Meeting documents

1 THE ISSUE

1.1 This report sets out a review of options for the future of the Local Plan and proposes responses to key issues arising from Local Plan Inspector's report.

2 RECOMMENDATION

2.1 agrees that the whole Local Plan should be progressed to statutory adoption and notes the amended timetable for adoption in Para 5.8; and,

2.2 endorses the proposed responses to the Inspector's recommendations in Table 1 (as amplified in Appendix 1) for consideration by Full Council.

3  FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

3.1 Budgetary provision has been made to cover the preparation of the Local Plan to adoption. Potential financial implications of reconsidering the future of the Local Plan are addressed in section 7 below.

4 COMMUNITY STRATEGY OUTCOMES

4.1 The modifications to the Local Plan arising from this report contribute to achieving the following Community Strategy outcomes:

5 CORPORATE IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES

5.1 The modifications to the Local Plan arising from this report are particularly relevant to the following Corporate Improvement Priorities:

6 CPA KEY LINES OF ENQUIRY

6.1 The modifications to the Local Plan arising from this report contribute to the following CPA Lines of Enquiry:

o Sustainable Communities and Transport

o Safer and Stronger Communities

o Healthier Communities; and

7 THE REPORT

7.2 Four options have been identified and an assessment of the advantages, disadvantages and risks of these options has been undertaken. The options and conclusions are summarised below.

7.3 Taking the Local Plan through statutory procedures to formal adoption delivers a robust policy framework for development control and provides a statutory platform for Council initiatives such as Bath Western Riverside (BWR) and the delivery of housing. It provides a comprehensive policy basis for the District pending the adoption of new documents in the Local Development Framework. However, whilst the basic development control policies are unlikely to date quickly, the underlying strategic basis will be increasingly eroded by the Regional Spatial Strategy although it is not significantly out of step with emerging Visions. The risks of a modifications Inquiry and a successful legal challenge are limited.

7.4 This option still requires responding to Inspector's Report but does not entail the statutory adoption process. A modifications inquiry can be avoided and more rapid progress can be made on the Local Development Framework. Whilst many of the Local Plan policies can be used informally for determining planning applications, it will provide an ambiguous policy framework likely to give rise to successful planning appeals, awards of costs, and ombudsman investigations. The policy basis for the delivery of initiatives such BWR and Lower Bristol Road sites will be undermined. The risk of a successful legal challenge is high because there is a clear public expectation that the Plan will be adopted and substantial resources invested so far.

7.5 Partial adoption has been suggested by the Government Office and the Inspector in order to expedite adoption. It appears to entail adoption only of those policies unlikely to give rise to a legal challenge/risk of a further inquiry. However, this would include deleting some key policies thereby undermining Council objectives (such as development site allocations). This would leave an unclear policy framework for Development Control with the implications for performance and costs. There is a high risk of legal challenge by aggrieved parties due to non-adoption and the risk of a modifications inquiry is heightened (i.e. non-adopted policies are in effect a modification to the Plan). There is no legal precedent or statutory provision for this approach. Partial adoption will therefore neither expedite the adoption of the Local Plan nor reduce the risk of legal challenge/ further inquiry. Furthermore, it would be a breach of Council's statutory duty to adopt a plan which did not cover the entire area of the District. Therefore, this is potentially the worst option.

7.6 Withdrawal of the Plan avoids a modifications inquiry and a legal challenge on SEA grounds and progress can be made on LDF. However, it removes the planning policy framework and the platform for Council initiatives, leading to severe difficulties for development control decisions, a deleterious effect on government targets, costs of appeals and increased risk of successful legal challenge on grounds of public expectation of adoption.

7.7 As a result of the above assessment, it is recommended that Statutory Adoption is the most appropriate of the four options. It is the one which most robustly achieves Council policy objectives and is subject to least risk and the most satisfactory outcome. Partial adoption will neither expedite the adoption of the Local Plan nor reduce the risk of legal challenge/ further inquiry.

7.8 It is now highly unlikely that the timetable published in the Local Development Scheme for the Local Plan can be achieved. The adoption date for the Local Plan will most likely be delayed until after May 2007. An amendment will therefore be required to the Council's Local Development Scheme.

