Meeting documents

1.0 Background

1.1 The 3^rd May Council Executive and 11^th May Council Meeting received a report on the content of the Draft Regional Spatial Strategy approved by the South West Regional Assembly (SWRA) on the 10^th March 2006 for submission to the Secretary of State (now for the Department of Communities and Local Government). Following minor editing and changes to presentation, it was formally submitted on 26^th April.

1.2 Together with the Draft, the Regional Assembly has also published the Strategic Sustainability Assessment of the RSS and the RSS Implementation Plan.

1.3 The report outlined concerns about the Draft RSS spatial strategy as it affects Bath & North East Somerset and further work required to inform this Council's response. It also sets out the views on the RSS of the 24^th April meeting of the Planning, Transportation, Economy & Sustainability Overview & Scrutiny Panel. Both the Executive and Council resolved to note the outstanding areas of concern in relation to the Draft RSS, and the work programmed in order to address these concerns and also inform the Council's response.

2.0 Consultation and the Examination in Public

2.1 The period for submitting formal representations on the Draft RSS ends on 30 August. In accordance with the legislation and regulations, all representations must be made to the Examination in Public Panel by this date.

2.2 The Regional Assembly is organising a series of seven briefing sessions on the Draft RSS around the region during late June and early July. These events are not part of the formal consultation and comments made at these briefings will not be recorded. They are intended to aid understanding before consultation comments are made to the independent Panel and will be held at the following locations:

2.3 The West of England Partnership has additionally arranged a half-day conference for stakeholders in the West of England, to be held on 19 June at @tBristol. The purposes of this event are to inform partners and other stakeholders about the content of Draft RSS as it affects the West of England; to explain the RSS process and procedures; and to help partners and stakeholders to consider how best to respond during the consultation period. Again it is not part of the formal consultation process.

2.4 The invitation list for the conference will include all those who attended the West of England `Visioning' events in 2004 or responded to the `Direction for Change' document. However this invitation has now been extended by Bath & North East Somerset to all Town and Parish Councils.

2.5 The EIP is expected to start on 17 April 2007, and to finish on 29 June. The Panel Chair will be Jim Parke, who has recently chaired the EIP into the North East RSS, supported by an Inspector and a third panel member. The Panel Secretary will be Brian Cobley, who has also had that role in the North East EIP, as well for RPG10 in 2000. Until the EIP, the Panel Secretary's office will be located in Bristol.

2.6 There will be two preliminary meetings, scheduled for 16 January and 6 March 2007. The first meeting will consider comments received on the preliminary list of EIP matters and participants, which will be drafted by the Panel in consultation with SWRA and Government Office for the South West (GOSW). The second meeting will finalise the EIP timetable and arrangements.

2.7 The preliminary list of Matters and Participants for the EIP is expected to be published for consultation in mid November, with the final list to be published on 23 January 2007. PPS11 states that local authorities, or groups of authorities, are only likely to be invited to participate in the EIP where there are "major issues of contention between an RPB and authorities with strategic planning expertise relevant to a matter to be examined". In those circumstances, "the Panel will ensure that the issues are examined and the appropriate authority or authorities are invited compatible with having a manageable debate." (PPS11 Annex C, para 20).

2.8 Assembly officers have indicated that the Panel will wish to consider, so far as possible, a unified perspective from the West of England Partnership on issues affecting the West of England. Provision may be made for supplementary comments to be considered from individual authorities or partners.

2.9 The deadline for the submission of written statements by EIP participants is 9 March 2007. Current proposals are that the EIP will be held in Exeter, with no sessions in other parts of the region. The Panel's report is expected to be published in October 2007.

2.10 Information on the arrangements between now and the Examination in Public (EIP) is contained on the website of the independent Panel which will carry out the EIP, at http://www.southwesteip.co.uk . Planning Policy Statement 11: Regional Spatial Strategies (PPS11 - http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1143840 ) sets out the formal arrangements for the process between the RSS submission and the EIP.

3.0 West of England Response

3.1 It is important that the West of England Partnership makes a unified response to the draft RSS. This will give the sub-region greater strength at the EIP. The EIP Panel is also keen that an agreed sub-regional view is expressed. This sub-regional view can also be supplemented by individual authorities if there are particular issues that they wish to raise.

