Meeting documents

ANNEX 3

Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan

including minerals & waste policies

Revised Deposit Draft 2003

1.0 UNIVERSITY OF BATH

1.1 The proposed alteration to the Green Belt boundary at the University of Bath, allocation of the land for University related uses and associated revisions to the reasoned justification (in chapters A3, B3, B7 and C1) attracted more representations than any other issue (around 600 objections, including a 1,400 signature petition). These objections raise a wide range of issues e.g. relating to Green Belt and AONB policy, landscape and visual impacts, University expansion and organisational concerns, conflict with other policies, loss of sports pitches and transportation impacts.

1.2 It is considered that, in accordance with PPG2, `exceptional circumstances' exist that warrant changing the Green Belt boundary. Therefore, it is recommended that the revision to the Green Belt boundary and allocation proposed in the Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan should be retained.

1.3 However, as a result of considering the representations a Pre-Inquiry change is proposed to the reasoned justification (in the Green Belt chapter) to more fully explain the `exceptional circumstances' primarily by referring to the key national priorities that expansion of the University will help to meet, the availability of government funding and the lack of suitable alternative sites in Bath. In addition a Pre-Inquiry change to policy HG.17 (student accommodation) is necessary in order to address the inconsistency between policy HG.17 and allocation of the site under policy GDS.1 (site B11). Reference to the site allocated under policy GDS.1 on the eastern part of the University campus in the third criterion of the policy needs to be added.

2.0 PROTECTION OF OPEN SPACES AT TIMSBURY

2.1 There is a huge body of support (120 representations) for the protection of Timsbury School Playing Field for its sport and recreational value under Policy SR.1A and as a Visually Important Open Space under Policy BH.15. This is reinforced by concurrent expressions of support for the revision to para B4.13A (52 representations) which sets out the Council's commitment to protect formal recreational land including some school playing fields. There is also overwhelming support for the extension of the Visually Important Open Space at Lansdown Crescent, Timsbury. This is reinforced through support for the revisions to para C3.71 which sets out the reasoned justification for the protection of Visually Important Open Spaces.

3.0 HOUSING LAND SUPPLY

3.1 Many objections are based on the view that the Local Plan policy framework will not deliver the Structure Plan dwelling requirement in the Plan period. The objectors state that not all the sites relied on can be developed during the Plan period and that site dwelling capacities, densities and timescale for development of allocated sites is over-optimistic. They also consider that the expected yield from windfall sites, both small and large, is over-optimistic. In particular, many objectors have also stated that the increase in the brownfield housing target for the Plan period from 55% to 60% relies too heavily on brownfield sites which are particularly problematic to bring forward for development.

3.2 As a consequence, the objectors argue that alternative or additional sites should be allocated for development.

3.3 In seeking to meet the District's dwelling requirement, the Council has followed the guidance set out in PPG3 and has worked closely with adjoining Local Authorities in assessing urban housing capacity. It is acknowledged that all development sites have constraints which need to be overcome in order to bring them forward to be developed. Therefore a careful, robust and realistic view has been taken in the identification of sites which are developable within the Plan period. The Council has sought to make provision for new housing in accordance with national planning guidance and the Local Plan theme of Balanced Communities. Many sites relied on in the Local Plan to meet the dwelling requirement already have the benefit of a grant of planning permission with legal agreements signed. Furthermore PPG3 does not suggest that an over-allocation should be made to allow for non-implementation.

3.4 The need to maximise the re-use of brownfield land has been a key principle in the Local Plan approach to the identification of land for residential development. The significant brownfield redevelopment opportunities available in Bath have enabled a greater proportion of residential development to take place on brownfield sites in the Plan period than was initially allowed for in the Deposit Draft Plan 2002. This has enabled the deletion of greenfield sites.

3.5 However, with regard to Western Riverside (site B1), further investigations have indicated that whilst the overall dwelling capacity of the site remains appropriate, the contribution of dwellings during the Plan period should be reduced. It is now expected that around 100 fewer houses will be constructed on the site by 2011 than was anticipated in the Revised Deposit Plan. Nevertheless, this shortfall is made up by the increase in dwelling capacity of other sites such as Rush Hill (B3), St Martin's Hospital (site B13) and Cannocks Garage (site K5).

3.6 Appropriate changes are therefore proposed to Policy GDS.1 site capacities as set out in paragraph 5.4 below but no change is required to Para B7.25 as the number of dwellings expected from allocated sites remains unchanged.

4.0 AFFORDABLE HOUSING

4.1 Around 50 representations received on affordable housing revisions and key issues emerging are set out below.

4.2 Some objectors are concerned that the Local Plan policies are based on an `out-of-date' Needs Survey. It is recognised in para B7.78 of the Local Plan that the Housing Needs Survey is to be updated but this does not invalidate the existing survey.

4.3 Many respondents object to the removal of the target of seeking 30% affordable homes on new housing sites from the Local Plan. The proportion of affordable housing required is now set out in the adopted Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance 2003 where it can be readily updated in response to the most up to date information. Policy HG.8 establishes the principle of the need to seek contributions form housing proposals. Reference to the SPG is made in para B7.79 of the Local Plan.

