Location

A4.19 

Mr. Elgin Diaz: 1856/B1

I looked in vain through your document for reference to another similar 'planning-type' document, published by your planning department (albeit under the authority of Bath City Council (as was) just prior to it becoming Bath & North East Somerset) namely, the LOCAL CHARACTER PROJECT, LARKHALL/LAMBRIDGE ASSESSMENT - Pilot Study for the Assessment of the Character - Draft for public consultation January 18th to February 15th 1996 and amendments.

I do appreciate that that was a very local project, and possibly not precisely within your remit, but, I do feel that many of the issues dealt with in your document were thoroughly rehearsed and duplicated in that document.  As you may guess, I must declare an interest in that planning-type document, since, being a resident of Larkhall, living and working in the area, I was an active participant in that extensive, pilot, research project.

I have a gripe; and, to précis it very inadequately, it would run something like this:

"Nothing very much happened about that plan which we contributed to; it probably gathers dust on some planning shelf as I write; here we go, again, with another plan (done, no doubt, at some considerable public cost) to gather dust on a new planning shelf, etc., etc.?"

RESPONSE AGREED AFTER PUBLICATION OF REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT LOCAL PLAN:

Reference to the 'Larkhall Character Statement and Development Principles 1994' is made in para A4.19 as being one of a number of existing Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) documents undertaken by the Council.   The SPG does not form part of the Local Plan, rather it is designed to supplement relevant policies in the Local Plan and it is  taken into account when determining planning applications.

NB  The publication date referred to in para A4.19 is incorrect and should read '1998', when it was adopted as SPG by the Council.  This error has  been amended in response to Rep. 5001/B91.

No change.

 ET.2 - Employment land availability

Oval Estates ( Bath ) Ltd

3300/B1

The section of the Local Plan headed 'Employment Opportunities and General Development Sites' in Chapter B2 contains Diagram 6: Major Employment Development Proposals.  Some of the sites identified have however been allocated for comprehensive mixed-use schemes and others may be identified for mixed-use schemes, as opposed to employment only, in due course.   Diagram 6 should therefore be amended indicating that the sites shown are for major employment development and/or mixed use development proposals.

Policy ET.2 should indicate that some of the 50 ha of land made available for business development as set out in Policy GDS.1 is to be developed in conjunction with other uses within mixed-use development schemes covering a much larger area of land.

RESPONSE AGREED AFTER PUBLICATION OF REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT LOCAL PLAN:   Policy ET.2 has now been deleted from the Revised Deposit Local Plan.  The mixed-use nature of some of these development sites is reflected in Policy GDS.1 which sets out the need for a mixed-use approach and the range of uses required.  A cross reference to Policy GDS.1 and the mixed-use nature of these sites is provided in para B2.29

The purpose of Diagram 6, being located within the Economy Chapter, is to illustrate the major employment land allocations during the Plan period.  It would be confusing to attempt to show other allocations.  The emphasis on mixed-uses is already to referred to above.

No change (NB policy deleted in Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan ).

 CF.4 - Provision of new or replacement community facilities

Mr. Elgin Diaz:

1856/B2

I would like to congratulate the Library Facilities team (see B3.35 … under review through the Annual Library Plan and re: Policies CF.1 and CF.4) for its recent, detailed attention to:

a.  Much improved inter-library loan provision at the Podium library.

b.  A really improved mobile library option, which, I read in your document, will improve further.

RESPONSE AGREED AFTER PUBLICATION OF REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT LOCAL PLAN:

Whilst these comments are, not duly made as the operation of the library service is not a planning matter, these comments have been forwarded to the Library Service.

No change.

 SR.1 - Protection of playing fields and recreational open space

Mrs. Alexa Tobin:

2033/B2

Beechen Cliff School Playing Fields, Bath

In order to protect playing fields and recreational open spaces, especially those with public amenity value, it is imperative that all school playing fields are retained.

Department of the Environment Planning Policy Guidance : Sport and Recreation PPG17 (Sept. 1991) Section 25 (PPG17) states:

'The Government attaches great importance to the retention of recreational and amenity open space in urban areas.  Open space, whether or not there is public access to it, is also important for its contribution to the quality of urban life.  It enhances the character of conservation areas, listed buildings and historic landscapes; it can attract business and tourism.  Use of land as open space is no less important than other uses.  Once built on, open space is likely to be lost to the community for ever.'

The Playing Fields, and the Public Rights of Way that cross them, are extensively used by both local residents and visitors, for a wide variety of purposes, including jogging, walking, children's games and general recreation.  It is one of the few level areas of open space in the locality and is therefore of particular use to the very young and elderly or those who cannot cope with the more strenuous hillsides around.  Under section 32 of PPG17, planning authorities are asked to consider the scope for encouraging recreational facilities and increased public access to open land on the urban fringe.

The Playing Fields, and the associated Public Rights of Way provides a green wedge that enables residents and visitors to Bath to walk out into the southern hills from around 100 yards of the city centre and station.  It connects the green open spaces of Beechen Cliff and Lyncombe Hill with the footpaths through Lyncombe Vale, Fox Hill, Popes Walk and Combe Down.  It is a 'Green Path' out of the city, valuable to both people and wildlife.  They also form part of the route of at least 2 popular local circular walks.

RESPONSE AGREED AFTER PUBLICATION OF REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT LOCAL PLAN:   Noted.  The land is protected under Policy SR.1A (as proposed to be amended).

No change.

Mr. Peter Jenkins: 2140/B2

Beechen Cliff School Playing Fields, Bath

In order to protect playing fields and recreational open spaces, especially those with public amenity value, it is imperative that all school playing fields are retained.

Department of the Environment Planning Policy Guidance: Sport and Recreation PPG17 (Sept 1991) Section 25 [PPG17] states: The Government attaches great importance to the retention of the recreational and amenity open space in urban areas. Open space, whether or not there is public access to it, is also important for its contribution to the quality of urban life.  It enhances the character of conservation areas, listed buildings and historic landscapes, it can attract business and tourism. Use of land as open space is no less important than other uses.  Once built on, open space is likely to be lost to the community forever.