Responses to the Inspectors recommendations

7.9 Key issues on housing were considered at the Council Executive in June and taking the Local Plan through to adoption requires consideration of responses to other key issues arising from the Inspector's Report. Full Council will need to formally consider all the responses to the Inspector's recommendations and any consequential modifications to the Local Plan.

7.10 The Inspector's Report supports many of the Council's policies and proposals in the Local Plan. Following the Inspector's Report over 85% of the Local Plan policies can be used routinely, being either unchallenged through the inquiry process or supported in principle by the Inspector. However, if the Council chooses not accept any of the Inspector's recommendations it must provide clear and convincing reasons why there has been a change in circumstances since the Local Plan Inquiry. Reliance on the same arguments made at the Local Plan Inquiry could attract a legal challenge which would lead to delays and further expense. Some of the recommendations raise issues which require further work which can be addressed through documents in the Local Development Framework in due course.

7.11 Appendix 1 sets out the response to key issues arising from the Inspector's Report in full. An outline of these issues is set out below in Table 1.

8 RISK MANAGEMENT

8.1 The report author and Lead Executive member have fully reviewed the risk assessment related to the issue and recommendations, in compliance with the Council's decision making risk management guidance.

9 RATIONALE

10 OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED

11 CONSULTATION

11.1 The Regulations require that any modifications to the Local Plan are published for public comment, along with the Council responses to the Inspector's Report before the Local Plan is adopted.

12 ISSUES TO CONSIDER IN REACHING THE DECISION

12.1 The Local Plan modifications also have implications for: social inclusion; customer focus; sustainability; property; young people; corporate issues; Human Rights and other legal considerations.

13 ADVICE SOUGHT

13.1 The Council's Monitoring Officer (Council Solicitor) and Section 151 Officer (Resources Director) have had the opportunity to input to this report and have cleared it for publication.

A1.3 As a result of the above analysis she concludes that `exceptional circumstances' exist to justify removing some of the land from the Green Belt that was proposed in the RDDLP i.e. land to north of the Avenue and west of Norwood Avenue, thereby leaving St. John's field in the Green Belt.

Implications

Suggested Response

Issue: Existing businesses within the site

A2.1 In order to provide clarity for businesses currently operating within the BWR site, the inspector recommends the additional policy wording 93There will be no requirement for existing businesses to be relocated during the plan period. Those business uses wishing to remain within the site and which are compatible with the redevelopment scheme, will either remain in their current locations or be relocated within or adjacent to the redeveloped area.94

Suggested Response

A2.2 Whilst it is accepted that clarity for businesses within BWR would be beneficial, the form of wording recommended by the Inspector is not accurate as it may be that some existing businesses will need to be relocated during the life of the Plan. It is therefore recommended that the Inspector's wording is modified as follows, 93Existing businesses wishing to remain within the site and which are compatible with the SPD will either remain in their current locations or be relocated within or adjacent to the redeveloped area or elsewhere if appropriate94

Issue: Comprehensiveness

A2.3 The inspector recommends the addition of the following clause in order to secure a comprehensive approach to development, 93Any planning application will need to demonstrate that it is consistent with and contributes to the comprehensive development of the whole site by reference to the Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document which accords with this policy.94

A2.4 This addition is helpful although it should more accurately refer to the `BWR Supplementary Planning Document'.

· it is substantially taken up by the main building and costs of equipment would make it difficult for the company to relocate;

· the numbers of employees make it one of the City's larger employers;

Suggested Response

B1 Policy S.3: Hayesfield School playing field/St. Martin's Garden Primary School site

B1.1 The Inspector recommends that the Hayesfield School playing field/St. Martin's Garden primary school site at Odd Down should be considered for allocation for mixed use development, including a food store. A new food store in southern Bath would relieve pressure on the Sainsbury's store while also reducing the need for the residents in a densely developed part of the city to travel into or across the city centre for convenience shopping.

B1.2 The need to retain the playing fields in the light of the overall conclusions of the Council's Green Space Strategy (which was not available to the Inquiry) should be considered. If they are not required, or if adequate alternative provisions can be made, the Inspector recommends that a positive allocation for mixed use (including retail) should be made in the plan. Consideration should then be given as to the replacement of the primary school and other facilities which should be provided as part of a mixed development.

