Bath Heritage Watchdog - Comments on P&R East Scheme

It is not within Watchdog's remit to comment on the traffic implications of these plans but we are concerned with the setting and protection of the World Heritage Site, Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings. In that context, the Green Belt is part of the setting for Bath, so any encroachment onto the Green Belt could affect that setting, and any increase in flood risk could also affect low-lying listed buildings such as the Newark Works and Norfolk Crescent.

After the recent heavy rains, there has been a debate (reported in the Chronicle) between the council and local residents about the risks to Bathampton Meadows. As usual, you have to look through the spin. The council claims that the risks of flooding the car park are less than once in 1000 years. That is the answer to the wrong question: it is the probability of the river rising high enough to inundate the proposed car park. But as any local resident knows, the area floods frequently because of water run-off from the surrounding hills and not just because the river rises. And no amount of porous surface is going to change that.

The council should refuse planning permission because of its own Local Plan policy, and the central Government guidelines concerning Green Belt land. Its own policy says: POLICY GB.1A Park and Ride development in the Green Belt will only be permitted where:

(a) there are not any more suitable or more sustainable alternative sites;

(b) the scheme will not seriously compromise the purposes of the Green Belt; ...

The only location where there has been even lip service given to examining alternatives is at Bathampton Meadows. The remainder are merely expansions of an existing facility. But this is what the Government says about expansions in PPG2: Approval of park and ride development in a particular location does not create any presumption in favour of future expansion of that site.

The Government even produced a clarifying circular amplifying the guidance in PPS2: Where [a development on a Green Belt] will involve intensive on-site activity, large numbers of parked vehicles, considerable transport movements to, from, or around the site, or require prominent security facilities, it will have a potentially significant impact on the Green Belt.

So the council is in default because they haven't proved there are not more suitable alternatives to the depth required by PPG2 (The Government's commitment to maintaining the openness of the Green Belt means that when seeking to locate park and ride development, non-Green Belt alternatives should be investigated first [and] a thorough and comprehensive assessment of potential sites has been carried out, including both non-Green Belt and, if appropriate, other Green Belt locations), and the on-site activity will, by definition, compromise the purposes of the Green Belt.

This failure to observe the regulations an policies laid down is typical of B&NES, and we will ensure that the Workd Heritage Committee is made aware of yet another failure of stewardship. And it does matter in the areas that the council pretends that the World Heritage Site is limited to. From the point of view of the setting for Bath, the lighting at the existing Lansdown Park & Ride already produces a glow on the horizon that ruins the contrast of photographs of the Royal Crescent after dusk approaches. It is inevitable that there will be similar drawbacks in the Little Solsbury area (as well as disturbing the bat feeding areas that are currently dark).

The decision on the Batheaston location, at least, will have to be referred to the Secretary of State as a departure from the Local Plan, so it is important that as many members of the public as possible object. And individual objections have much more force in those circumstances than signatures on a petition. Use the links at the top of this section to comment on-line (by 5th March), or write to the Planning Office at Trimbridge House.

Unfortunately, the current Secretary of State is irresponsible and rarely enforces the policies laid down. PPG2 says Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. ... In view of the presumption against inappropriate development, the Secretary of State will attach substantial weight to the harm to the Green Belt when considering any planning application or appeal concerning such development. So those who object to the council should also be prepared to lobby the Government Office (we will give address details at the appropriate time) so that the Secretary of State might actually think about the issues rather than using the customary rubber stamp.

Visit the Bath Heritage Watchdog Website: www.bathheritagewatchdog.org