The Playing Fields, and the Public Rights of Way that cross them, are extensively used by both local residents and visitors, for a wide variety of purposes, including jogging, walking, children's games and general recreation.  It is one of the few level areas of open space in the locality and is therefore of particular use to the very young and elderly or those who cannot cope with the more strenuous hillsides around.  Under Section 32 of PPG17, planning authorities are asked to consider the scope for encouraging recreational facilities and increased public access to open land on the urban fringe.

The Playing Fields, and the associated Public Rights of Way provides a green wedge that enables residents and visitors to Bath to walk out into the southern hills from around 100 yards of the City centre and station.  It connects the green open spaces of Beechen Cliff and Lyncombe Hill with the footpaths through Lyncombe Vale, Fox Hill, Popes Walk and Combe Down.  It is a 'Green Path' out of the City, valuable to both people and wildlife. They also form part of the route of at least 2 popular local circular walks.

RESPONSE AGREED AFTER PUBLICATION OF REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT LOCAL PLAN:
Noted.  The land is protected under Policy SR.1A (as proposed to be amended).

No change.

R. Reeson: Kingswood School 3249/B7

Kingswood School playing fields, car park and changing rooms, Bath

The Proposals Map includes a notation over the Kingswood School playing fields under Policy SR.1.  The notation covers the changing rooms and parking areas within the allocated area.

It would not be appropriate for Policy SR.1 to apply to these areas.  Elsewhere in the Local Plan Proposals Map these areas are excluded e.g. University sports ground to the east of Ralph Allen School , Odd Down playing fields, Bath Cricket Club.

The Proposals Map should be amended to exclude the existing building and parking area from the notation under Policy SR.1 (see attached drawing).

RESPONSE AGREED AFTER PUBLICATION OF REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT LOCAL PLAN:

The site in question comprises a gravelled drive with limited capacity for parking (including an area for coaches), flanked by grassed areas (contiguous with the remaining sports ground), leading to a two-storey brick pavilion with a single storey toilet block to one side.  There is a viewing area at the rear of the building which overlooks the playing fields. 

The objector is seeking the removal of the Policy SR.1A notation for the area described above.  The document  'The Six Acre Standard', published in 2001 by the National Playing Fields Association (NPFA), makes it clear that 'when examining the provision of playing fields, about 50 per cent of the playing area should be added to the dimensions of pitches or other facilities' in the interests, inter alia, 'good groundsmanship, safe play margins and the need for ancillary facilities, such as training areas and pavilions' (para 3.7).  Similarly car parking areas can only be excluded from the Standard if they are for non-recreational use (para 3.18).  Since these facilities are obviously ancillary to the recreation use and enjoyment of the sports grounds and clearly within the curtilage of the site, it is considered appropriate to retain them within the Policy SR.1A designation.

It is recognised that there are a few anomalies where changing rooms and/or parking areas have been excluded from the Policy SR.1A designation.  Nevertheless as made clear above, both changing rooms and parking are considered to be an integral part of the playing pitch facility.

No change.

HG.4 - Residential development in the urban areas and R.1 settlements 

Oval Estates ( Bath ) Ltd

3300/B3

 Paulton

Policy HG.4 indicates that the residential development in Bath , Keynsham, Norton-Radstock and R.1 settlements will be permitted if it is on previously developed land and lies within the defined housing development boundary or forms an element of a comprehensive scheme for a major mixed-use site defined in Policy GDS.1.

This will prevent some of the major mixed-use sites being developed in the form of a comprehensive scheme to include residential development in that some of the major mixed-use sites defined in Policy GDS.1 include land that has not previously been developed which is suitable for residential development in conjunction with employment development.

Item i) of Policy HG.4 should therefore read; it is on previously developed land; or….

RESPONSE AGREED AFTER PUBLICATION OF REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT LOCAL PLAN:

This objection is based on a misreading of the Policy.  Such windfall sites would only be acceptable if they were on brownfield land and were within the urban areas OR they form part of a GDS site OR they arise through Policies ET.1C, ET.1D or ET.3A. 

However, to avoid ambiguity, the policy wording could be clarified.

CHANGE AGREED AFTER PUBLICATION OF REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT LOCAL PLAN:

Amend wording of Policy HG.4

Residential development in Bath , Keynsham, Norton-Radstock and those villages defined in Policy SC.1 as R.1 settlements will be permitted if:

i) it is on previously developed land and it lies within the built up area of Bath or within a defined housing development boundary; or

ii) it forms an element of;

(a)  a comprehensive scheme for a major mixed-use site defined in     Policy GDS.1; or

(b)   a scheme coming forward under Policies ET.1C, ET.1D or 3A.

GDS.1/K1 - Somerdale 

Mr. Edward Sant:

3191/B1

Somerdale, Keynsham

These proposals are in direct opposition to inspectors report of 1989-90 are serious incursions into Green Belt (K2) will cause serious strain on already overloaded infrastructure particularly roads.  Access to both sites is totally impractical .  As proposed with no possible alternative.

RESPONSE AGREED AFTER PUBLICATION OF REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT LOCAL PLAN

The allocated site at Somerdale, Keynsham (site K1) lies outside the Green Belt  as defined in the adopted Keynsham and Chew Valley Local Plan. The Inspectors Report referred to relates to the deposit version of this Plan. Furthermore, there is no proposal to amend this Green Belt boundary in the vicinity of this site in the Deposit Draft Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan.

Under policy GDS.1 the site is allocated for a comprehensive mixed-use scheme including the retention of existing business uses and the development of at leat 10 ha of land for business uses and the provision of about 50 dwellings. The site represents a major existing employment site and opportunity for additional employment provision in Keynsham, which will help to promote a greater balance between resident workforce and jobs in the town thereby reducing the need to travel. Somerdale is also located relatively close to the town centre and the rail station and therefore provision of some housing also accords with objectives of reducing the need to travel by car.

