change arising from deletion of site GDS.1/V9, 3092/B5, 3233/B10

In addition to the brownfield sites allocated at Paulton, Peasedown St. John and Chew Stoke, greenfield sites are identified in policy GDS.1 at Batheaston, Farmborough, and High Littleton and Timsbury.

B7.45 and new paras B7.45A & B

B7.45B/A

B7.45B The development of both brownfield and greenfield sites will be carefully monitored to assess whether the phasing objectives are being achieved and that a continuing supply of housing land is coming forward.

B7.46

B7.46/A

2380/B3, 485/B9

Bath provides the greatest opportunity to prioritise brownfield development. Major opportunities at Western Riverside and MoD Foxhill will bring about the development of around 800 dwellings in the Plan period. Ownership, infrastructure, contamination constraints and size of the sites is likely to mean that some of this capacity is unlikely to come forward until after 2006. There are other brownfield sites such as the former CIC Ralphs/Clarks site where development is expected to take place at an earlier date.

B7.47

B7.47/A

2380/B3, 485/B9

B7.48

B7.48/A

2380/B3, 485/B9, 2466/B9

B7.49

B7.49/A

2380/B3, 485/B9, 2466/B9

To assist in bringing this site forward and in order not to prejudice brownfield development at Bath the major greenfield development site in south west Keynsham will not be released until after 2006. This will also enable town centre improvements, including the development of a new supermarket to be in place to serve the new development. In order to ensure that adequate infrastructure and community facilities are provided, requirements for development are set out in policy GDS.1.

B7.50

B7.50/A

2380/B3, 578/B82, 3278/B15, 485/B9

At Norton-Radstock substantial existing housing commitments mean that in order to redress the imbalance between employment and housing it is essential that economic development improvements set out in Policy ET.2 are implemented prior to any further new greenfield housing sites being developed.

B7.51

B7.51/A

578/B63, 3099/B18,, 578/B82, 3278/B15, 485/B9

There are three exceptions to this. One site at Folly Hill and the other at Haydon are at an advanced stage in the application process and are therefore, likely to be developed during the 2001-2006 period. The third site on land south of Charlton Park is allocated for mixed use development which will provide economic and community benefits as well as around 90 dwellings.

B7.52

B7.52/A

2380/B3, 578/B82, 3278/B15, 485/B9

At this time further greenfield sites are not allocated in Norton-Radstock. This position will be reviewed in light of the implementation of economic development in the town and as the JRSP is reviewed.

B7.53

B7.53/A

2380/B3, 485/B9

B7.54

B7.54/A

2380/B3, 485/B9

Overall the phasing approach is aimed at bringing about the early development of previously developed sites throughout the District and enabling a continuing supply of housing land to come forward. Completion rates and the availability of sites will need to be monitored to ensure that this is achieved and to determine whether the release of greenfield sites as set out in policy HG.3 is appropriate.

Policy HG.3

HG.3/A

2380/B3, 3299/B32, 485/B9

V9. Land west of Brookside Drive, Farmborough.

B7.55

B7.55/A

2380/B3, 485/B9

2006 to 2011 - 1,890

B7.56

B7.56/B

721/B28

Paras B7.31 - B7.34 above recognise that not all brownfield sites, both large and small, can be accurately identified and allowances are made for the contribution that will be made as windfall sites. Large site opportunities will be are most likely to emerge in Bath, but some opportunities could arise in Keynsham and Norton-Radstock and in the 13 R.1 villages identified in policy SC.1. In the R.1 villages such opportunities are likely to be more limited, but may help to maintain social and economic vitality of the rural areas and contribute towards meeting affordable housing needs (see paras B7.68 - 7.82A). Small windfall sites through development of infill plots and through conversion or sub-divisions can also make a valuable contribution to meeting housing needs in all of these settlements.

Policy HG.4

HG.4/A

3097/B7, 3080/B1, 3300/B7

PM Inset 11a

HG.4/B

5001/B137

PM Inset 11a

HG.4/C

591/B49

PM Inset 19

HG.4/D

3231/B1, 3079/B5

PM Inset 19

HG.4/E

2267/B3

PM Inset 19

HG.4/F

5001/B80

PM Inset 21

HG.4/G

See Chapter B9, Table C

B7.61

Change arising from changes to Policy ET.1

In the 8 villages identified in SC.1 as R.2 settlements housing schemes are limited to small groups of dwellings or infilling of brownfield sites within the limits of development in order to maintain village character and prevent unsustainable patterns of development. In practice the scope for future development in these villages is very limited and areas within which schemes may be acceptable are defined on the Proposals Map by an HDB. Reference also needs to be made to other relevant local plan policies, particularly policies ET.1(A-D) and CF.1 and the need for careful design and protection of environment.

