Meeting documents

Appx 3

The Federation of Bath Residents' Associations

Statement by Chris Beezley to B&NES' Council Executive meeting - 6th September 2006

Councillors,

This statement is made on behalf of the Federation of Bath Residents' Associations and relates to the Inspector's recommendations regarding the relationship between the University of Bath campus and the green belt boundary at Claverton Down. I refer to paragraphs A1.14 & A1.15 of the supporting paper to Agenda Item 11.

Firstly, the Federation strongly welcomes the recommendations (a) to maintain St John's Field within the green belt and afford it long-term protection and (b) that all future development is undertaken within the context of a new campus masterplan which takes account of the substantial areas of the existing campus identified by the Inspector as having considerable development potential.

However, the Federation remains considerably disappointed at the proposal to remove 40 acres from the green belt in the absence of specific development proposals, particularly since one of the claimed 'exceptional circumstances' has been confirmed to be seriously flawed with the publication, since the public inquiry, of this year's A-level results indicating that the Government's target of getting 50% of young people into higher education by 2010 will be missed by a considerable margin. This is consistent with the reduced demand for university places this year due to increased top-up fees.

We note with particular concern that at paragraph A1.15 it is suggested that B&NES' Executive only partially agrees with the Inspector's recommended reference to specific floorspace figures since the University now 'has concerns that the balance between future residential accommodation and other uses may need to change'.

You will recall that a key element of the University's case at the public inquiry was the claimed need to provide 2,000 more student residences on campus during the Local Plan period and that these would relieve pressure on Bath's affordable housing market. However, doubt crept in regarding any such real commitment when paragraph 9.20 of the Inspector's report introduced for the first time the likelihood that only 60 to 70% of the proposed development would actually materialise during the Plan period. This reduction was not mentioned at the inquiry. Today we read that officers recommend that the University should be given carte blanche to decide just how many more campus residences are built.

If the second suggested response (at paragraph A1.15) is simply rubber-stamped this morning, the very real possibility would exist whereby far fewer student residences are built than the University proposed when it convinced the Inspector to approve the green belt boundary change. This would completely undermine the major argument for expansion into the green belt, which will result in 40 acres of land being lost forever and invalidate the first suggested response at paragraph A1.14.

The Federation calls upon the Council Executive to reject paragraph A1.15 and retain the Inspector's recommendation with regards to floorspace figures. Were the Executive minded to accept paragraph A1.15 as written, then it is beholden on the Council to provide clear and convincing reasons why there has been a change in circumstances since the Local Plan Inquiry that justify this amendment.

Thank you.