3.2 The West of England Partnership is considering a report at the 4^th July Planning, Transport & Environment Group outlining key representations on the draft RSS and its accompanying Strategic Sustainability Assessment and Implementation Plan. This report is attached as Annex 1. PTEG will make recommendations to the 10^th July Partnership's Board meeting.

3.2 The key representations outlined in this Report need to be endorsed by the individual partners and it is recommended that they be endorsed by this Council on 13^th July 2006.

3.3 The Report to PTEG on 4^th July also recommends that a full schedule of representations on the draft RSS be prepared for consideration at the Partnership Board meeting on 8^th September. This schedule of representations will incorporate comments agreed by the constituent authorities at their meetings in July. Through this mechanism it is anticipated that Bath & North East Somerset's position on the RSS (as set out in this Report) can be agreed as part of the West of England Partnership's response. This arrangement is subject to the EIP Panel agreeing to a late submission and the Partnership's officer report being submitted before 30^th August.

4.0 Representations on the RSS

(RSS Area of Search B)

5.15 The assessment brings out the clear conflict between options providing an urban extension which gives benefits to health, community, economic, and transport objectives but which causes major adverse environmental impacts, and having no development, the result of which is likely to contribute to unsustainable travel patterns and consequent social, economic and environmental impacts but which would protect international, national, regional, sub-regional and locally valued environmental assets.

7.2 The strategy contained in the RSS does not envisage strategic levels of development at Keynsham, Midsomer Norton, Radstock or the villages and rural areas.

7.3 The focus of the RSS is to accommodate expected high levels of growth in the most effective and sustainable way by concentrating most new development at a number of key regionally and sub-regionally strategically significant cities and towns (SSCTs) and then more locally at service centres identified in Local Development documents by Local Planning Authorities. Policy B in the Draft RSS therefore allows for locally significant development in some market towns where it meets local needs and increases self containment. Elsewhere in the countryside small scale development meeting local needs and promoting self containment may be appropriate.

7.4 In Bath & North East Somerset, Keynsham, Midsomer Norton and Radstock are not identified as SSCT as strategic level of housing development would further increase commuting to Bristol or Bath and exacerbate imbalance between jobs and homes already in existence.

7.5 Overall the RSS estimates that the settlement in the remainder of the District will deliver about 2,000 dwellings.

7.6 Members will be aware that Ernst & Young and David Lock Associates have been commissioned to undertake work on developing a Vision for Bath & North East Somerset, following a similar approach to the work undertaken in relation to Bath. This work is ongoing but its emerging conclusions have informed the strategy and capacity assessment described below.

7.7 The emerging Vision is based on achieving balanced growth, ensuring that housing development does not take place out of step with economic growth. It also seeks to build on the strengths of the various parts of the District in order to help deliver appropriate development meeting local needs. As such the approach accords with policy B of the RSS.

7.8 In relation to the southern part of the District the emerging strategy suggests that the towns and larger villages of Midsomer Norton, Radstock, Paulton and Peasedown St. John should act as a linked cluster of settlements, each focussing on a different role. This results in a balanced approach across the settlement cluster. Work is ongoing but briefly Midsomer Norton (and in particular the town centre) is seen as having a retail/leisure focus, Radstock focussing on its major assets which may be based upon a tourism and heritage function, Peasedown to focus as an area of employment development (based around and building upon the Bath Business Park) and Paulton a mixed/balanced focus based around the redevelopment of the former Printing Factory.

7.9 Keynsham is a well located town with great potential that needs to be realised. Its demographic profile is likely to change and through improvements to the town centre and the provision of appropriate primarily office based employment opportunities can become an increasingly attractive free standing town. The provision of sufficient additional jobs is important to ensure that the high level of out-commuting to Bristol and Bath is addressed.

7.10 In terms of development capacity the assessment undertaken so far suggests the following during the RSS period:

7.11 The Vision work and associated evaluation of sites is ongoing and as such capacities are estimated at this stage and might change. Quantification of the number of additional jobs that are likely to be accommodated also still needs to be finalised. However, as stated above the housing capacity figures do take account of pursuing a balanced approach towards growth.