Policy HG.5

HG.5/A

3302/B1

B7.62

B7.62/A

345/B22

In the 20 Green Belt villages classed as R.3 settlements in Policy SC.1, new housing development is restricted to infilling i.e. the filling of a small gap within the existing development – in line with the approach set out in PPG2. The development must also be within existing settlement limits and not prejudice the purposes of the Green Belt. The Proposals Map defines HDBs within which infilling on brownfield land may be acceptable. Also generally acceptable within the defined HDB would be satisfactory schemes for the conversion of non-residential buildings and sub division or replacement of existing buildings.

Policy HG.6

HG.6/A

3302/B1

PM Inset 7

HG.6/B

5001/B42

Amend Housing Development Boundary to include Druid View and Twyford.

PM Inset 27

HG.6/C

5001/B42

PM Inset 33

HG.6/D

2262/B2, 2995/B1

Affordable Housing Heading

B7.68/A

Editorial change

AFFORDABLE HOUSING HOMES

B7.72

B7.72/A

Editorial change

After excluding concealed households which can afford to purchase a dwelling and those on the waiting list and making a discount for two person households the affordable concealed need is 1,554 in 1999. Taking account of those on the Common Housing Register, homeless, the relets re-lets available from the current stock, and projections for population growth, the affordable housing need at April 2006 is estimated to be 1,732. This excludes 935 households planning to leave the area because of a lack of affordable housing.

B7.73

2057/B4

As a result of the relationship between house prices and wages in the area all of these will need to be subsidised housing. As well as rented accommodation, this could include shared-equity dwellings where the occupant part-owns and part-rents the property from a social landlord. In addition there is scope for a limited number of low-cost market dwellings to meet the needs of those concealed households which are able to access the housing market. These will be largely in parts of the District where house prices are lower such as Norton-Radstock. In Bath, Keynsham and many villages this is unlikely to meet affordable homes needs However, the affordability of low-cost market dwellings will be dependent upon the relationship between household income and local house prices, which can vary considerably over time. Self-build housing may also need to be considered as a form of affordable housing if it can be secured as affordable in perpetuity.

B7.76

B7.76/A

2311/B4, 732/B19, 2260/B1

Government advice in PPG3 states that where there is a demonstrable lack of affordable housing to meet local needs - as assessed by up-to-date surveys and other information - local plans should include a policy for seeking affordable homes on suitable developments. In line with this and JRSP pPolicy 35 the aim is to seek to negotiate with developers for an element of affordable housing homes will be sought on suitable sites in Bath, the towns Keynsham, Norton-Radstock, and R.1 villages, rural settlements and elsewhere, both those allocated in pPolicy GDS.1 and windfalls arising from HG.4.

B7.78

B7.78/B

3299/B14

A target of at least 1,732 additional affordable homes by 2006 represents about 50% of the residual large site housing requirement at 1.4.1999. A further Housing Needs Survey will be carried out later in the Plan period and, given current trends, this may reveal and even greater need for affordable homes in the District. Even allowing for a contribution of affordable homes from small sites or re-use of empty residential properties, there will still be a large shortfall in provision unless a very high percentage is sought on all large allocated and windfall sites. Government guidance on site size thresholds on which an element of affordable housing can be sought is set out in Circular 6/98 on Planning and Affordable Housing.

B7.79

B7.79/A

3299/B14

Restricting provision in the urban areas and larger villages to sites of 25 or more dwellings or 1 hectare or more as set out in the Circular would further diminish potential supply. Policy HG.8 is supported by Supplementary Planning Guidance, which gives more detail in terms of the proportion of affordable homes that will be sought on sites falling within the thresholds set out below. The percentage figure is based on the most recent Housing Needs Survey and, if necessary, will be amended to reflect the findings of future Surveys. Developers are encouraged to contact the Local Planning Authority in order to discuss affordable housing requirements at the earliest possible stage.

B7.80 (formerly text was part of para B7.78 & para B7.79)

B7.80/A

696/B20

Given this and taking account of the need to consider issues of suitability and viability, the Plan sets a target of 30% affordable homes to be sought on housing developments of 15 or more dwellings or residential sites of 0.5 ha or more allocated or coming forward as windfalls in Bath, Keynsham, Norton-Radstock, Peasedown St John and Paulton. Government guidance on site size thresholds on which an element of affordable housing can be sought is set out in Circular 06/98 on Planning and Affordable Housing. Restricting provision in the urban areas and larger villages to sites of 25 or more dwellings or 1 hectare or more, as set out in the Circular, would further diminish potential supply.