With regard to vehicular access policy GDS.1 lists a number of requirements that need to be addressed in order for development to proceed. In relation to site K1 these include "the provision of satisfactory highway access to A4175, realignment of Station Road and closure of traffic to Somerdale Road site entrance; off-site traffic management in Station Road and Avon Mill Lane."

No change.

GDS.1/K2 - SW Keynsham 

Mrs. J.Y. Grayley

2160/B2

SW Keynsham

Main objection is the traffic implications on the roads in Keynsham already at saturation point.  Also building yet again on Green Belt.

Keynsham seems to be the only Parish having a great deal of its Green Belt eroded because it lies in the main commuter belt (how convenient).  It points to being the easiest option to build 500 houses in one fell swoop rather than more rural diversification to meet social needs elsewhere.  People manage to commute to work from all areas of Bath & North East Somerset because they choose to live there.  Other parishes are using mostly brownfield land not Green Belt.

How can the social needs of Keynsham be best met for all these new residents when the small High Street can hardly maintain those needs for the people already living there.

As to the high standard of design that the Council expects from new development to retain the character of a town or village, one only has to drive through Keynsham High Street to be met by a great huge grey monstrosity called a Town Hall and the rank of flat roofed shops aptly named "The Centre".  This epitomises what the Council has done already to the character of Keynsham.

RESPONSE AGREED AFTER PUBLICATION OF REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT LOCAL PLAN

The Urban Housing Capacity Study for Bath & North East Somerset has been reviewed and updated to April 2003.  Through this process, further brownfield land has been identified which is suitable to accommodate further residential development.  Para 30 of PPG3 sets out a site search sequence for housing sites which starts with the re-use of brownfield land in urban areas, then urban extensions and then development around nodes in good public transport corridors.  The PPG states that the search should not extend further than is required to meet the housing requirement. PPG3 and other Government guidance seeks to minimise the use of greenfield sites and places a priority on the development of brownfield sites over greenfield sites. 

Whilst the JRSP identifies the need to release land from the Green Belt for development, the increased housing capacity of brownfield sites in the District can accommodate most of the remaining housing requirement and in light of this and the Government advice referred to above, it is proposed to delete the site at South West Keynsham (GDS.1/K2).

In line with the Plan, Monitor and Manage approach (PPG3 para 8), the Local Plan will be reviewed once adopted in order to ensure a sufficient supply of housing within the District.

No change (NB site K2 - SW Keynsham deleted in Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan ).

GDS.1/NR4 - St Peter's Factory 

Oval Estates ( Bath ) Ltd

3300/B9

St. Peters Factory,

Norton Radstock

1. The relevant Local Plan for the area is at present the Wansdyke Local Plan, prepared by the former District Council which was considered at  a Public Local Inquiry.  The inspectors report on the inquiry was considered by the Council and their response was approved by the Planning, Transportation and Environment committee, which agreed not to follow statutory procedures and publish a statement of decisions with proposed modifications but to adopt the plan and use the policies for development control purposes.

2. Policy EMP.6 of the Wansdyke Local Plan identifies the former Clarks factory and surrounding land at Westfield in Midsomer Norton on the Proposals Map as one of the major opportunities for employment development.  This 'Employment Opportunity' allocation includes land to both the south and east of the former Clarks factory including the area of land behind houses in Lincombe Road and Waterside Road .  The General Development Site zoning shown on the Proposals map (Inset -19 Norton Radstock and Environs) to the Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan should be extended to include this area of land.

3. The Proposals Map also shows the land not included within the General Development Site, together with a small triangle of land that is included, within the proposed 'Landscape Character Area' to the south east of the Norton Radstock urban area.  The boundary of the Landscape Character Area therefore includes at present the relatively level and featureless area of land that forms part of the employment zoning approved during the preparation of the Wansdyke Local Plan.  This area of land is entirely different in character from the land to the south and south east, part of which has been zoned as an 'Important Hillside' and is correctly identified as part of the Landscape Character Area.  The two vastly different areas of land are separated by a very mature hedgerow of bushes and trees which clearly marks the limit of the land that should be zoned as a Landscape Character Area having regard to the aims of policy NE.1.

4. The Schedule to policy EMP.6 of the Wansdyke Local Plan sets out 4 criteria, that seek to guide development of land at the former Clarks Factory.  These criteria comprise the provision of buffer landscaping on the north eastern and south eastern boundaries to safeguard residential amenity, the provision of a satisfactory alternative to the loss of sports facilities which is of equivalent community benefit, the protection of Waterside tributary stream including provision of a pedestrian route along it and the provision of a road link southwards to Westfield trading estate if required for safe access.  These criteria are all capable of being satisfied through the appropriate form of development for the site.

5. Policy EMP.6 of the Wansdyke Local Plan is also referred to in the Housing Policy HO.4 which defines where residential development will be permitted. It states that housing will be permitted where it forms an appropriate element of a comprehensive scheme for a major opportunity site as defined in Policy EMP.6.  The Inspector for the Local Plan inquiry commented however, that reference to 'appropriate' does not give landowners and developers a clear indication of what is likely to be acceptable and that this should clearly be stated in the relevant site specific policy. 

The Council had already suggested in their pre-inquiry submission (WLP300) that the St Peters Factory land is a comparatively small site and the Council considers that there is limited opportunity for non employment uses. However, this proposal was not subjected to the normal public consultation or statutory procedures necessary for Local Plan adoption.  It cannot therefore carry any weight.  Interested parties have not had an opportunity to comment.