8.1 This Council has made it clear that delivering development at the urban extensions as recommended above is dependent upon significant investment in infrastructure, in particular that needed to meet transportation requirements. Transportation & Highways officers have indicated that the measures listed in the now deleted RSS policy SR10 (see para 11.6 below) would be sufficient to meet the strategic requirements of this development. In relation to south east Bristol this includes the ring road extension, major Park & Ride provision and the Whitchurch bypass. In relation to Bath delivery of all the elements of the Joint Local Transport Plan major bid, i.e. the `Bath Package' and also those elements of the `Greater Bristol Bus Network' major bid that improves transport links to and from Bath should be sufficient. Further work would be necessary in order to identify local transportation infrastructure measures that would be required.

9.1 The above sections of this Report assess and recommend development capacity figures for different parts of the District. This results in a total amount of development that can theoretically be provided between 2006 and 2026 (see section 10 below). However, it must be stressed that delivery of the homes is dependent upon provision of infrastructure and the forecast job growth being achieved. Whilst the RSS sets out a strategy for the next 20 years it is vital that the `plan, monitor, manage' approach is used to ensure that development of homes is delivered when certain infrastructure and job growth `trigger points' are met. It is therefore, suggested that a phasing policy is included in the RSS to that effect.

9.2 The draft RSS expresses housing distribution as a uniform annual figure, equating to 775 per annum for Bath & North East Somerset as a whole. It breaks this requirement down spatially, again expressing each area as a uniform annual rate of provision over the 20 year period (see figure 4.1 in the draft RSS). This is inappropriate. Initial analysis of the potential timing of delivery of housing suggests that the likely pace of delivery of urban sites within Bath and sites in the rest of the District means that the overall requirement of 775 per annum across Bath & North East Somerset can not be achieved from 2006 (the start of the RSS period). Therefore, in order to ensure these uniform average annual build rates are achieved one or more of the potential urban extensions would need to be brought forward for development quickly. Given the requirements for infrastructure provision to serve these urban extensions and the current position regarding such provision (see section 8 above relating to transport) this appears to be unlikely.

9.3 Therefore, either the timing and funding of necessary infrastructure provision (e.g. south Bristol ring road extension between Hengrove and Hicks Gate - see paras 11.9 - 11.13 below) needs to change in order to ensure housing provision can be achieved to meet the average annual rates set out in draft RSS and/or the draft RSS needs to be amended to more accurately reflect the phasing of housing delivery rates that can be achieved in line with infrastructure provision and job growth. This is vital in order to ensure that pressure to develop housing `out of step' with adequate infrastructure provision is avoided. Further work will be necessary during the lead up to the EIP to more accurately assess delivery rates so that a clear development programme (showing `trigger points') across the 20 year period can be established and the corresponding development rates can be reflected in the RSS.

10.0 Conclusion on the Spatial Strategy for Bath & North East Somerset

10.1 The above sections outline the analysis of locations set out in the draft RSS. The strategy (but not development capacities) suggested above broadly accords with draft RSS. Should the Executive recommend this strategy and the capacities that are set out it would result in:

10.2 In order to accommodate this shortfall an alternative strategy for Bath & North East Somerset that would depart from RSS would be necessary. The SWRA officers have agreed that should the Council and the West of England seek such a strategy then it would need to be fully justified and represent the most sustainable alternative.

10.3 In order to accommodate the shortfall two broad options need further assessment as follows:

10.3 Preliminary discussions with adjoining authorities have already taken place and if the Executive and Council approve the above Bath & North East Somerset strategy as a basis for the formal response to the SWRA then work on assessing an alternative can begin.

11.0 Comments on Other Policies in Draft RSS

11.1 As well as the concern over the Spatial Strategy noted by the 11^th May Council a number of other issues were raised and outstanding concerns are set out below. These concerns need to be raised in the comments submitted to the EIP Panel.