B1.3 Through the Further Pre-Inquiry Changes (FPICs) to the Local Plan the Council has accepted the need for additional convenience floorspace in Bath and that there is greatest need for an additional food store in south Bath. Allocation of the site as recommended by the Inspector requires consideration of a number of issues:

B1.4 PPG17 (Planning for open space, sport and recreation) makes it clear that in considering whether open space is surplus and should be developed its ability to serve other recreational functions and meet a recreational deficit should be considered. Work on the Council's Green Spaces Strategy has advanced significantly since the Local Plan Inquiry. The strategy sets out a hierarchy of green spaces and assesses the need for different types of green space in the District. The strategy identifies that there is a need for informal neighbourhood green space and facilities for young people in south Bath as opposed to formal playing pitches. An area of about 2 hectares is required for a neighbourhood green space. This could include the grassed area of land adjoining to the west of the St. Martin's Garden Primary School site (known as Odd Down open space) which is also owned by the Council.

B1.5 Currently the Hayesfield school playing fields that occupy just over 2 hectares of the site are not available for community use. Therefore, if comprehensive development of the site included provision for an accessible neighbourhood green space this would provide recreational benefits to the residents of this part of the city. The neighbourhood green space could (in consultation with the community) also include provision of young people's facilities e.g. multi-use games area, children's play facilities.

B1.6 With regard to formal sports provision Hayesfield School intend to invest the capital receipt from the sale of its playing fields in improving its indoor and outdoor sports facilities at its split campus. Subject to negotiation with the school it is likely that these facilities would also be available for community use. Given that the existing playing fields are not used by the school or the community Sport England are generally supportive of the school's proposal as it leads to improved sports facilities for school and community use. The Council's Active Leisure department has also confirmed that redevelopment of the playing fields would be acceptable as long as provision is made for a suitable replacement which could be off-site. This would be addressed by the proposed Hayesfield school improvements to its outdoor sports facilties.

Education issues

B1.7 As noted above sale of the playing fields will enable Hayesfield School to improve its facilities on its lower and upper campuses. In addition disposal of the playing fields could benefit other schools (see also section on disposal process below).

B1.8 St. Martin's Garden Primary School lies within the site recommended for allocation and provision of a replacement school on site therefore needs to be considered. Whilst a sure start children's centre and autistic unit have only recently been constructed (and would need to be replaced) the school itself dates back to the 1950's and is expensive to maintain. Its layout is also not space efficient. Allocation of the site would therefore have the benefit of providing a new purpose built replacement school occupying a smaller area than is currently the case. The existing school occupies nearly 3.5 ha of land and Education Services suggest that a replacement `one form' entry school, together with replacement sure start children's centre and autistic unit would occupy approximately 2 ha.

B1.9 In order to ensure continuous provision of education by the primary school and to keep disruption to a minimum development of the site would need to be phased so that the replacement school is built and occupied before the food store is constructed. This could be addressed by the development requirements in the Local Plan.

B1.10 The process for disposal of playing fields is a complex one. Implementation of the allocation would clearly be dependent on approval for disposal being granted. Hayesfield School has commenced the disposal process. Once an application is submitted the Secretary of State's decision regarding disposal and allocation of the capital receipt is usually reached within 8 weeks to 6 months.

B1.11 As Hayesfield School is a Foundation School the Council does not control the land or the capital receipt, but is able to submit its comments to the Secretary of State on the allocation of the capital receipt. Education Services have confirmed that they will be seeking that part of the capital receipt is made available to benefit other local schools. The decision will then be made by the Secretary of State.

Transportation Impacts

B1.12 Given the location of the site on the heavily trafficked Wellsway and Frome Road and the fact that the potential development would be a substantial traffic generator the transportation impacts are likely to be significant. A widely scoped Transportation Assessment (TA) examining all modes of travel would be necessary. This would identify the impacts (both strategic and local) that need to be mitigated by the development. The Local Plan site requirements would need to refer to the requirement for a TA and that all identified impacts (relating to all modes of transport) are satisfactorily addressed.

Retail issues

B1.13 The FPICs to the Local Plan suggest that a significant proportion of the convenience floorspace needed in Bath is likely to be provided by the extension of the Waitrose store in the redevelopment of the Podium/Hilton site and the relocation and extension of Sainsbury's as part of the redevelopment of BWR. Indications at the Local Plan Inquiry were that around 2,000 to 2,500m² of the overall need would not be met by the above extensions.