Housing is required to sustain the viability of the Council's overall proposals for the St Peters Factory site.  There are significant capital costs to be borne in any development of the site.  It is necessary to ensure that the development remains viable by the inclusion of an element of housing.   Indeed, this was recognised by the Council's Economic Development Officer in his memorandum of 5th August  1998 .  This confirms that without the incorporation of a residential element to the scheme, the economic viability of the whole project is placed in jeopardy. It confirms that an element of residential development is needed so that it can be used as a cross subsidy to help develop the industrial area.  It also acknowledges that the infrastructure costs and other requirements likely to be placed on the development of the site make it very expensive to develop.  The memorandum concludes that without the residential development the whole scheme is unviable and that business space is unlikely to be developed without some financial injection into the project, by way of Government subsidy or an element of higher value land use.  It suggests that the loss of business space, potentially creating 400 jobs, would be particularly devastating to the local economy.

The principle of residential development on this site was in fact considered by the Inspector appointed to determine an appeal in 1999 against the refusal by the Council of a planning application for B1, B2 and B8 employment uses, 15 houses, a private playing field and associated infrastructure and landscape works.  The appeal was dismissed, principally on the grounds that the zone proposed for housing was unsuitable  for this use in that noise levels from the existing factory were in excess of acceptable levels for the proposed residential zone.  The Inspector commented, however, in his decision that some residential development on the site would not necessarily be precluded, even if an appropriate review was to conclude that an element of housing should not apply to this major employment site.  He commented that there are no policies that would preclude the principle of residential development on this site within the urban boundary.

CHANGE SOUGHT: The St Peters Factory, Westfield site should be allocated for a comprehensive mixed use scheme including an element of housing in addition to business uses within Use Classes B1, B2 or B8, details of which need to be set out in the Development Requirements listed for this site (reference NR4 under Policy GDS.1) in Chapter B9.  Some of the Development Requirements listed at present are appropriate, but others are not and should be removed as part of a comprehensive redefinition of the requirements relating to this site.

FURTHER INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT:

1.  Mixed use developments are in line with Government guidance.

2.  Demand for employment land may decline in the future, so a mixed use development would help retain employment on the site.

3.  Employment uses cannot be built without providing some housing on the now unallocated field to make the development viable.

4.  Protrusion of greenfield are into built area - the natural development line may indicate a justification for allocating the field in question.

The extent of the allocation is the major issue.

RESPONSE AGREED AFTER PUBLICATION OF REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT LOCAL PLAN: 

1. Status of Wansdyke Local Plan: By way of clarification, the Wansdyke Local Plan has not yet been adopted.

2. Site boundary:  The area of land west of the residential properties on Lincombe Road has been excluded from the site in order to safeguard the residential amenity of these properties.  This is of particular importance bearing in mind the range of employment uses applicable to this site i.e. Use Classes B1, B2 & B8.  This approach takes account of the dismissal of an appeal of a previous scheme (REF: 98/02357/OUT) which entailed residential development in close proximity to Use Class B2 employment development.

3. Landscape Character Area boundary:  The Landscape Character Area boundaries have been deleted from the Revised Deposit Draft.

4. Site requirements:  The site requirements for all sites have been reviewed for the Bath & North East Local Plan.  The current development site requirements are set out in Policy GDS.1/NR4.  The substance of the Wansdyke Local Plan site requirements has been retained other than the road link  to Westfield Trading Estate which is no longer considered necessary.  Additional requirements have been included to address pollution, flooding, residential amenity and access issues in order to reflect subsequent planning permissions and Environment Agency advice.

5. Housing: The site requirements for the site do not allow for residential development.  This reflects the overall Local Plan strategy of Balanced Communities for Norton Radstock which seeks to encourage local employment generating development in order to address the existing comparatively high level of out commuting from the towns.  This is also a relatively small site with existing B2 uses and potential for development of further B2 uses.  Introduction of a residential element within this may undermine the employment opportunities of the site, both in the impact on existing operations and the opportunity to accommodate new employment development.  The dismissal of the scheme REF: 98/02357/OUT illustrates the difficulties associated with  residential development on this site.

RESPONSE TO FURTHER INFORMATION:

It is not considered that the further information justifies a change to the Council's proposals for this site.   Notwithstanding the benefits of mixed use schemes, the Council's response in point 6 above warrant retention of this site for employment uses.

No change in response to this rep (NB some of points raised in this rep addressed by revisions in the Revised Deposit Draft.

C - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSETS 

Mrs. Deborah Porter: Cam Valley Wildlife Group

3298/B3

We are very concerned about the likely impact of the plan on the biodiversity of post-industrial sites.  We are concerned that the plan does not give sufficient recognition to the contribution to the biodiversity of Bath & North-east Somerset made by post-industrial sites, or include sufficient measures to ensure that the biodiversity interest of such sites is safeguarded.

To learn more about the issues relating to these sites, the reader is referred to Appendix 1 submitted with this representation.  This is an extract from the draft local Biodiversity Action Plan prepared for the Wild Things Species & Habitats Group.  It describes the nature and types of post-industrial sites, gives brief reasons why they have become so important and detail some of the key habitats and species for which they are important.  It also summarises where the main concentrations of post-industrial sites are in Bath & North East Somerset and describes the two main threats - vegetation succession and planning developments.

We would therefore like to make the following specific recommendations, aimed at (1) giving greater prominence within the Local Plan to the contribution made to the area's biodiversity by post-industrial sites and (2) strengthening the protection given to such sites the Local Plan:

(i) We would like to see mention of the biodiversity of post-industrial sites within the plan text, in at least the following specific areas:

- paragraph A1.20 - mention of the nature conservation value of coal spoil heaps.

- paragraphs C2.33 to C2.37 - "The Districts Biodiversity"

- paragraph C2.43 - mention of the major types of post-industrial site which are of importance for biodiversity

- paragraphs C2.49 to C2.54 - and in addition a rewording of the heading in this section

- paragraph C4.23 - mention of the nature conservation value of coal spoil heaps

- paragraph B2.18 - expand the section about the presumption of the use of brownfield sites over greenfield ones to include mention of the fact that some such sites may not be suitable due to their high value for biodiversity

- paragraphs C2.6 to C2.11 - mention the value of some post-industrial sites as landscape features.

