Meeting documents

Appendix 2

Key issues arising from comments on Core Strategy Launch and the Futures consultation

Core Strategy Launch

District wide (856 comments)

o Policies should address climate change, renewable energy, reduce reliance on private car, implications of flood risk, protection and enhancement of the natural environment.

o Provide the effective protection of areas of landscape value including AONBs, as well as the Green Belt, Conservation Areas, listed buildings, World Heritage Site and its buffer zone, distinctiveness of each of the individual towns and villages.

o New housing should be linked with demand and development focussed around existing social and economic infrastructure. Meeting identified affordable housing needs is vital. Some consider 35% affordable housing should be raised to 65% and others that 35% is unrealistic for all new housing. .Key-worker housing is an essential and emphasis should be on shared equity provision to enable local people to contribute to the local economy

o More intensive use of brown field sites and existing buildings before allocating new land. Well integrated mixed use would actively assist in creating self contained sustainable communities. Provision of local facilities is key to creating cohesive communities. Conclusions of employment and retail studies should inform key employment locations and more reliance on partnerships with the private sector for delivery.

o District/town centres should maintain their vitality and viability with a more diverse mix of retailers. Important that access to convenience goods is maintained across the district particularly in rural areas.

o Public transport services greatly improved and Park & Ride facilities increased. A36/A46 link road needed as is a by-pass to Saltford to relieve the ongoing problems of congestion. Also an integrated public transport system, the South Bristol Ring Road linking the A4, A37, A38 and A370, a southern bypass to Bath, redundant railway routes reutilised.

Bath (710 comments)

Growth, Development and Environment Quality

o Overall growth forecasts questioned i.e. population, household and economic growth projections underlying the RSS. Questions as to whether lower forecasts would negate the need for an urban extension.

o Doubts expressed concerning the ability of the city to accommodate anticipated growth in housing, employment and retail in a manner that will compliment the look, feel and functioning of the place i.e. impacts on townscape, WHS, quality of life and transport infrastructure.

o The question needs to be asked `what harm will be done to the city if growth levels are suppressed'?

o Ensure that existing landscape and wildlife designations are maintained

Economy

o Mixed response to growth agenda ranging from `ensure that the city can respond to market signals' to `Bath should not be expected to grow at regional rates, this will accelerate its destruction'.

o Established employment areas should be protected from other uses or if redeveloped ensure an appropriate level of employment space as part of a new mix of uses e.g. along the Lower Bristol Road.

o Tourism and retailing will be remain key component of the economy so these sector must be `looked after', alongside any attempt to diversify the economic base. Such an attempt should look to accommodate companies `spinning-out' of the universities.

o Ensure small to medium sized enterprises have the space they need and provides a choice options for them to expand if they so wish. New space should be accessible by a variety of means of transport.

o Explore the option of encouraging more growth in Keynsham and Norton Radstock if Bath cannot physically accommodate.

o Council needs to grasp the Dyson opportunity - good for the image of the city and respond to market signals.

o Bath should not be expected to grow at regional rates. This will accelerate its destruction.

Housing

o A desire to see the optimum use made of redevelopment opportunities within the city before an urban extension is countenanced.

o Range of views on affordable housing provision - developers generally wish to retain the target of 35% on qualifying schemes, others promote a higher target.

o Expectation that developments will bear the cost of the demand they generate for social infrastructure and transport improvements.

o Sustainable construction methods and sustainable buildings a must

o An interest in seeing how the development of new retail space at Southgate will be taken up and how it will impact on the existing retail core. Caution against planning a Southgate II before the effect of Southgate I is understood.

o Need expressed to ensure a diverse as opposed to an expanded shopping offer from boutique to budget and from independent to multiple.

o The health and vitality of local suburban shopping needs should not be neglected. Population growth may require additional shops within existing residential areas. A view that south Bath's needs better food shopping provision

o Rejection of retailers who require large `sheds' given the scarcity of land in the city and competing uses for that land.

o Negative impact of on-street parking in city centre and on traffic in general

o Concern that high density development will be needed and that this is not compatible with a high quality public realm

o Multi user public space needed

o Street clutter - road signage everywhere should be rationalised or removed.

o Pedestrian environment very poor/dangerous in places e.g. Gay Street/ George Street Junction

o Council's emerging public realm and movement strategy is too narrowly focused on the city centre.

o Support for any measures/proposal to make more of the riverside environment as an asset.

o Any redevelopment of the Podium/ Hilton/ Cattlemarket, Manvers Street, Avon Street must make the most of the riverside location

o Recognition of contribution to the economy and image of the city.

o University expansion and student housing a popular issue. Preference expressed for a mixed approach to student accommodation, with some additional space on campus coupled with purpose built urban sites. Urban sites should pair new accommodation with teaching space and other basic facilities.

o A need to widen and increase the range of accommodation types on offer as part of a wider tourism strategy for Bath.

o Associated conference facilities /concert hall/casino would benefit the city perhaps at BWR East.

