Meeting documents
Cabinet
Wednesday, 11th October, 2006
|
Bath & North East Somerset Council |
||||
|
MEETING: |
Council Executive |
|||
|
MEETING DATE: |
11th October 2006 |
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER |
16 |
|
|
TITLE: |
Bath Western Riverside Supplementary Planning Document (BWR SPD) |
EXECUTIVE FORWARD PLAN REFERENCE: |
||
|
E |
1509 |
|||
|
WARD: |
All Bath |
|||
|
AN OPEN PUBLIC ITEM |
||||
|
List of attachments to this report: Appendix 1: Schedule of
Representations to Draft SPD and Council Comments Appendix 2: Schedule of Proposed Changes to Draft SPD |
||||
1 THE ISSUE
1.1 To consider the consultation responses to the draft SPD and approve the SPD for Development Control purposes.
2 RECOMMENDATION
The Council Executive is asked to agree that:
2.1 The Bath Western Riverside Supplementary Document, as amended in accordance with Appendix 2 of this Report, be approved for use for Development Control purposes immediately upon the Council agreeing the responses to the Inspector's recommendations and the proposed modifications to the Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan (in so far as they relate to Bath Western Riverside in accordance with the Report prepared for and to be considered at its meeting on the 12th October 2006).
2.2 That in the event that the responses to the Inspector's recommendations and the proposed modifications to the Local Plan insofar as they relate to Bath Western Riverside are not agreed fully in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Council Report, the Council Executive receives a further Report on the implications of such variations for this Supplementary Planning Document at the next available meeting.
2.3 It is minded to adopt the SPD following the adoption of the Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan in due course, subject to due consideration of any issues arising during the course of the modifications process; and
that the Council Executive decides
2.4 How it wishes to deal with the issues raised at 7.8, 7.13 and 7.14 of the Report.
3 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
3.1 The SPD sets out a developer contributions strategy for BWR, and this will result in financial contributions being required from developers under s.106 agreements towards mitigating the effects of the development. The SPD sets this out mainly on a formulaic basis for in relation to residential and commercial development. This more transparent basis provides a better starting point for negotiation, and enables contributions to be sought on an equal basis over time, in what is expected to be a phased development.
3.2 This strategy will be part of an overall strategy which seeks to maximise sources of funding towards the infrastructure requirements arising from new development, in the context of the RSS and the `Vision for Bath'. To the extent that third party contributions can be maximised this reduces the burden that might otherwise fall on the Council's own resources.
3.3 The publication of the draft SPD and the consultation process will also incur a cost, which is accounted for in the Planning Service budget.
4 COMMUNITY STRATEGY OUTCOMES
4.1 The Bath Western Riverside SPD, as amended by the proposed changes set out in Appendix 2, contributes towards achieving the following Community Strategy outcomes:
Promoting a 'sense of place' so people identify with and take pride in our communities
Building communities where people feel safe and secure
Taking responsibility for our environment and natural resources now and over the long term
Improving our local transport
Improving our housing situation for local people
Improving our local economy
Improving our local environment
5 CORPORATE IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES
5.1 The Bath Western Riverside SPD, as amended by the proposed changes set out in Appendix 2, are particularly relevant to the following Corporate Improvement Priorities:
Reducing fear of crime
Cultural Development
Increase in Affordable Housing
Improving the Quality of Public Transport/Roads/Pavements and easing congestion
Developing a sustainable economy
Improving the public realm
6 CPA KEY LINES OF ENQUIRY
6.1 The Bath Western Riverside SPD, as amended by the proposed changes set out in Appendix 2, contributes to the following CPA Lines of Enquiry:
Ambition for the community - i.e. What the council, together with its partners, is trying to achieve
Increasing capacity of the council to deliver ambition for the Community to ensure we achieve what we say we will
Managing performance of community ambition to ensure we achieve what we say we will
Creating and developing a better quality of life for the area through
Sustainable Communities and Transport
Safer and Stronger Communities
Healthier Communities
7 THE REPORT
Background
7.1 The consideration of the representations in relation to the draft SPD comes at an important stage of the Bath Western Riverside project. The Council Executive has considered the key recommendations of the Local Plan Inspector, including those relevant to BWR, and these will be considered at the Council meeting on 12th October. The outline planning application made by Crest Nicholson in May 2006, covering most of the land within the western zone of BWR, is also due to be considered by the Council's General Development Control Committee on 20th November. The SPD, therefore, comes at an opportune point where, following public consultation, it can draw from the Local Plan policy position agreed by the Council, and it can be used as a detailed policy basis for the consideration of the significant proposals made by Crest Nicholson. The validation of the SPD at this stage is, therefore, an important part of the process of delivering the objectives of the Local Plan through individual development proposals.