(ii) We would like to see an enhancement to Policy ET.1 to make a specific mention of the need to ensure that development on such sites does not damage their value for biodiversity.

(iii) We would like to see a policy requiring Ecological Impact Assessments for developments on post-industrial sites.

(iv) We believe that there is a strong need for a policy to be included in the Housing chapter to give reassurance that the targeting of post-industrial sites which are of importance to biodiversity for housing development is not supported by the Local Plan.

(v) We believe that there is a need to include a policy in the Natural Environment chapter which protects those post-industrial sites which are of importance as landscape features.

RESPONSE AGREED AFTER PUBLICATION OF REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT LOCAL PLAN: 

The Local Plan policy framework addresses the biodiversity of post industrial sites primarily through Policy NE.9.  Such a policy has not appeared in previous Local Plans in this form and it seeks to safeguard sites of nature conservation interest where they can be shown to meet the agreed SNCI criteria.  This policy applies to any site emerging through the development control process including post industrial sites.  Policy NE.12 is also relevant where a landscape feature is a post industrial site.

However, the Local Plan also recognises that some post industrial sites are also brownfield sites and there may be particular instances where competing  economic, environmental and social objectives may need to be reconciled.  It would be inappropriate to take a step further to give particular attention to the nature conservation interests of post industrial sites as not all these sites are of ecological importance and there are a rich array of wildlife sites.  The Local Plan approach through Policy NE.9 is therefore to protect any site which meets the criteria for SNCI designation.

(i) Additional references to post-industrial sites in the Local Plan :

The issue of nature conservation and biodiversity is dealt with primarily in Chapter C2 and a robust policy framework e.g. policies 1, NE.6, 8, 9 & 12 protect nature conservation interests.   Many of these paragraphs are phrased in a general in nature and highlighting the specific issue of the nature conservation of post-industrial sites would  be inconsistent unless accompanied by reference to a range of other interests.  Furthermore, the definition of  'post industrial site' is problematic as some of these sites such as the coal batches have, over the years, become subsumed into the natural environment. The Policy framework, primarily Policy NE.9, seek to conserve nature conservation sites, whatever their origin. However, it may be helpful to refer to features such as the coal batches in the list of landscape features of nature conservation value in the preamble to Policy NE.9 (para C2.43) and the preamble to Policy NE.12 (C2.49).

(ii) Policy ET.1 deals specifically with the issues of employment land.  The Local Plan has been structured to remove repetition between policies to avoid overlap and the resultant potential for confusion and conflict between policies.  Where issues of nature conservation interests arise on  sites being considered under Policy ET.1, they would be addressed through the appropriate policies e.g. policies 1, NE.6, 8, 9 & 12.

(iii) Ecological Impact Assessments for developments on post-industrial sites: This is a procedural matter aimed at obtaining information to guide the determination of a proposals. As such it not  appropriate to include such a requirement  within a policy which should set out clearly the criteria for approving or refusing a planning application.  However, there may be instances when such an assessment is necessary as described in para A4.14.  This would be obtained through the normal development control process and is not limited to post - industrial sites.

(iv) Housing sites: The Local Plan has been structured to remove repetition between policies to avoid overlap and the resultant potential for confusion and conflict between policies.  Where issues of nature conservation interest on such sites arise, they would be addressed through the appropriate policies e.g. Policies 1, NE.6, 8, 9 & 12.

(v) A separate policy is superfluous as Policies NE.9 & NE.12  address such sites where they are of wildlife or landscape value or meet the criteria for SNCI designation.  This approach would be clarified by the amendments proposed to paras C2.43 & C2.49.

CHANGE AGREED AFTER PUBLICATION OF REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT LOCAL PLAN:

Amend para C2.43 as follows " PPG9 on nature conservation stresses the importance of protecting locally as well as nationally designated sites of nature conservation importance.  Semi-natural habitats in Bath & North East Somerset the District, whilst being limited in extent, are diverse and include unimproved grasslands, broad-leaved woodlands, BATCHES, streams, rivers, lakes and ponds.  JRSP Policy 18 requires the Local Plan to identify areas where the fragmentation of natural habitats should be halted and reversed.  Much of the semi-natural habitat is identified in the Local Plan as Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs).

Amend para C2.49 as follows "Many features of the landscape such as trees, copses, woodlands, BATCHES, ponds, hedgerows, stone walls, orchards and watercourses are valuable for a range of reasons  such as their wildlife, amenity, historic, recreational  or visual benefit. Such heritage is not confined to protected areas or designated sites and are of importance throughout the countryside and within urban areas.

GB.1 - Control of development in the Green Belt 

Sarah Conlan: Crest Nicholson Developments Limited

2707/B3

Combe Hay Lane , Combe Hay

This objection relates to the failure of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan to vary the Green Belt boundary as it relates to land at Odd Down, Bath .  It is submitted that there have been a number of changing circumstances with regard to this land which have altered the character of the area and this piece of land.  In particular, the residential development to the east of the site and the construction of the Park & Ride, together with the new road layout, have fundamentally changed the character of this area.  The change in circumstances is to such an extent that the representation site no longer fulfils any defined functions of Green Belt designation.

The site extends to approximately 1.75 acres and is triangular in shape.  It is bounded to the north west by the A367, to the east is Combe Hay and St Gregory's School and the new roundabout and link road to a residential area forms the southern boundary.

The Respondent has subsequently submitted further information in support of the representation making the following points:

. St. Gregory's School requires additional purpose built accommodation in order to be able to properly meet the educational needs of its students. Asset Management Plan confirms that existing accommodation and recreational provision is inadequate. There are no opportunities to meet this need on the existing school site.

. The section of Combe Hay Lane which runs across the frontage of the school is open to two way traffic and accordingly attracts some rat running which might compromise safety.  A closure of Combe Hay Lane to through traffic would assist in this respect and might also assist in strengthening security arrangements at the school.