o Tourism info office needed at the train station/ public transport interchange

o Basic visitor facilities such as public toilets are lacking or sub-standard.

o Reduce town centre car parking

o Reduce bus fares and increase frequency and reliability

o More bus and cycle lanes need

o Operate Park and Ride over longer hours

o Joined up thinking needed i.e. cost of return bus fare versus cost of short stay car parking.

o Open up the river as a means of transport

o Subsidise secondary school bus travel

o Proposed Park and Ride at Lambridge is too close to the city and needs to be further to the east

Bath Urban Extension (259 comments)

o Clarification needed of the relationship between the WHS buffer zone project and the proposal for an urban extension.

o A desire to protect existing historic rural settlements, their landscape settings and the quality of life of the communities that reside their.

o Concerns about the traffic implications on roads

o Mixed views on development in the AONB around Southstoke ranging from `because its AONB it shouldn't considered' to `a closer examination of the land around Bath reveals that land outside the AONB may actually be of more landscape value than land in the AONB at Southstoke'

o Expectation that design quality must be high but a fear that volume house builders do not have the flair or imagination to devise a solution that reflects Bath's special circumstances.

o Need for local services as part of the Urban Extension that are accessible to residents already living in wards such as Twerton and Southdown and Odd Down. Such services include supporting social infrastructure (e.g. schools, healthcare etc.), green infrastructure, recreational space and allotments

Keynsham (120 comments)

o Ideas for revitalising Keynsham Town Centre included: pedestrianisation, parking schemes, retail offer which differentiates if from out of town competition (e.g. niche retail) and the regeneration of the Town Hall/Riverside area

o Various sites for employment use suggested (not by landowners)

o Housing needs of older people should be considered

o Improvements to Keynsham station and services suggested

o Community facilities for leisure, young people and allotments requested

o Various possible locations for development within the area of search were discussed.

o The advantages and disadvantages of Hicks Gate and Whitchurch were proposed

o Broad agreement that Stockwood Vale should be protected

o Various sites around the edge of Keynsham put forward by landowners

o Infrastructure to support development needs to be provided - e.g. south Bristol link road

o Impact on traffic needs to be assessed

o Different views given about the extent to which the proposed urban extension to Bristol should relate to Keynsham

o To complement the regeneration of south Bristol the phasing, land use and connectivity with south Bristol will need to be considered through close working between B&NES Council and Bristol City Council.

Midsomer Norton Radstock (324 comments)

o Strong support for promoting the Somer Valley as a whole (including MN, Radstock, Paulton, PsJ and other surrounding villages including those in Mendip District) but respecting separate identities and distinctive characters

o Focusing development in Midsomer Norton and Radstock

o Mixed views on the extension of the Green Belt, but gaps between settlements should be protected

o New housing should only be allowed if matched with new jobs

o Retain small employment sites and provide new small units

o The need to encourage local businesses

o Strong support for reopening the railways

o Strong support for safeguarding disused railways as sustainable transport routes such as public transport, cycling and walking

o Mixed views on the further provision of housing

o The need for affordable housing and housing for local people

o MN is a retail centre which should be enhanced and promoted

o Radstock is a more artisan and heritage town and should look for such `niche shopping'

o Improve public transport links because commuting will not decrease

o Safeguard the Clutton/temple Cloud bypass route

o Many local services and facilities are deficient (eg health, sport and recreation) and additional facilities such as a multi media learning centre and the proposed town part are needed

Rural Areas (661 comments)

o Ideas about hierarchy of villages and towns put forward

o Presumption against the removal of any settlement from the Green Belt

o Need to maintain housing development boundaries

o Separation between villages and use brownfield sites a priority

o Need for a range of low cost housing types in rural settlements/Support for a rural exceptions policy.

o Home working and other ways of working which reduced the need to travel should be actively promoted including the re-use of redundant and underused buildings.

o Mixed views on whether affordable housing should be near employment opportunities

o Support for retaining and enhancing existing facilities to help sustain rural communities including more farmers markets and community shops

o Support for the sale of local produce to reduce food miles.

o Improving accessibility to rural areas should not include new road building but a cheaper and more reliable bus service is needed and further use of Dial-a Ride and Fare Car schemes encouraged.

o General support for the retention of land safeguarded for the proposed bypasses

o Strong support for former railway lines to be developed for sustainable transport use including a potential district wide light rail system.

o Strong support for the protection and enhancement of Green Infrastructure and the biodiversity and open spaces

o Whilst, in principle, renewable energy should be actively encouraged there was strong opposition to wind turbines in areas of high landscape value and a mixed reaction to the benefits of bio-mass production.

Futures consultation

The Future for Bath & North East Somerset has been the subject of consultation through a website, online questionnaire, letters and distribution of 33,000 leaflets. In addition the Future for Bath & North East Somerset has been jointly publicised with the Core Strategy at presentations and workshops. Two schools workshops have been held and a third is planned.

Around 270 written responses have been received and these are to be analysed and made available for consideration in relation to the Core Strategy and other Local Development Framework documents