Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan Revised Deposit 2003

Chapter C1. Green Belt

INTRODUCTION

C1.1 Green Belts are designated primarily in order to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. As such they help to shape patterns of urban development, protect the countryside and provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation.

C1.2 PPG2 (Green Belts) which sets out National advice outlines a presumption against inappropriate development which could harm the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it. Green Belts are established through the development plan. The Bristol/Bath Green Belt was designated in 1966 in the Gloucestershire and Somerset County Development Plans. It has been retained in the Avon County Structure Plan and the JRSP.

C1.3 PPG2 details both the purposes of including land in Green Belts and objectives for the use of land within them. The purposes of including land in Green Belts are of paramount importance to their continued protection and should take precedence over the land use objectives.

C1.4 The purposes of the Green Belt within B&NES Bath & North East Somerset are summarised below. The positive use of land in the Green Belt within the District should be encouraged in order to pursue a number of objectives that are also summarised below. The purposes and objectives generally reflect advice set out in PPG2.

GREEN BELT BOUNDARY

C1.5 The JRSP sets out the general extent of the Bristol/Bath Green Belt in Policy 16 and represents it on the Key Diagram. Its general extent within B&NES the District is illustrated in Diagram 9.

C1.6 Within this strategic context the Local Plan establishes the detailed boundaries of the Green Belt. PPG2 states that detailed boundaries defined in adopted plans or earlier approved development plans should be altered only exceptionally.

C1.7 Most of the detailed Green Belt boundaries in B&NES the District have been defined in adopted local plans covering various parts of the District. Part of the detailed boundary has not been statutorily approved between Clutton and Shoscombe, but has been recently defined in the Wansdyke Local Plan which has reached an advanced stage in the statutory process (see paragraph C1.16).

Top of page

Top of page

C1.8 In addition to the need to address minor anomalies, changes to the Green Belt boundary are proposed in two three locations. At Keynsham where JRSP policies 2(l), 9 and 16 provide for a change (see paragraphs C1.17 to C1.24) These proposed alterations relate to the inner boundary around Bath at Newbridge, Claverton Down and at Weston in Bath where an alteration is proposed (see paragraphs C1.11 C1.9 – C1.12). The detailed Green Belt boundary is shown on the Proposals Map.

Bath Inner Green Belt Boundary

C1.9 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.

C1.10A Alterations to the Green Belt boundary are proposed in three locations. At Newbridge it is proposed to change the boundary in order to accommodate the provision of a transport interchange and civic amenity site associated with the redevelopment of Western Riverside .

C1.10B The regeneration of Western Riverside will be of considerable benefit to the City and the District as a whole. In order to secure this regeneration it is necessary to relocate the existing civic amenity facility and to provide a transport interchange, incorporating a significant level of car parking which can not be accommodated within the development area. Western Riverside will be linked to this parking provision and the City centre by a Rapid Transit system (see paragraphs D6.1 – D6.3).

 C1.10C Most of the Western Riverside related vehicular traffic travelling from outside Bath will originate from areas to the west. The transport interchange needs to be able to serve a number of important transport corridors (principally the A4, A39 and A431). Sites of a sufficient size are not available within Bath and in order to minimise visual impact on the surrounding countryside it is preferable that the facility is situated in close proximity to the urban area. As such the Newbridge area represents the most appropriate location.

 C1.10D Whilst Annex E of PPG13 makes it clear that in certain circumstances park and ride development is not inappropriate in Green Belts (see paragraph C1.29A and policy GB.1A) it is likely that, given the required capacity, the scale of built infrastructure necessary would compromise the purposes of the Green Belt and would be inappropriate development within it. Therefore, it is necessary to change the boundary.

 C1.10E The proposed revised boundary follows the River Avon , A4 and the railway line and is defined on the Proposals Map. The area of land removed from the Green Belt is subject to a number of constraints, including flooding, nature conservation interests and visual impacts of development. The land is allocated under policy GDS.1 for the provision of a transport interchange and civic amenity facility and is of a sufficient size to accommodate these uses whilst ensuring that the identified constraints can be satisfactorily addressed.

C1.10F A change to the Green Belt boundary is also proposed on the eastern side of the University of Bath Campus at Claverton Down. The University is of considerable importance to the area, not only as an educational establishment but through its contribution to the local economy and as the site for the English Institute of Sport (SW). It is vital that its future development is facilitated and its presence in Bath is maintained. Exceptional circumstances exist that warrant changing the Green Belt boundary in terms of the need for expansion in order to meet national government priorities, the spatial requirement of this expansion and the lack of suitable alternative sites within Bath.

C1.10G The amended Green Belt boundary follows the campus boundary and is defined on the Proposals Map. The land removed from the Green Belt is allocated for University related uses under policy GDS.1. This land also lies within the Cotswolds AONB and therefore, the type and scale of development will continue to be strictly controlled.

C1.11 At Weston Aan 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 these alterations, 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 of 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 Boundary

C1.13 The inner Green Belt boundary for Bristol that falls within B&NES Bath & North East Somerset  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 Boundary

C1.14 Policy 16 of the JRSP describes the general extent of the outer Green Belt within B&NES the District 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.

Top of page

Town and Village Insets

Keynsham

C1.17 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. However, a change to the Green Belt boundary is not proposed at Keynsham for these purposes as the dwelling requirement can be accommodated in other ways (see chapter B7. Housing).  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 from the Green Belt. 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.

Villages

C1.24 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.

Top of page

DEVELOPMENT IN THE GREEN BELT

C1.27 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).

C1.29A PPG13: Transport published in March 2001 states that in certain circumstances park & ride development is not inappropriate in Green Belts.  A thorough and comprehensive assessment of potential sites both within and outside the Green Belt needs to have been undertaken which must establish that the proposed Green Belt site is the most sustainable option.  The development itself should not seriously compromise the purposes of including land in the Green Belt and the proposal should come forward through the Local Transport Plan.  Policy GB.1A sets out the policy in relation to such development. 

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.

Top of page

Top of page

Visual Amenities of the Green Belt

C1.31 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.

Top of page

MAJOR EXISTING DEVELOPED SITES

C1.32 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:

1. Bath Spa University College, Newton Park
2. Clutton Hill Farm, Clutton
3. Former Radford Retail Systems site, Chew Stoke
4. Prior Park College, Claverton Down
5. Culverhay School, Rush Hill
6. Portals site, Bathford Paper Mill, Bathford
7. Chew Valley School, Chew Magna
8. Monkton Combe School, Monkton Combe
9. Ralph Allen School, Claverton Down
10. Burnett Business Park, Burnett
11. Oldfield School , Newbridge

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 is not identified as a sites where redevelopment should be pursued. Whilst redevelopment could lead to environmental improvement, these this sites provides accommodation suitable for small or new businesses (starter units). These are Such accommodation is crucial to the local economy and as such should be retained.        

C1.40A Burnett Business Park provides local employment opportunities within the rural area close to Keynsham.  Redevelopment of the western part for employment uses could lead to environmental improvement, as well as helping to secure its future as a rural employment site.  The eastern part is occupied by a series of partially visible bunkers and is essentially open in character.  As such this part of the site is not suitable for redevelopment.

Top of page

Top of page

SAFEGUARDED LAND

C1.41 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.

Whitchurch

C1.42 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.

Farmborough

 C1.44 At Farmborough an area of safeguarded land is defined at the south west end of the village between the Housing Development Boundary and the Green Belt boundary. This land is safeguarded in order to provide a longer term development opportunity in a village that is tightly constrained by the Green Belt.

Top of page