. Concern is expressed regarding the Local Plan's heavy reliance on Western Riverside and MOD, Foxhill to meet the dwelling requirement and it is suggested that it is helpful for the delivery of housing numbers if additional sites are allocated for housing.

. The objection site is considered to be a sustainable location for housing in that it is close to local facilities and the park & ride site linking it to the City centre. RPG10 also states that the Green Belt around Bath should be reviewed.

. Crest has therefore developed a revised land-use strategy with the school which entails;  residential development on around 0.3 ha of the southern part of the objection site; provision of 0.2 ha of land for the school on the northern part of the objection site; land for a 'Wansdyke Project' on the northern tip of the objection site; closure of Combe Hay Lane at its northern end and a lockable barrier on Combe Hay Lane at the school access; and a landscape belt on the western & southern boundaries of the objection site.

. Crest states that this strategy  has received support from the governing body, Bath & North East Somerset Education Strategic Review Department and the Diocese of Clifton.

. It is also noted that the Wansdyke Local Plan Inspector stated that visual impact of the park & ride site is reduced by landscaping. This strategy can be extended to the mixed educational and residential development of this site, which is able to be much better screened than the roadside facility considered by the Local Plan Inspector.

RESPONSE AGREED AFTER PUBLICATION OF REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT LOCAL PLAN

This representation seeks a change to the Green Belt boundary but relates to others made by the respondent which seek the allocation of this site  for residential development, see also representations 2707/B2 & 4 under Policy GDS.1.   The site is undeveloped with regenerating vegetation.

Para 2.7 of PPG2 states that where existing local plans are being revised and updated, existing Green Belt boundaries should not be changed unless alterations to the structure plan have been approved, or other exceptional circumstances exist, which necessitate such revision. The JRSP does not advocate a change to the Green Belt boundary in this location.

The objection site has been part of the Green Belt since originally designated in 1966 and this status was confirmed in the Wansdyke Environs of Bath LP 1990 & the Wansdyke LP 1995 (Deposit Draft).   It is acknowledged that since the WEB LP, the development of the Sulis Manor Estate and Odd Down Park & Ride have had an impact on the character of the area.  These changes were debated in detail at the Wansdyke Local Plan Inquiry. The Inspector considered that visual impact of the park & ride has been reduced by the mounding and landscaping. In addition he considered  that the park & ride site remains predominantly open  and free of development and therefore that it  is part of the fringe area rather than the more intensively built-up urban area to the north.  In relation to the Sulis Manor Estate, the Inspector considered that the  football ground, the school and other buildings to the north limit views of it to glimpses along the access road.  The inspector stated that even if this development were more closely located, the inherent nature of an inner Green Belt boundary means that it will often have urban development right up to it on one side. The inspector concluded that the site continues to serve some of the purposes of the Green Belt and that it should remain open.

There have been no significant changes in the character of this area since it was considered at the Wansdyke Local Plan Inquiry.

The Council has re-assessed how the JRSP dwelling requirement will be met primarily through a review of its Urban Housing Capacity Study. It is considered that through this review sufficient sites have been identified to enable the requirement to be met, including an estimated 1,100 dwellings coming forward during the plan period on Western Riverside and MoD, Foxhill. The objection site is a greenfield site. Other than the limited greenfield sites identified in the Plan there is no need to allocate further greenfield sites for residential development.

With regard to reviewing the Green Belt around Bath as set out in RPG10 the JRSP does not provide for such a review. The Local Plan needs to conform with the JRSP. The review of the Green Belt referred to in RPG will take place as part of the review of sub-regional planning through the RSS preparation process.

Whilst it is accepted that the accommodation requirements of the school need to be met and that this would be difficult on the existing school site this is not considered to be an exceptional circumstance that would warrant changing the Green Belt boundary in order to provide for educational and residential development. The provision of residential development in order to fund improvements to the school is not regarded as contributing towards exceptional circumstances. Acceptance of such a principle would set a precedent which could increase pressure for such enabling development at other schools or community facilities in similar locations. In essence the benefits of improving both the school's accommodation and highway safety do not outweigh the harm to the Green Belt caused by developing the site for housing (in part).

Whilst it is agreed that the Wansdyke Local Plan Inspector stated that the visual impact of the park and ride site was reduced through landscaping (and that landscaping could help to reduce the impact of residential and educational development) it should be noted that the Inspector concluded that the park and ride site remained predominantly open and free from buildings. As such it remains part of the fringe area rather than the more intensively built up urban area. This would not be the case in relation to the proposed development of the objection site. The uses proposed would lead to the site being predominantly occupied by buildings, thereby leading to an extension of the urban area into the Green Belt.

No change.

NE.1 - Landscape character 

Oval Estates ( Bath ) Ltd 3300/B4

Abbots Farm Close, Paulton

The boundary of the proposed Landscape Character Area in relation to this site should be realigned to confirm with the boundary of the area of local landscape/nature conservation interest shown in the Wansdyke Local Plan, as indicated on the attached plan.

RESPONSE AGREED AFTER PUBLICATION OF REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT LOCAL PLAN: 

Disagree. The responses to representation 3300/B1 outlines why development on this site is inappropriate.

However, inclusion of the Landscape Character Area boundaries has given rise to confusion concerning the purpose of the zones, whether Policy NE.1 operates in rural and/or urban areas and concern about the precise delineation of the boundaries.  Therefore, in order to ensure that the Local Plan is succinct and clear, it is recommended that the Landscape Character Area boundaries are no longer shown on the Proposals Map.  Instead, they will be defined in the Landscape Character Assessment SPG - Rural Landscapes of Bath & North East Somerset.

The Local Plan policy stance will, in essence, remain unchanged as Policy 1 will continue to require all new development to conserve or enhance the landscape character.  The SPG will then supplement Policy NE.1 by providing developers and others users with the descriptions of each character area to inform the submission of planning proposals.

NB Following changes in Government guidance, the Local landscape/nature conservation areas in the Wansdyke Local Plan have not been included the Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan.