7.2 Following the Council Executive resolution at the meeting on 7th June 2006, the Draft SPD underwent a six week period of public consultation. The public consultation period ended on 28th July 2006.
7.3 The draft SPD attracted a significant amount of interest, with representations received from a total of 86 sources, ranging from statutory consultees, national organisations, local organisations and individual members of the public. All of the representations are set out in Appendix 1, along with the comments of Council officers and any consequent changes to the SPD. Appendix 2 sets out the proposed changes to the draft SPD.
7.4 The representations regarding the SPD raise the following key issues:
Proposed Status of the SPD
7.5 This issue has been raised by most of the landowners within BWR. It was originally considered that the SPD would be Adopted following the public consultation exercise. Adoption is the final, recognised act of validation of an SPD set out in Government guidance that gives an SPD maximum weight in the consideration of planning applications. However, such a status could be open to challenge whilst the Local Plan remains un-adopted, as the SPD's role is to expand policy or provide further detail to policies in a development plan document, such as an Adopted Local Plan.
7.6 It is therefore recommended that the Council Executive resolves to 93Approve the SPD for Development Control Purposes94 for the time being, with the SPD then being formally Adopted once the Local Plan has been Adopted. This resolution, however, will be subject to the Council agreeing the responses to the Inspector's recommendations and also the proposed modifications to the Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan at the Council Meeting on 12th October 2006. It is currently anticipated that the Local Plan will be Adopted during the first quarter of 2007. This would still allow the SPD to be given sufficient weight in the consideration of planning applications during this interim period.
World Heritage Site
7.7 The SPD has been criticised by both the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and English Heritage for underplaying the World Heritage Site (WHS) status. Both organisations want the SPD to be more strongly influenced by, and make greater reference to, the Bath WHS Management Plan and the stated Bath WHS Outstanding Universal Values. English Heritage state that the WHS must be regarded as 93pre-eminent in the formulation of a framework and the basis for decisions upon any development proposals for the site94.
7.8 It is considered to be important that the SPD reflects the need to achieve the balance in Bath, as set out in the Regional Planning Guidance (RPG10) for the South West, of protecting the City's unique environmental qualities whilst accommodating sustainable development. It would not be appropriate, therefore, for the SPD to state that the World Heritage Site status will have pre-eminence in determining the nature of the redevelopment at BWR. However, it would be possible for the SPD to make reference to the WHS Management Plan and the Outstanding Universal Values, and to explain how these contribute to the principles embodied in the SPD Masterplan, without the SPD becoming too much of a conservation document.
Building Heights
7.9 English Heritage have objected to the proposed building heights promoted by the draft SPD and the lack of evidence justifying the proposed approach, commenting that: "It is important that we make clear that we have the most serious concerns about this aspect of the SPD and do not believe that the document is acceptable until this matter is addressed and any concerns removed".
7.10 In considering this objection, the Council has broadly two options:
7.11 The first option is to re-visit the heights policy in the SPD and revise downwards the heights proposed in order to follow an evidence based approach. The views analysis that formed part of the original masterplanning resulted in a maximum heights range of 4-6 storeys. This approach would be justified by the views analysis evidence that was compiled, which could be referred to in the SPD, thereby addressing English Heritage's concerns over a lack of evidence. This revised heights policy would still allow the Council to consider proposals for greater heights than those advocated in the SPD, because the SPD gives developers the flexibility to depart from the guidance in the SPD when justified by good design principles. The Council is also able to take account of other material considerations, such as viability and the ability of a development to be delivered, when making decisions about individual planning applications.
7.12 The other option is to retain the existing draft SPD approach of promoting a maximum heights range of 5-8 storeys. Whilst this approach did not follow the evidence produced by the views analysis referred to earlier, this approach had regard to the desire to create a new and distinctive quarter of the City, and also had regard to the need to deliver a viable development at BWR. In maintaining this approach, the SPD could remain silent regarding the heights justification; or it could explain in a few paragraphs what other factors had led the heights policy; or detailed evidence could be produced regarding financial viability and economic need, although this would have time implications.
