| Representation(s): |
2368/B1 – Surrey & Counties (Sutton) Ltd |
| Local Plan reference: |
Policy GB.3 Proposals Map, Inset 31 |
1.0 OBJECTION ISSUE(S)
1.1 An objection is raised seeking designation of
Freshford Mill as a Major Existing Developed Site (MEDS) under
policy GB.3 and its identification as being suitable for mixed
use redevelopment. This objection is amplified in proof number
2368C, which also rebuts the Council’s proof B&NES 11.
1.2 The objector suggests that the measurements of
the site in relation to building mass, floorspace and height
are incorrect. Alternative measurements are detailed by the
objector which, they suggest, increase the ranking of
Freshford Mill within those sites assessed, thereby supporting
its identification as a MEDS.
2.0 CONTEXT
Site Description
2.1 Freshford Mill, is a former industrial site
located in the Frome Valley, below the hamlet of Sharpstone
and to the south west of the village of Freshford. The site is
located in the open countryside within the Bristol/Bath Green
Belt and the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The
site is shown on the map attached as Annex 1.
2.2 The appeal site is of irregular shape and
approximately 1.5 hectares in area. It is currently occupied
by a variety of vacant and derelict buildings ranging from
single to four storeys in height. The buildings also range in
age from the original 17th Century Mill and associated
buildings constructed of stone and slate, to modern industrial
units of a more utilitarian appearance constructed of concrete
block and render. Additionally, the north eastern part of the
site comprises a tarmac car parking area where there is also a
small disused sewage plant and rubble from two demolished
buildings. Vegetation on the site is predominantly limited to
the site boundaries and consists of native trees and hedging.
2.3 The site is bounded to the north west by the
River Frome and Rosemary Lane, the north eastern boundary of
the site is also formed by Rosemary Lane. To the south east
and south west are paddocks with the mill race running along
the western periphery of the site. The boundaries of the
appeal site are formed mainly by hedging and trees with some
areas of chain linked and barbed wire fencing, a substantial
metal gate restricts vehicular access to the site.
Planning History
2.4 There is an extensive planning history pertinent
to the objection site. In summary, the only recent approvals
on the site have been for:
· The creation of a rural recreation area, nature
sanctuary and workshops in 2005.
· The use of one of the buildings and the associated
yard area for the manufacture and storage of roof trusses in
2003.
Neither of these applications has to date
been implemented.
2.5 There have been a number of applications (some of
which have been withdrawn prior to determination) submitted to
the Council for the conversion of the mill and associated
buildings in recent years, none of which have been approved
other than the two described above.
2.6 Of particular relevance are two applications for
mixed use redevelopment submitted by the objectors (Surrey and
Counties (Sutton) Ltd) comprising 21 residential units, 5
live/work units and employment use, provision of improved
access with associated landscaping, parking and demolition.
2.7 Both applications were refused by the Council,
one on the 21 March 2003 and the other on 26 April 2004. These
refusals were the subject of a joint appeal, the Inquiry for
which commenced in April of this year and was still ongoing at
the time this proof was prepared and submitted.
2.8 It is agreed that, as the objectors state in para
1.4 of their statement (2368C), the authorised use of the site
is an unrestricted B2 industrial use. However, this differs
from the fallback position i.e. what the objectors could do
without any fresh planning permission, which was the subject
of discussion at the recent Section 78 Appeal Inquiry. At the
Appeal Inquiry the Council stated that the prospects of a
‘fallback’ position must, as a matter of law, be real and not
merely theoretical. Evidence was presented that, in the event
the appeal proposals were dismissed, there are no reasonable
prospects of the appeal site reverting to B2 use. Therefore,
it was concluded that the fallback position is a vacant site.
MEDS
2.9 The approach of the Council in assessing and
identifying MEDS is set out in section 3 of Topic Paper 7:
Green Belt and proof B&NES 11. A two stage process has been
employed which accords with both advice set out in Annex C of
PPG2 (CD A1.1.2) and the Wansdyke Local Plan Inspector’s
Report (CD A2.4.3).
2.10 The two stages of the process are:
1. Determination of which sites were sufficiently
substantial to qualify as MEDS.
2. Assessment of these sites to decide whether they should
be identified in the Plan as suitable for limited infilling
and/or redevelopment.