4.4 Whilst the site size thresholds on which affordable housing will be sought have not changed, the policy wording has changed and this has enabled a number of new objections to be made on this issue. A number of objectors claim that the lower thresholds set out in the Local Plan are not fully justified whereas others seek the threshold in the rural areas to be reduced even further.

4.5 The need for lower thresholds is set out in the preamble to Policy HG.8 and is based on the results of the published Housing Needs Survey and Housing Strategy 2002-2011. In brief, these paras set out the significant need for affordable housing in the District and the limited opportunities for meeting this need. This justifies the need for the lower thresholds. The need is so great that even with the lower thresholds, there will still be a significant shortfall in meeting the District's affordable housing need for the Plan period.

4.6 The threshold applying to larger settlements referred to in para B7.80A (i.e. Bath, Keynsham, Norton Radstock, Saltford, Paulton, Peasedown St John) is already at the minimum allowed under Circular 6/98 para 10. The circular requires that the application of this lower threshold must be demonstrated and justified. The Circular allows for a lower threshold for villages under 3000 population and hence an even lower threshold has been set.

4.7 Some objectors seek the allocation of new/alternative housing sites in order to help boost the number of affordable houses provided during the Plan period. However it is inappropriate to allocate a housing site in a location that would normally be unacceptable merely to increase the provision of affordable housing.

5.0 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT SITES

5.1 The representations to the revisions to some of the sites allocated under Policy GDS.1 raise some key issues.

5.2 Revisions were made to the development requirements for Western Riverside (site B1) in the Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan, in relation to the number of dwellings to be provided during the Plan period and inclusion of a reference to the need for comprehensive redevelopment of the whole site in accordance with a Masterplan. The reasoned justification was also amended to include reference to the benefits of comprehensive redevelopment, as well as greater information on the envisaged delivery process.

5.3 Around 40 representations were made in relation to these revisions, 37 of which were objections. Most of the objections express concern that the requirement that 900 houses be provided by the end of the plan period is over optimistic, due to the presence of various site constraints. Other issues raised include the need for residential densities to be high in order to make efficient use of the site and concern that the comprehensive approach to development will hinder delivery.

5.4 Policy GDS.1, site B1 currently states in development requirement number 2 that about 900 dwellings should be provided during the Local Plan period. As a result of reviewing the delivery timetable for Western Riverside it is now considered that around 800 dwellings will be completed during the Plan period and the development requirement in Policy GDS.1 needs to be amended accordingly. With regard to the density of development both policy GDS.1 (site B1) and the SPG make it clear that a high density urban form of development will be expected, appropriate to the location of the site and the surrounding context.

5.5 The development process summarised in the Local Plan envisages that the SPG, which has been adopted, will provide the framework for a Masterplan (which is currently being prepared). The next stage will be the submission of an outline application in relation to the whole site, followed by full applications for specific parts of the site. Further details of the implementation programme will emerge through the Masterplan. In the meantime the development requirement set out in policy GDS.1 is still considered to be necessary in order to ensure comprehensive development and the benefits thereof is secured.

5.6 In the Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan it is proposed to amend the Green Belt boundary at Newbridge in order to accommodate a transport interchange and civic amenity facility associated with and necessary in order to secure the redevelopment of Western Riverside. Significant objection was made in relation to both the Green Belt change and the allocation of land for the transport interchange and civic amenity facility under policy GDS.1 (site B1A). A number of concerns have been raised, including:

5.7 The regeneration of Western Riverside will be of considerable benefit to the City and the District and `exceptional circumstances' necessitating a change to the Green Belt boundary are considered to exist. The justification for the Green Belt boundary change is set out clearly in the reasoned justification of the Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan and as such no Pre-Inquiry changes are recommended as a result of considering these representations.

5.8 The main concerns arising from the objections are:

5.9 A comprehensive approach is necessary in order to ensure the site requirements and the mix of uses are properly addressed and the site is developed in a co-ordinated way.

5.10 The selection of sites in the Local Plan and site requirements set out for site B12 are based on sustainable development principles and the Local Plan's overarching theme of Balanced Communities (see Local Plan para A3.3). It also takes into account the results of the Business Location Requirements Study 2003 which identified the business land needs for the District. The Local Plan allows for the redevelopment of some business land whilst also seeking to ensure that sufficient land remains available for business needs to ensure a healthy economy. The Council considers that the site is suitable for a comprehensive, mixed-use scheme delivering a range of uses including residential development, business opportunities and other uses. An increase in the residential element of this site will prejudice the range of other uses expected from this site.

5.11 All development sites have constraints which need to be overcome in order to bring them forward to be developed and so a robust and realistic view has been taken in the identification of sites for development in the Local Plan.

5.12 The objection seeking an increase in the residential capacity of the site has been supplemented by detailed information amounting to effectively a development brief, demonstrating how the site could be achieved. However, it is not considered that this further information overcomes the concerns for a robust, mixed-use redevelopment of this site.