7.13 It is inevitable that, if the Council is going to accept a viable and deliverable development at BWR, it will have to justify some departures from its normal policy position on a number of grounds, including building heights. The key decision to be made at this point, therefore, is whether that justification should be left to the determination of individual planning applications or whether the Council's policy, in the form of the SPD, should provide some of that justification.
Boundary of the BWR SPD Area
7.14 Following on from the Council Executive's consideration of the Local Plan Inspector's recommendations regarding BWR, the boundary of the area covered by the SPD should be amended in order to exclude Bath Press and all other land south of Lower Bristol Road, but that the sites owned or occupied by Renrod, Sainsbury's and Homebase should remain within the BWR SPD area.
Other Issues
7.15 This report looks at the most significant issues raised by the SPD consultation process. There are, of course, many other issues raised, however, these are listed and responded to in the attached schedule of representations (Appendix 1). Two specific issues generated a lot of individual representations:
7.16 The first issue concerns the proposed footpath link between BWR and the obelisk to the north at Royal Victoria Park. The footpath would run through a number of existing allotments. Following consideration, officers agree with the objectors that there are already suitable links between the park and BWR, and that the detrimental impact that a further link would have on the allotments would not be justified. This potential route, therefore, is proposed to be deleted from the SPD.
7.17 The second issue is the proposal for a new pedestrian bridge linking BWR with the Norfolk Crescent area, along with the prospect of bars and restaurants on the south bank of the river between Victoria Bridge and the existing Sainsbury's bridge. The objections to these proposals relate to potential noise, disturbance and anti-social behaviour.
7.18 The new bridge is considered to be an essential link between BWR and the area to the north. Linkages between BWR and the existing communities are a key principle of the SPD, and this proposed pedestrian link plays an important role in meeting this objective. It is not proposed, therefore, to delete the bridge from the SPD Masterplan.
7.19 The SPD describes the south bank of the river in this area as the 93Urban River Quarter94 with public and commercial activity fronting onto the public realm creating a new high quality river promenade. Because the Masterplan is zonal, the precise quantum and nature of commercial uses in this area is not defined within the SPD. More detailed masterplanning, required for the Context Plan for the Eastern zone, will establish more detailed parameters for this development, followed by individual development proposals. Mitigation of the likely impacts on existing residents can be considered in more detail at these later stages, and stakeholders will be consulted as the process develops. It is not considered to be appropriate, therefore, to amend the SPD with regard to this matter at this stage.
7.20 Following Adoption of the Local Plan, when the SPD is brought back to Council Executive for formal Adoption, there will be an update on the Design Codes for BWR and also a final report on the Sustainability Appraisal of the SPD.
7.21 The Executive should be aware that the SPD will establish the Council's policy with regard to BWR for all future development proposals and for the entire development period, which is anticipated to last until 2021. There will be, however, opportunities to review the SPD as part of the future work under the Local Development Framework. The decisions made relating to the SPD may also be seen as setting precedents for the Council's policy relating to other sites, although each proposal and each development site has to be considered on its own merits
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
9.1 Not considering the consultation responses regarding the SPD and not giving the SPD any further status at this stage would mean that the Council would not have a robust, detailed planning policy for BWR, against which it could assess existing and emerging development proposals.
10 OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED
10.1 The relative merits of adopting the SPD or approving the SPD for development control purposes at this stage are set out in paragraphs 7.5 and 7.6 of this report.
11 CONSULTATION
11.1 Ward Councillors; Executive Councillors; Overview & Scrutiny Panel; Other B&NES Services; Local Residents; Community Interest Groups; Stakeholders/Partners; Other Public Sector Bodies; Section 151 Finance Officer; Chief Executive; and the Monitoring Officer have been consulted as part of this process.
11.2 Consultation was carried out through the formal public consultation period referred to and also through various informal processes.
12 ISSUES TO CONSIDER IN REACHING THE DECISION
12.1 The contents of the SPD, as proposed to be amended, have implications for Social Inclusion; Sustainability; Property; and Other Legal Considerations.
13 ADVICE SOUGHT
13.1 The Council's Monitoring Officer (Council Solicitor) and Section 151 Officer (Strategic Director - Support Services) have had the opportunity to input to this report and have cleared it for publication.
|
Contact person |
Gary Collins 01225 477629 Gary_Collins@bathnes.gov.uk |
|
Background papers |
Bath Western Riverside Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Public Consultation Draft (plus Appendices) Sustainability Appraisal Report of the BWR SPD |
|
Please contact the report author if you need to access this report in an alternative format |
|