11.2 Policy SR5 of the Draft RSS proposes provision of job growth in the Bath Travel to Work Area (TTWA) of between 16,000 - 20,000 jobs. The Bath TTWA includes the eastern half of Bath & North East Somerset, including the Norton-Radstock area but excluding Keynsham; part of West Wilts including Corsham but not Chippenham or Trowbridge; and northern Mendip including Frome. The majority of jobs would be located at Bath. The Council and the West of England Partnership officers have continually questioned the assumptions made by the Regional Assembly on employment projections which appear to be too high. It is considered that the assumptions made on Growth Value Added (GVA) are too high; assumptions on output and jobs growth are too high; jobs growth capacity constraints and past trends not properly considered; and the ratio between jobs and need for housing too high.

11.5 The Regional Assembly have not revised their jobs growth assumptions despite evidence provided and the Council and West of England Partnership will need to continue to make detailed representations on these issues relating to job growth and the relationship with housing need.

11.6 The SWRA have deleted Policy SR10 contained in Version 2.3 which specifically linked delivery of growth across the West of England with the need for significant investment in infrastructure:

- demand management measures;

- Greater Bristol Bus Network/showcase bus routes along strategic corridors;

- Bath public transport package;

- strategic rapid transit network (Hengrove/North Fringe, Ashton Vale/Emerson's Green, Bath/Cribbs Causeway);

- selective additional strategic highway capacity to serve business investment and regeneration in South Bristol and Weston-super-Mare, improve access to the airport, including the South Bristol Ring Road;

- selective additional strategic links to motorways and other trunk route networks;

- Weston super Mare package including improvements to motorway junction;

- major Park and Ride improvements;

- significantly enhanced interchange facilities;

- increased walking and cycling provision;

- significant development of the heavy rail network;

- social and community infrastructure including provision of health, education, and sport, recreational and cultural facilities commensurate with an increase in the population;

- coastal defences expected to be necessary to enable the economic potential of Avonmouth and Severnside to be realised;

- new waste management facilities required to reduce landfill dependency, achieve greater local self-sufficiency and respond to economic and population growth. 93

11.7 Whilst generic policies (SD4 - Sustainable Communities, Development Policy D - Infrastructure for Development and SI1 - Provision of Community Services) refer to ensuring that supporting infrastructure is delivered in step with development, it is considered essential that SR10 or similar be reinstated.

11.8 As it now stands as set out in policy SR5 of the draft RSS, the only key infrastructure necessary to enable the development of 7,500 dwellings and provision for around 16,000 - 20,200 jobs at Bath is 93Bath public transport package including longer term Rapid Transit measures94. This is unacceptable in a sub-region which is expected to deliver the highest levels of growth in the South West Region and at a historic City expected to accommodate such substantial levels of development. Reference should be made to all the elements of the Joint Local Transport Plan major bid, the `Bath Package' and also those elements of the `Greater Bristol Bus Network' major bid that improves transport links to and from Bath (see also para 9.1 above).

11.9 The draft RSS policy SR4 refers to investment in key infrastructure to enable the achievement of development within and adjoining Bristol. The list of infrastructure includes the need for improvements to the roads in South Bristol, including the South Bristol Ring Road. However this is considered to be ambiguous and the policy should be more explicit and clarify that its provision, and in particular the Hicks Gate to Hengrove section, is essential for delivery of the strategy for growth at south east Bristol and regeneration of south Bristol. The Hicks Gate to Hengrove section has been given a relatively low priority by the Assembly through the regional funding allocation (RFA) process. This is a process where the South West Regional Assembly provides advice to the Government on spending priorities for housing, transport and economic development.

11.10 The January 27^th meeting of the SWRA agreed to advise the Government that the South Bristol Ring between the A38 and A370 and A38 to Hengrove should be in the RFA programme up to 2016, but that the link between Hick's Gate, Whitchurch and the Hengrove roundabout be categorised as being available for delivery beyond 2016. Given that this link will be essential if Bath & North East Somerset is to meet the proposed RSS development requirements adjoining south east Bristol, an urban extension is only likely to come forward in the latter years of the RSS period and it must raise doubts as to whether the RSS strategy for this area can be achieved.