New Para 7.80A

B7.80A/A

5001/B107

However, Circular 06/98 (paragraph 10i)c) also advises that Local Planning Authorities outside London may require contributions towards affordable homes on developments of 15 dwellings or more, or on residential sites of 0.5 ha or more, if this can be justified by exceptional circumstances. Given the level of need for affordable homes in the District, and taking account of the need to consider issues of site suitability and viability, it is justifiable to set a threshold at this level on sites that are allocated or that come forward as windfalls in Bath, Keynsham, Norton-Radstock, Saltford, Peasedown St. John and Paulton.

B7.81

B7.81/B

3099/B21

For the same reasons, in smaller villages with a population of less than 3000 where there will be more limited opportunities, the site threshold will be residential developments of 10 or more dwellings or residential sites of 0.5 ha or more. The same threshold will apply to windfall sites coming forward outside settlements defined in Policy SC.1. On-site provision will be a priority in all cases where an affordable homes contribution is sought. However, in exceptional circumstances the Council will consider off-site provision.

B7.82

B7.82/B

2466/B9

In Bath this should deliver around 400 570 affordable homes, in Keynsham 190 30, in Norton-Radstock 100 110 and around 100 90 in rural villages. These figures take account of residential development coming forward on sites allocated in Policy GDS.1, windfall sites and sites with an outstanding planning permission at April 2003.

New para B7.82A

B7.82A/A

890/B19, 746/B13

Prior to granting planning permission, the Council will wish to satisfy itself that the affordable homes will be occupied initially and in perpetuity by people who in the first instance are in need of such accommodation and are either already a resident of, or have strong local connections with, the District. Being employed within the District will be considered to represent a strong local connection and will enable key workers to access affordable accommodation. Examples of arrangements to ensure that these requirements are met are given in para B7.89 below.

Policy HG.8

2604/B4, 890/B19

Based on the findings of the most recent Housing Needs Survey, a target of 30% significant proportion of affordable dwellings homes will be sought within the scope of pPolicy GDS.1 where any residential development is proposed, and policy HG.4 on all other sites falling within the site size thresholds set out in the Local Plan, taking account of the site’s suitability in terms of:

B7.84

B7.84/A

Editorial change (update)

It is envisaged that some local needs housing will be met within the terms of policies GDS.1 and HG.4, 5, and 6. However, the 2000 Housing Survey shows a need for around 380 affordable homes in rural areas by 2005. Completions of affordable homes in rural areas on non exceptions sites since 1999, together with that being sought on sites allocated in policy GDS.1 and expected contribution from large windfall sites, amounts to a total of around 110 80 dwellings. Therefore particular needs which cannot be met under these policies may justify the release of other land in special circumstances and this eventuality is allowed in policy HG.9.

B7.88

B7.88/A

Editorial change

Under the special arrangements set out in HG.9 the Council will wish to be satisfied that there is a demonstrable local need for affordable housing. Evidence of this will be expected to be forthcoming from the Local Authority's own Common Housing Register and from detailed surveys to be carried out by Parish Councils or other recognised bodies in co-operation with B&NES Bath & North East Somerset Housing Services.

Para B7.100

B7.100/A

Editorial change (update)

Sub-division of existing dwellings can play an important role in the improvement in the condition of the housing stock and contribute to the supply and range of dwellings. With growing numbers of single person and small households they can help meet the need for smaller affordable homes. Between 1996 and 2001 2003 61 83 new dwellings were provided in this way and around another 120 100 are expected in the rest of the Plan period with most opportunities occurring in Bath.

B7.107

B7.107/A

Editorial change

Houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) are an important element of the local housing market which can provide an acceptable standard of accommodation at an affordable price. It is estimated that around 3000 houses are currently in multiple occupation ranging from small shared houses to large buildings seperated separated into partly self contained apartments. In assessing the planning merits of individual HMOs there will be a need to balance their housing contribution against their impact on the surrounding area and residential amenities.

B7.112

B7.112/A

Editorial change

Parking provision will be considered in the context of policy T.27 having regard to accessibility to local facilities and availability of public transport and other transport modes. Schemes involving retail premises will also be assessed against policies S.6, S.9 and S.10 S.5, S.8 and S.9.

B7.113

B7.113/A

723/B30

Bearing in mind the need to create and retain a mix of housing, the aim of reducing the need to travel and reducing the amount of greenfield land needed for housing, it is desirable wherever possible to prevent the loss of existing or potential residential accommodation through demolition or change of use.

B7.114

B7.114/A

723/B30

B7.116

B7.116/A

723/B30

Many older properties in Bath were originally built as housing which over the years have changed to other uses such as offices. The reinstatement to residential purposes would provide more housing, and may have conservation and listed building benefits. Therefore in considering development proposals the Council will seek to retain the future possibility of the restoration of such buildings to residential use whether the property is in use or vacant (see also policy ET.1). However, there may be circumstances where an alternative use is acceptable. Substantial conservation benefits may be achieved through a non-residential use, or a change of use to a hotel, guest house or to provide bed and breakfast accommodation, in accordance with Policy ET.13.