No change (NB  Landscape Character Area boundaries deleted in Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan Proposals Map)

Mrs. Jane Hellard: South Stoke Parish Council

745/B14

 South Stoke

There is no logic in taking the southern boundary of the landscape character area 16 around the housing development boundary and boundary of the Conservation Area.  The  landscape character boundary should be modified to link across the centre of the village as shown in attached diagram, this being the nearest approximation to the escarpment.

RESPONSE AGREED AFTER PUBLICATION OF REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT LOCAL PLAN:  The Landscape Character boundaries have been removed from the Local Plan and are now shown in the SPG to the Local Plan 'Rural Landscapes'.  The amendment to the boundary suggested has been made in the SPG.

Changes in the Revised Deposit Local Plan overcome the concerns of this objection.

C2.33

Mrs. Deborah Porter: Cam Valley Wildlife Group

3298/B6

The Local Plan's relationship with the local Biodiversity Action Plan

Given the importance placed by Bath and North East Somerset Council on the local Biodiversity Action Plan, the resources given to it, and the strong level of support it attracts from the local nature conservation community, we are surprised by the lack of prominence given to it in the Local Plan.

We would like the Local Plan to be more closely integrated with the Local Biodiversity Action Plan, and the Wild Things Priority Habitats and Species, in the following ways:

(i)  We would like the Local Biodiversity Action Plan to be given the status of a Material Consideration in respect of planning decisions.  Further comments on this proposals will be made in follow-up documentation, to be supplied at a later date.

(ii)  We would like to see mention made of the Local BAP in the paragraph A4.2(b).

(iii)  We would like to see more mention made of the Wild Things priority species and habitats, specifically in paragraph C2.48 and Policy NE.11, which mention "species of importance to Bath & North East Somerset - we believe that these should be more explicit in stating that this refers to the Wild Things priority species list.

(iv)  Policy NE.4 and its preceding paragraphs in the section headed Trees and Woodland should be enhanced to make specific mention of the contribution made by Trees and Woodland as priority habitats, and habitats which contribute towards the conservation of priority species in Bath & North East Somerset, and to ensure that development does not damage the ability of trees and woodland to continue to make such a contribution.

(v)  We have concerns over Policy NE.11 - the Plan does not present any information relating to how the Council will decide that the importance of the development in question and its need for a particular location override the local value of the species.  We would like to see a detailed statement of how this should be done included in the Local Plan, or if this is not possible then a commitment from Bath & North East Somerset to produce and publish this within a reasonable timeframe, and to consult on its content.

(vi)  A specific target/indicator relating to the priority habitats and species in the table on page 33 would strengthen the links between the two plans, and be very welcome.

(vii)  We would like to suggest the following paragraph for inclusion in the Plan, which we feel would make a clear link between the Plan and the Local BAP objectives:

"The Authority will actively seek to increase the proportion of the District covered by the priority habitats, to increase populations of priority species, and promote the restoration and expansion of depleted and vulnerable biodiversity resources, reversing declines in area, population and connectedness of these resources"

This paragraph could be further improved by making references to the mechanisms by which the Local Plan can help achieve these aims.

(viii)  We would like to seek clarification on what is meant in paragraph A4.40 by "the following strategies make an important contribution to the Local Plan".

RESPONSE AGREED AFTER PUBLICATION OF REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT LOCAL PLAN:

(i)   The local Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) is referred to in para A4.36 and it has informed drafting of other parts of the  Local Plan.  The BAP consists of a number of documents, not all of which are relevant as SPG.  Where appropriate, these will be approved as SPG to the Local Plan (see proposed SPG in para A4.20) and will have the appropriate status accorded in the determination of planning applications.

(ii)   It is made clear in para A4.2(b) that the Council will use its powers to improve the economic, social or environmental well-being of the District through the implementation of a range of strategies which would, of course, include the local BAP.  A few examples are cited in clause b) but it be both too lengthy and unnecessary to cite all relevant documents. Instead, para A4.36 of the Local Plan is devoted to the BAP.  

(iii)   Agree.  Quick Guide 15A could be amended to include the source of its information i.e. the Council's Wild Things Priority List instead of citing it in para C2.48 as suggested.  However, it is not good practice and contrary to government guidance to include reference to specific documentation within a local plan policy.

(iv) Para C2.26 preceding Policy NE.4 has been amended to emphasize the wildlife value of Ancient Woodlands.  Otherwise the Local Plan seeks to protect existing trees & woodlands for their wildlife value and increase tree cover where this can be fairly and reasonably related to new development.   (e.g. Policies NE.4, NE.5, NE.1, D.2).  Para A5.59 & Quick Guide 4B promote the enhancement of biodiversity in landscaping schemes for new development and Otherwise the objective is beyond the remit of the Local Plan and is dependent upon other initiatives.

(v)  The policy wording reflects national planning guidance in PPG9 paras 18 & 25 of PPG9.  The Policy has been amended to require compensation in such cases.  The circumstances when a development might override the value of a site will be dependent on the particular circumstances and will be assessed through the Development Control process .  All applications for development are considered on their merits within the context of the Local Plan as a whole and any other material considerations.  To include a detailed procedural statement within the Local Plan would overburden it with detail and could not possibly cover all conceivable situations.

(vi)  It would be impossible to include Targets and Indicators for all issues relevant to the development and conservation of land.  Biodiversity issues are already covered by Target and Indicator 17.

(vii)  It is beyond the remit of the Local Plan to undertake what is proposed in the suggested paragraph.   Issues relating to "actively increasing the proportion of the District covered by the priority species" etc are outside planning control and can be addressed through other initiatives such as the Biodiversity Action Plan.  It is also unnecessary to replicate the local BAP's objectives in the Local Plan.  The Local Plan relates only to issues of land use and development and can only contain requirements of development where these are fairly and reasonable related to new development.  Where the Local Plan is able to make a contribution to this objective i.e. it can be fairly related to new development, Policies NE.4, NE.5, NE.1, D.2,   para A5.59 & Quick Guide 4B apply.  A more comprehensive approach  however is being pursued through the Wildthings Projects.