11.11 The Final Joint Local Transport Plan approved by this Council for delivery to Government on March 31st 2006 recommends the construction of the Southern Ring Road from the A370 to the A4 at Hick's Gate to be delivered in a phased approach as recommended in the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study and as shown above. Phase 3 is the Hengrove to A4 Hick's Junction with the A4174 to be delivered in the medium to long term. As part of the development of the first two phases an appraisal of the full route of the southern ring road would be undertaken. Detailed route alignments for this 3rd phase would however not be undertaken until Major Scheme bids for phases 1 and 2 have been prepared and consulted on.

11.12 Thus the above sets out the agreed programme for the phasing of the schemes and resources for delivery of the Southern Ring Road. Should the Council wish to accelerate the later phase additional budget resources would be required.

11.13 Officers, in making representations to the SWRA and the consultants carrying out the GBSTS, have made it clear that development on urban extension at south east Bristol is dependent upon the provision of the section of the ring road between Hick's Gate, Whitchurch and Hengrove.

4. Affordable Housing

11.14 Policy H1 seeks 30% - 60% of all housing to be affordable. Given that under government guidance in PPG3 the site size thresholds above which affordable housing can be sought is currently 0.5 ha or 15 dwellings except where exceptional circumstances are shown, this would result in the need to seek 40% - 80% of affordable housing in qualifying sites. This aspect of the policy needs further consideration.

11.15 However the policy deserves general support and provides the opportunity to seek much higher levels of affordable housing in areas of greatest need within Bath & North East Somerset where this would not undermine development viability. Members will recall that the most recent study found a need for 600 affordable homes per annum for the next three years with nearly half required at Bath. Greenfield sites may particularly offer the opportunity to seek higher proportion of affordable homes as development costs are less likely to be abnormally high.

11.16 Also supported is the reference to local authority's Local Development Documents providing an appropriate division of affordable housing for rent and intermediate tenures (including forms of shared ownership). However, delivery of the whole approach needs to be underpinned by continued support and funding from the Housing Corporation and Regional Housing Body.

11.17 The RSS contains policies on many other topics and previous Executive and Council meetings raised particular concerns with the Regional Assembly on earlier drafts of the RSS, as have the West of England Partnership. Some of these concerns may need to pursued if they have not been addressed in the process of agreeing the submission draft RSS.

11.18 Due to tight timescales it has not been possible for officers to report other detailed comments (including those that draw on previous concerns) that will need to be made on the draft RSS, Implementation Plan and Strategic Sustainability Assessment on behalf of Bath & North East Somerset. Therefore, delegated authority is sought for the Chief Executive, in consultation with Group Leaders and relevant Executive Members, to submit any additional detailed comments during the consultation period. These comments will not relate to the spatial strategy issues set out in this Report.

12.0 Conclusion

12.1 The Council should continue to work with the West of England Partnership in seeking to meet the Partnership's growth projections for homes and jobs. The overall levels of housing provision set out in the draft RSS broadly reflect those put forward by the Partnership through its First Detailed Proposals (15,500 homes in Bath & North East Somerset as opposed to 15,400 in the FDP). However, the spatial distribution of this growth within Bath & North East Somerset and the forecast rate of job growth differ. These fundamental points are amongst those raised in the West of England Partnership's key representations on the draft RSS which it is recommended are endorsed by Bath & North East Somerset.

12.2 This report outlines the response which it is recommended this Council should make to the draft RSS focussing primarily on the spatial strategy as it relates to this District. Following work assessing the capacity and implications of delivering this capacity at locations that accord with the RSS (i.e. the urban areas, urban extensions and the rest of the District) it is concluded that these locations will not deliver a total amount of development that is sufficient to meet the dwelling requirement and job growth figures set out in either the draft RSS or the FDP. Subject to the spatial strategy recommended in this Report being agreed it would be necessary for an alternative strategy for meeting this shortfall to be proposed. Further work during the lead up to the EIP will be necessary in order to assess alternative options. This will involve working with adjoining authorities.

12.3 The draft RSS sets out policies on many areas other than sub-regional spatial strategy. Delegated authority is sought for detailed comments on these other elements of RSS to be made on behalf of Bath & North East Somerset.