B1.14 In addressing the deficiency of food stores in south Bath it is sensible to provide a store that is able to sell a wide enough range of goods to ensure that resident's needs are substantially met. However, it is also important that the food store is of a size that will primarily serve a `local' catchment area. A larger superstore would be likely to draw in customers and therefore traffic from a wider area, potentially resulting in significant numbers of cross city journeys and journeys into the city from surrounding areas.

B1.15 Taking account of the considerations set out above and the Council's priority to facilitate the redevelopment of the Podium site and BWR it is prudent to limit the size of the food store to about 2,500m². This should be sufficient to ensure the needs of this part of Bath are met, including during the longer term RSS period the additional population potentially arising from an urban extension south of Bath. Furthermore, limiting the store to this size will help to ensure there is sufficient land available to meet the other required uses on this site.

B1.16 In responding to the Inspector's Report an initial urban design assessment has been undertaken. This suggests that the uses described above could be accommodated on the site. In order to ensure that the development is not cramped and that sufficient land is available for any necessary landscaping it is recommended that the adjoining grassed area of land (Odd Down open space) to the west of the primary school is included within the allocation for the purposes of contributing towards providing the informal neighbourhood recreational space (in total around 2ha in area). Whilst significant land is unlikely to be available to accommodate additional uses such as housing or other community facilities it is considered that the development requirements should refer to an element of residential uses enabling the potential for residential dwellings above the food store to be further investigated.

B1.17 Partially agree with the Inspector's recommendation and allocate Hayesfield School playing field/St. Martin's Garden Primary School/adjoining Odd Down open space for mixed use development including a food store, replacement primary school, sure start children's centre and autistic unit and neighbourhood recreational space. In allocating the site development requirements set out in the Local Plan will need to ensure that the recreational and educational benefits outlined above are delivered and that any potential adverse impacts (e.g. in relation to transportation) are fully addressed. This can be done through the development site requirements.

Issue

B2.1 The Inspector considers that it is not clear how policies S.5 (protection of A1 uses in primary frontages) and S.6 (A3 uses in Bath city centre) operate together in determining applications for A3 uses and considering contribution to overall city centre vitality. She therefore recommends that policy S.5 is cross referenced to S.6 by inserting the words `Subject to policy S.6' at the start of policy S.5.

Implications

B2.2 The Inspector's recommended change will not just link the policies clarifying that they operate together, but would significantly weaken protection of the primary shopping frontage in Bath. The Inspector does not refer to this in her reasoning and therefore, it is considered that this was not the intended effect.

B2.3 Whilst policies S.5 and S.6 are both relevant in determining proposals for A3 uses within the parts of the central shopping area defined as primary frontages the operation of one is not intended to be over ridden by the other. Inserting the words `Subject to policy S.6' at the start of S.5 could suggest that S.6 will over ride S.5 in the Bath central shopping area. This could result in a proposal for a change of use of a ground floor premises from a shop (A1 use) to an A3 use in the primary frontage being acceptable as long as it preserves/enhances character of the Conservation Area, does not have unacceptable impact on residential amenity or does not have an unacceptable impact on the vitality and viability of the city centre. The final qualification is a suggested addition by the Inspector to policy S.6 which would be difficult to demonstrate in relation to an individual application.

B2.4 Protection of A1 uses within the compact city centre retail core would be significantly weakened and indeed would be considerably weaker than the protection of such uses in the District's town centres. Policy S.5 as worded is a robust policy that is successfully operated in the circumstances particular to Bath.

B2.5 In order to clarify that both policies operate together in applying to applications for A3 uses in the primary frontage as intended by the Inspector it is suggested that policy S.6 be modified by inserting the words `Subject to policy S.5' at the start of it. This would ensure that within the identified primary frontages policy S.5 continues to protect ground floor A1 uses and that outside the primary frontages proposals for an A3 use will be acceptable subject to the qualifications listed in that policy. Legal opinion advises that there is sufficient justification to disagree with the Inspector as the recommended policy wording change will lead to undesired and unintended effects on the primary shopping frontages in Bath.

B2.6 The Inspector's other recommended modifications to policy S.6 which clarify the spatial extent of its operation and to add a reference to city centre vitality and viability should be accepted.

Suggested Response

B2.7 Partially accept Inspector's recommendation but modify Policy S.6 by inserting at its beginning the words `Subject to Policy S.5'.