5.13 Whilst there was support for the deletion of this greenfield site and around 120 representations have been withdrawn specifically in response to this change, a number of objectors seek the re-instatement of the comprehensive development proposals set out in the Deposit Draft Local Plan for this site. Their reasons include:

5.14 The reasons for deletion of the site are re-iterated. As a result of reviewing the Urban Housing Capacity Study (UHCS) the Council considers that the Structure Plan dwelling requirement can be met without the need to release land from the Green Belt at Keynsham for residential development. This is because in accordance with the priority set out in PPG3 and the Structure Plan an increased proportion of the dwelling requirement will be met through redeveloping brownfield sites, primarily within Bath.

5.15 The majority of respondents on this site object to the introduction of a requirement for the development to include an element of housing. One objector is concerned that the inclusion of this requirement might prejudice the sites contribution to meeting Keynsham's retail and community needs.

5.16 The site's contribution to the town's retail and community needs is recognised and the new requirement for an element of residential development is in addition to these and is not contrary to them. Indeed it may even facilitate these objectives. The requirement is specifically worded flexibly so as not to prejudice the overriding objectives for the site and reflects Government guidance which seeks to encourage mixed use developments, housing on brownfield sites and in urban areas, especially town centres and recognises the contribution town centre housing can make towards town centre vitality. There are other examples of how this mix of development works well.

5.17 Five respondents object in principle to the allocation of this employment site on the edge of the existing industrial estate on the basis that it is an incursion into greenfield land and is not needed. Other representations relate to the site requirements and there is one representation of support.

5.18 The re-allocation of a small area previously designated for employment use in the Wansdyke Local Plan was agreed in response to an objection to the Deposit Draft version of the Plan. This decision followed a detailed consideration of representations in respect of a number of sites in the Norton-Radstock area and was made in the light of the accepted need to re-adjust the balance between residential and employment development in the area.

5.19 Reasons for objection include:

5.20 Many brownfield sites which have development difficulties, such as the Radstock Railway Land site, have been successfully developed. Some of the difficulties on this site are now being overcome with the establishment of the Norton Radstock Regeneration Company with control over the land which is working to achieve a development scheme reflecting local aspirations. The proposals for this site reflect both the outcome of local public consultation and national planning guidance. This is a brownfield, accessible town centre site on which Policy GDS.1 proposed a high quality, mixed use scheme. A key theme emerging from local consultations is that the town 'should be given a real heart' and that it should meet some of the local need for community facilities. It is intended that the proposals for the site will make a significant contribution to the regeneration of Radstock. The increase in the dwelling capacity is relatively marginal so as not to prejudice the range of uses expected for the site.

5.21 The Local Plan proposals seek to accommodate the ecological interests on the site as far as possible whilst at the same time also meeting other needs within the town. Ecology has been a major consideration in the proposals for the site with extensive and lengthy involvement of ecologists. The proposals include significant retention of wildlife habitat as well as ecological mitigation, compensation and an ecological management plan. Whilst not all aspirations can be specifically addressed, the Local Plan seeks to respond to and balance these aspirations while also realising the potential of the site as a brownfield town centre development opportunity.

5.22 The site requirements set out in Policy GDS.1, such as the public transport infrastructure, are necessary in order to ensure these issues are fully taken into account in the determination of planning applications on the site.

5.23 With regard to concerns about the imbalance between housing and employment opportunities, the Local Plan makes significant provision for employment uses within the area by seeking to retain existing employment land in business use and proposing new allocations at Old Mills and Midsomer Norton Enterprise Park. In addition, there is planning permission for 11 ha of employment uses south east of Peasedown St John. The Local Plan requires that the development mix should include employment uses in line with the objectives for the regeneration of the town and provide local employment opportunities.

5.24 The retention of the former railway line route as a sustainable transport corridor is in line with the overall approach taken in the Local Plan on the re-use of former railway lines. This approach provides the flexibility to consider the most appropriate alternative transport uses that may arise during the life of the Plan and beyond.

7.0 ACCESS

7.1 The majority of representations on the changes to the Access section arise from the decision to introduce the new designation of Sustainable Transport Route for former railway lines (Policy T.9) and to include basic maximum parking standards in the Local Plan (schedule to Policy T.26).

7.2 The Sustainable Transport Route designation replaces lengths of Cycle Route and Recreational Route and also the Rapid Transit Route along the former Midland Railway line in western Bath. Whilst some respondents are opposed to any reference to uses other than cycling and walking, others have taken the opportunity to repeat previous objections that insufficient information is provided about possible public transport uses in both Bath and Radstock and also that no line is shown within the Bath Western Riverside and Radstock Railway Land General Development Sites. It is considered that the new designations are appropriate for a purely land safeguarding policy and it is not wished to prejudice the masterplanning of the sites, so no changes are recommended in response to these representations.

7.3 In contrast a large number of detailed changes are recommended to the Parking Standards Schedule. This follows work by the Council's transport consultants and the changes now proposed address most of the comments received including those of the Government Office. As is explained in the Revised Deposit Draft these standards are to be further refined through Supplementary Planning Guidance which will set out different standards for areas with good accessibility by public transport, but in the meantime appropriate on-site parking will be negotiated with reference to the criteria set out in Policy T.26.