B7.117

B7.117/A

723/B30

Policy HG.13

HG.13/B

723/B30, 5010/B222

in the case of (b), environmental, economic development or practical considerations are such that there is no reasonable prospect of achieving a residential use.

B7.118

B7.118/A

3097/B12

Within the urban area and villages defined in policy SC.1, proposals for the replacement of dwellings, because of dereliction or some other reason, would be considered within the context of policies HG.4, 5 or 6. Policy HG.14 lays down criteria for considering proposals for replacing or rebuilding substandard existing dwellings outside such settlements where there is normally a presumption against new dwellings (see HG.10).

Policy HG.14

HG.14/C

3097/B12

B7.121

2460/B3

Residential moorings are analogous to mobile homes and can play a useful role in helping to meet the housing requirements of the District, including the need for affordable homes. They are subject to the same considerations as other forms of residential development, such as the impact on the character and appearance of the landscape, countryside and conservation areas, affect on nature conservation sites, access to facilities and services, and inappropriateness in the Green Belt apply.

B7.123

B7.123/C

5012/B5

PPG1 sets out the Government’s general approach to design considerations. Many planning applications relate to relatively small extensions or alterations to individual dwellings or similar ‘householder’ developments. Planning applications will be assessed against Urban Design policies set out in Section A5 of the Local Plan. The main objectives with householder projects are to secure schemes which are satisfactory in terms of their effect on the dwelling itself, on adjacent dwellings and on the local area generally. In addition, projects should be assessed in terms of their implications for highway safety and car parking.

B7.124

B7.124/A

5012/B5

The main objectives with householder projects are to secure schemes which are satisfactory in terms of their effect on the dwelling itself, on adjacent dwellings and on the local area generally. In terms of design, planning applications will be assessed against Urban Design policies set out in Section A5 of the Local Plan. These policies relate not only to the appearance of the development, but also to its impact upon residential amenity. Parking and access issues are dealt with in Policies T.24 and T.26. Where proposals for ‘granny annexes’ are put forward the use of legal agreements may be considered to ensure that the total property is retained as a single dwelling.

B7.129

B7.129/B

1427/B66

In both rural and urban areas the nature and the consideration of a proposed gypsy site will vary in terms of its location, size, type, characteristics and level of servicing. It will be important to consider the effect of the gypsy site on the visual amenities of the area, as well as the effect on local residents and highway safety. Proposals for mixed-use sites, residential and small scale business uses run by gypsies, will also be considered within the context of Policy HG.16. On-site business activities associated with the gypsies can cause significant levels of pollution, noise and disturbance and have implications on highway safety from the movement of vehicles, and affect the visual amenities of the area.

Policy HG.16

HG.16/E

(all changes)

B7.134

B7.134/A

3309/B3

Current proposals set out in the University's Masterplan increase academic, sporting and student accommodation on campus providing an additional 950 student bedrooms. This together with other accommodation within the City recently given planning permission should meet current needs over the next 10 years.

New para B7.134A

B7.134A/A

3309/B3

However, the University needs to further expand in order to meet government priorities and objectives for higher education, including widening participation, increasing the recruitment of overseas students and taking a greater role in regional economic development. In addition there is an opportunity to build on the University’s status as a major centre for sporting excellence, including developing an allied academic School of Sport. Therefore, there will be a need for further student accommodation beyond that outlined in the Masterplan and policy GDS.1 allocates land to help meet both student and academic needs on campus.

B7.135

B7.135/A

5001/B185

Bath Spa University College is located at two campuses at Newton Park, Newton St Loe and Somerset Place in Bath. Student numbers have increased from 1,000 in 1988 to 4,000 (3,400 full time (in 2001 and the College is seeking additional managed residential accommodation for 350-400 students to meet its expansion needs for the foreseeable future. Planning permission was granted in 2003 for student accommodation at Lower Bristol Road, which will provide an additional 316 spaces and contributes towards meeting these needs.

New para B7.135A

B7.135A/A

2/B48

The University College will be encouraged to produce a Masterplan which sets out its future expansion proposals. It is envisaged that this will include an evaluation of the Newton Park campus’s capacity to accommodate additional development without compromising Green Belt policy.

B7.138

B7.138/A

Change arising from change to Policy ET.1

In this context any proposals will be assessed against a range of policies in the Local Plan which seek, for example, to protect existing employment uses (ET.1A-D) or residential accommodation (HG.13).

HG.17

HG.17/A

5010/B212