B3 RETAIL PROVISION

Issue

B3.1 The Inspector considers that the NLP study provides a useful, but rather bullish assessment of quantitative capacity for additional retail floorspace. Some of its assumptions may be over optimistic and in terms of large format retail warehousing may not accord with government policy set out in PPS6 which advocates flexibility of retail development format. She therefore considers that the Local Plan should not have allocated sites to meet the maximum capacity figures and recommends a more balanced and cautious short term response.

B3.2 The Council's priority should be to secure the redevelopment of Southgate which will extend the retail offer of the city centre. It is sequentially the best site and is now at the `starting blocks'. The Inspector concludes it is fundamentally important that it is not undermined by commitments made in the Local Plan.

B3.3 The Inspector supports retention of the allocation of the Podium/Cattlemarket site, but considers it premature to allocate Avon Street Car Park for mixed use redevelopment mainly because it is not likely to be able to provide retail floorspace during the Plan period.

B3.4 With regard to retail at BWR the Inspector considers that it is primarily an out-of-centre site. Furthermore, given the limited presence of retail, leisure and other related uses between Green Park station and the existing retail core it would become a competing, rather than complimentary, shopping destination to the city centre. Planning permission for retail development at BWR before 2011 would damage the prospects of full completion and occupation of Southgate. Allocation of high street retail floorspace at BWR in the Local Plan is not supported by the Inspector.

B3.5 In addition the Inspector recommends that large format retail warehousing should not be provided at BWR as there is not sufficient evidence justifying such provision and large format stores represent a form of development that is generally not compatible with the character and appearance of the World Heritage Site (WHS) or the high density and high design quality principles underpinning the regeneration of BWR.

B3.6 The Inspector also recommends that a long term retail strategy is prepared as a Development Plan Document (DPD) to guide retail growth in a number of phased and carefully monitored steps. This would enable a number of city centre/edge of centre opportunities to be thoroughly investigated to see if more organic growth of city centre retailing could be secured. In addition the retail strategy could review the appropriateness of providing large format retail floorspace in light of PPS6. In conjunction with this review the suitability of the Lower Bristol area (through consolidation of Weston Lock Retail Park) to accommodate additional stores should be examined through Master planning for this area.

B3.8 Some of the Inspector's conclusions regarding the NLP study and its assumptions could be challenged and more importantly so could the apparent failure of the Inspector's recommendations to meet the minimum need identified in the NLP study. It is important that identified need is planned for so that Bath's retail role is maintained in the longer term. This is important for a number of reasons, including economic stability and related job provision (retail is an important economic sector in Bath) and providing a good choice of shops for local residents.

B3.9 However, the long term sustainable future of the city centre will not be best achieved through ill conceived short term growth. In addition, it is vital that the redevelopment of Southgate is implemented as the first stage of improving Bath's retail offer and its environment and thereby, helping to maintain the city centre's role. In order to ensure that improvements in the city centre are implemented `step by step', to allow the provision of necessary infrastructure and for the city centre to rebalance and settle down after each episode of growth it is considered prudent to agree with the Inspector's recommended approach.

B3.10 It is vital however, that work on planning for further need beyond the plan period is progressed quickly i.e. through preparation of the retail strategy identified by the Inspector. Major Projects and Development are in the process of preparing a brief for this work. The strategy should sit within a sub-regional framework in order to ensure that the relationships between major centres such as Bath and Bristol are properly considered. The strategy will also need to be properly integrated with this Council's Core Strategy and could inform a Development Plan Document such as an Area Action Plan.

B3.11 The retail strategy will enable the level and type of retail need to be re-examined. It will need to assess a number of options for meeting this need and examine a range of potential edge of centre opportunities (as identified by the Inspector). Preparation of this strategy will also accord with PPS6 and should enable the best solution to managing longer term retail growth to be achieved. Through its preparation and consideration of options, analysis of the appropriateness of comparison retailing at the eastern end of BWR can also be undertaken within a city centre framework. This approach is also consistent with conclusions of Ernst & Young's work on the Bath Business Plan. They highlighted the unique nature of retailing in Bath city centre and the need to carefully and holistically assess the way forward in light of the NLP study which estimated the quantitative and qualitative capacity for additional floorspace using what they considered to be a somewhat `standard' approach.