(viii)  The Local Plan is a corporate document and therefore information contained in other relevant Council documents and strategies will  inform the drafting of the Local Plan.

CHANGE AGREED AFTER PUBLICATION OF REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT LOCAL PLAN:
Amend Quick Guide 15A to make clear that the source of the information is the Wildthings Priority Species List.

 BH.15 - Visually important open spaces

Ms Rosemary Sanvicens

2107/B2

Beechen Cliff School Playing Fields, Bath

In order to protect open spaces, especially those with public amenity value it is imperative that all school playing fields are retained, as part of this exercise.

For Beechen Cliff School , their playing fields are traversed by several public footpaths, which are an exceptional, valuable and extensively used local and tourist facility.

This open space, in a conservation are, forms a visually important backdrop to the listed buildings of Devonshire Buildings and Devonshire Place and sits attractively between Alexandra Park and Lyncombe Vale.  It provides continuity of a 'green wedge' pedestrian route between the Avon River valley and Combe Down.

RESPONSE AGREED AFTER PUBLICATION OF REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT LOCAL PLAN:

Noted.  The Beechen Cliff School Playing Fields are safeguarded as a 'Visually Important Open Space' under Policy BH.15 as well as being protected for their formal recreational value under Policy SR.1A (as proposed to be amended).

No change.

Ms Rosemary Stanton

2109/B2

Beechen Cliff School Playing Fields, Bath

In order to protect open spaces, especially those with public amenity value it is imperative that all school playing fields are retained, as part of this exercise.

For Beechen Cliff School , their playing fields are traversed by several public footpaths, which are an exceptional, valuable and extensively used local and tourist facility.

This open space, in a conservation are, forms a visually important backdrop to the listed buildings of Devonshire Buildings and Devonshire Place and sits attractively between Alexandra Park and Lyncombe Vale.  It provides continuity of a 'green wedge' pedestrian route between the Avon River valley and Combe Down.

RESPONSE AGREED AFTER PUBLICATION OF REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT LOCAL PLAN:

Noted.  The Beechen Cliff School Playing Fields are safeguarded as a 'Visually Important Open Space' under Policy BH.15 as well as being protected for their formal recreational value under Policy SR.1A (as proposed to be amended).

No change.

Mr. Harry A. Carter: Greenway Lane Area Residents Forum

2113/B2

Beechen Cliff School Playing Fields, Bath

In order to protect open spaces, especially those with public amenity value it is imperative that all school playing fields are retained, as part of this exercise.

For Beechen Cliff School , their playing fields are traversed by several public footpaths, which are an exceptional, valuable and extensively used local and tourist facility.

This open space, in a conservation are, forms a visually important backdrop to the listed buildings of Devonshire Buildings and Devonshire Place and sits attractively between Alexandra Park and Lyncombe Vale.  It provides continuity of a 'green wedge' pedestrian route between the Avon River valley and Combe Down.

RESPONSE AGREED AFTER PUBLICATION OF REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT LOCAL PLAN:

Noted.  The Beechen Cliff School Playing Fields are safeguarded as a 'Visually Important Open Space' under Policy BH.15 as well as being protected for their formal recreational value under Policy SR.1A (as proposed to be amended).

No change.

 D - ACCESS

Mr. David Redgewell: Transport 2000 / Railfutures

2/B35

The transport chapter lacks a policy on sustainable freight policy reflecting the need for HGV routes freight lands similar to Newcastle Upon Tyne .  No reference is made to freight quality partnerships with approach through both the Avon and Somerset Freight Quality Partnership as per the Transport Act of 2002 and local transport plans. No policy exists for rail freight facilities or use of the River Avon or freight to Western Riverside or Keynsham.

RESPONSE AGREED AFTER PUBLICATION OF REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT LOCAL PLAN:   The Council is at present preparing a Freight Strategy and the need for an additional Local Plan policy will be considered when this has been done.  The Plan does safeguard the existing and former rail network (Policy T.9) and the rail freight facility at Westmoreland Station Road (Policy T.10).  Policy M.9 requires developers whose proposals entail the transport of minerals or waste to make provision for non-road methods where possible.  The need to provide for sustainable transport to Western Riverside is addressed in the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance.

No change.

Michael Briggs: Bath Preservation Trust

686/B31

There should also be a map showing all transport links inserted before the Access section of the LP.

RESPONSE AGREED AFTER PUBLICATION OF REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT LOCAL PLAN:    Disagree - There are a large number of transport links in the District and is would not be possible to show them all clearly on one A4 sized map.  Major cycle routes, railway lines, proposed railway stations, the rapid transport route, road safeguarding schemes and park and ride sites are, however, illustrated on the Proposals Maps.

No change.

Michael Briggs: Bath Preservation Trust

686/B122

Overall we lend our support to the policies set out in Chapter D2 concerning public transport.

RESPONSE AGREED AFTER PUBLICATION OF REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT LOCAL PLAN:  Support Noted

No change.

Mr. David Redgewell: Transport 2000 / Railfutures

2/B37

  Bath

With the development of Western Riverside and Southgate , their needs to be a policy on the use of the River Avon for passenger and freight movement.  No policy existing to protect ferry landing stages similar to the London Rivers policy on protecting piers and ferry landing stages in London especially with waterfront development planned in Bath .

RESPONSE AGREED AFTER PUBLICATION OF REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT LOCAL PLAN:   Disagree.  There are at present no specific proposals which could be the subject of a safeguarding policy but the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance for Western Riverside requires proposals to take account of the need for landing stages.

No change.

 T.25 - Transport assessments & travel plans

Ms Helen Woodley

120/B122

Support Policy

RESPONSE AGREED AFTER PUBLICATION OF REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT LOCAL PLAN:   Support noted

No change