B3.12 If significant retail development at BWR is to be appropriate, it will be necessary to achieve better integration of the Green Park area into the wider city centre. Work on a retail strategy, and also a transportation strategy which reflects the policies of the JLTP, will enable these issues to be addressed. This will include a strategy relating to how the areas between Green Park and the existing retail core can be made more attractive, interesting and vibrant thereby enhancing the potential for most shopping trips to include both destinations.

B3.13 It is also considered sensible, in light of the approach set out in PPS6, to follow the Inspector's recommendation and review whether flexibility in relation to retail format and the splitting of proposals into constituent units could mean that single smaller units, potentially accommodated on sites closer to the city centre, could address the need proposed to be met through large format/retail warehouse development. Having reviewed the appropriateness of providing for this type of retailing in Bath (through the retail strategy) the potential for additional provision at Weston Lock Retail Park could (if necessary) be assessed via preparation of the Lower Bristol Road area SPD (which is currently referred to in the Council's Local Development Scheme).

B3.14 With regard to the regeneration of BWR, accepting the Inspector's recommendations on retail does not conflict with the draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) or threaten its delivery. The draft SPD is flexible in relation to the eastern end of the site. The Spatial Masterplan shows the area as `mixed use' which could include retail, office, cultural/leisure and residential uses. Specific provision for an identified amount of retail development is not made, rather the SPD allows for retail development in this area during the full development period (but beyond the Local Plan period) i.e. up to about 2021. This is a balanced and reasonable approach that enables Southgate to be implemented and for its impacts to be monitored and which allows for the phased development of BWR to progress i.e. earlier residential/mixed use phases on more western parts of the site can be implemented, whilst the potential for retail development at the eastern end is examined further. Similarly the draft SPD does not make provision for large format retail warehousing on BWR, which as the Inspector notes, would probably be contrary to the design, density and transportation principles central to the redevelopment.

B3.15 It is considered that the Inspector's recommended approach to retail growth in Bath city centre and the potential provision of large format retailing in the city should be accepted. Retail growth needs to be properly planned over the longer term, within the framework of a clear retail strategy. This strategy needs to be progressed quickly so that the best solution for providing retail growth can be established and start to be implemented soon after 2011. Modifying the Local Plan to adopt this more cautious approach should ensure that the redevelopment of Southgate progresses and the early phases of the regeneration of BWR are not hindered.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Issues

C1.1 The Inspector recognises the need to safeguard existing employment land but considers that the Local Plan policy framework would benefit from greater focus and clarification. This includes:

Suggested Response

Implications

Suggested Response

Suggested Response

E1.1 This policy safeguards land for three schemes:

Bypasses

E1.3 Previous studies have indicated that neither of the two A37 bypasses are justified by existing traffic levels but this is likely to change as a result of the Regional Spatial Strategy proposals for south Bristol development including the proposal for an Urban Extension at south west Bristol. There are new proposals for a South Bristol Ring Road in the Final Joint Local Transport Plan 2006 (JLTP) and these are recognised in the Government's Regional Funding Allocation in 2006. It is therefore inopportune to release land that has long been safeguarded for the Whitchurch bypass until the precise land needs of the Ring Road are known. In addition and since the Local Plan Inquiry, the JLTP now lists the Temple Cloud/Clutton Bypass as sub-regional priority requiring further work between 2011 and 2016. The inspector's recommendations on Lower Bristol Road scheme in Bath is programmed to be considered at the Council Executive in October.

E1.4 The release of land safeguarded by Policy T.17 could seriously compromise the proper planning of parts of the District where considerable development is envisaged.

E1.5 Disagree with the Inspector and retain Policy T.17 as circumstances have changes since the Local Plan Inquiry.

E2.1 The Local Plan proposed the removal of land from the Green Belt to develop a decked Park & Ride and rapid transit terminus at Newbridge. This proposal was part of an integrated package of improved public transport options and was part of the Council's transport strategy and contributed to achieving progress towards modal shift. The additional park & ride capacity would also play an important role in achieving the redevelopment of central areas of Bath in particular Bath Western Riverside.

E2.2 The Inspector concluded that there were no firm proposals or funding for the proposal and therefore considered that there is insufficient justification to remove land from the Green Belt to develop a decked Park & Ride & rapid transit terminus. The Inspector considers ideally the Council should look to expand the existing Newbridge Park & Ride site rather than develop across the road. She went on to recommend that, in the event that this was not feasible, then the land north of the A36 should be considered for a ground level car park which is properly landscaped and designed to maintain the openness of the site and to minimise the effect on the rural character. With this approach, there is no justification to remove land from the Green Belt.

Proposed Response

E2.3 Since Inquiry, funding has been secured to expand the existing Newbridge Park & Ride on A3. Therefore it is proposed that the Park & Ride allocation north of the A36 is deleted and the Green Belt is re-instated.

Relocation of Civic Amenity Site issues

E2.4 On the area of land to the south of the proposed park & ride and separated by the A36 the Council proposed to locate a civic amenity facility and other facilities. The Inspector considers that alternatives have not been adequately investigated and there is insufficient justification to release land from the Green Belt for this purpose.

Proposed Response

E2.5 It is proposed to accept this recommendation whilst alternative locations for the civic amenity site are being investigated. If no suitable alternative is identified then special circumstances must be argued for this development to occur. The Waste Services Project board will make recommendations on this issue in due course.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Issue

F1.1 The Inspector is recommending the deletion of the Important Hillsides in Bath and Norton Radstock. She is of the opinion that there is inadequate justification for this additional layer of policy protection as Policy NE.3 duplicates protection afforded by other policies in the Local.

F1.2 In Bath the Important Hillsides fall within the World Heritage Site designation and, with one small exception, the Conservation Area. Many are also designated nature conservation site and so any development proposal would be assessed against the relevant policies on these issues. This, she considers, would protect the landscape setting and character of Bath from potentially harmful development and the Important Hillside designation is therefore superfluous.

F1.3 With regard Norton-Radstock, the Important Hillsides are included in the landscape character assessment and any development proposals would be assessed against Policy NE.1 (Landscape Character) which would provide protection from the adverse affects of development. The Radstock Conservation Area includes extensive open areas around the town and in particular clause (v) of Policy BH.6 recognises the need to protect landscape contributing to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The designated hillsides are also outside the defined HDBs and new housing development would not normally be acceptable in such areas.

F1.4 As highlighted by the Inspector, whilst the Important Hillside designation provides a specific layer of protection, the deletion of Policy NE.3 would not leave these areas vulnerable to the adverse affects of development.

F1.5 Agree with the Inspector's recommendation to delete Policy NE.3 and the Important Hillsides from the Proposals Map. Therefore it is proposed that the policy is deleted and the preamble to landscape policies emphasizes importance of hillsides. The importance of the hillsides in Bath can also be highlighted in the pending Conservation Area assessment.

Implications

Suggested Response

G1.1 The Inspector is concerned that the evidence base used to justify the selection of Visually Important Open Spaces (VIOS) shown on the Proposals Map appears to be insufficiently substantiated. She also states that given the extent of the Conservation Areas within settlements and the tightly defined HDBs and policies protecting playing fields (others are protected parks & gardens), the deletion of the policy is unlikely to undermine the protection of the environmental quality of the District.

G1.2 On this basis she is recommending the deletion of Policy BH.15 and the VIOS from the Proposals Map. However, if the Council wants to keep the VIOS designation then she recommends that sites are assessed against clear criteria and reasons for each selection made explicit.

Implications

G1.3 As tight timescales would prohibit undertaking properly such an assessment, and without substantiated further justification for retaining this designation, the Council is left with the option of deleting the VIOS. However, as development proposals can be assessed against a number of policies which seek to resist harmful development including (where applicable) Policy BH.6 (Conservation Area), Policy NE.9 (Nature Conservation), Policy SR.1A (recreational open space), Policy BH.9 (Historic Parks & Gardens) together with Policies HG.4 - HG.6 (residential development in HDBs).

G1.4 It is considered therefore that sufficient protection exists for safeguarding important open spaces throughout the District although the text in the Local Plan could be beefed up to emphasize importance of open space. A review at this stage increases risk of 2^nd Inquiry, therefore it is proposed that the policy is deleted. The issue of safeguarding open space can then be addressed more thoroughly through the emerging LDF.

G1.5 Agree with the Inspector's recommendation to delete Policy BH.15 and the Visually Important Open Spaces from the Proposals Map.

Issue

G2.4 Agree with the Inspector's recommendation to delete Policy BH.16 and the Village Buffers from the Proposals Map.