2.11 The criteria measured in undertaking stage one are
set out in Topic Paper 7, along with an indication of which
criteria are considered to be the most important. Results of
the assessment of potential MEDS is set out in Annex 2 of
Topic Paper 7. On the basis of the assessment undertaken by
the Council Freshford Mill is ranked 16th on the basis of
building mass. Comparison with the designated MEDS against
the measured criteria is also set out in proof B&NES 11 (see
section 3.9 and Annex 1).
3.0 RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS
3.1 The response to this objection is set out below
in relation to the two stages of the process of designating a
MEDS under policy GB.3.
Stage 1
3.2 The objectors suggest that the figures set out in
Annex 2 of Topic Paper 7 and proof B&NES 11 are inaccurate in
relation to Freshford Mill and that building height is a
critical factor as it impacts on openness of the Green Belt.
3.3 The Council agrees that building height is
important in terms of impact on openness. However, in the
assessment set out in Topic Paper 7 the height figure relates
to the maximum height of a structure on a site. This could
relate to only a very small element of the site thereby
skewing its assessment. The criterion of building mass is
regarded as the most important factor as this reflects both
the footprint/floorspace of buildings and their height. As
such it is considered to most strongly influence the impact of
the site on the openness of the Green Belt. Therefore, sites
are ranked according to this criterion.
3.4 With regard to the figures, the objector suggests
in paragraph 2.4 of their proof that the building mass on site
is 26,000m3 as compared with 21,155m3 shown in Annex 2 of
Topic Paper 7. However, in a later prepared part of the proof
(Section 1) other alternative measures are set out; these
include a building mass of 28,540m3. These figures have been
arrived at following a detailed CAD aided study.
3.5 In the process of dealing with the Section 78
Appeal (referred to in paras 2.7 and 2.8 above) a Statement of
Common Ground was agreed between the objector and the Council
(see document 2368D submitted by the objector). This included
agreement of the figures in relation to existing building
floorspace, footprint and volume. These figures are shown in
paragraph 2.4 of the Statement of Common Ground.
3.6 Whilst the Council has therefore agreed with the
objector’s measurement of building floorspace, footprint and
building mass or volume (of 28,540m3), it should be noted that
these figures are based on measurements taken from building
plans/elevations dating from 2000. These plans were also used
and assessed by the Council in estimating and agreeing the
relevant figures.
3.7 Since that time a number of building elements
have either partially or completely collapsed. It is evident
on site that elements of buildings in the blocks labelled as
A, B and C in the 2000 plans attached as Appendix 2 to the
objector’s proof (document 2368C) have collapsed. Of
particular relevance is the sizeable building in the western
part of block C labelled ‘dilapidated timber building’ on the
2000 plans which is no longer present on site. In addition
buildings R and S have also been completely demolished.
3.8 Whilst the Council accepts that the figures set
out in Annex 2 of Topic Paper 7 are inaccurate and are an
under representation of the buildings on site it is also clear
that, due to the changes on site referred to above, there is
considerable doubt in relation to the accuracy of the
objector’s figures agreed in the statement of common ground.
It is estimated that the floorspace figure should be reduced
by approximately 10% as a result of these changes. The impact
on building mass is likely to be proportionally less but is
difficult to estimate due to the lack of necessary
information.
3.9 The floorspace and building mass figures would,
however, still be higher than those set out in previous
Council evidence and therefore its ranking as suggested by the
objector would also increase. On the basis of the increased
floorspace figure Freshford Mill is still smaller than all of
the designated MEDS with the exception of Burnett Business
Park.
3.10 As referred to in paragraph 3.3 above building
mass is regarded as the most relevant criterion in terms of
representing its impact on the openness of the Green Belt and
whether the site is ‘substantial’ or ‘major’. On the basis of
the revised building mass figure (which will be less than the
28,540m3 based on the 2000 plans) the site would be the 13th
most substantial in the District. It is more substantial than
Littleton Mill in Chew Magna but remains significantly less
substantial than Monkton Combe School which is the smallest of
the designated MEDS.
3.11 In conclusion the Council accepts that its
previous measurement of Freshford Mill was inaccurate and that
figures relating to building height, floorspace and building
mass are greater than those set out in previous evidence.
However, through comparison with those sites designated as
MEDS it is still considered that Freshford Mill is not
sufficiently substantial to qualify as a MEDS within Bath &
North East Somerset.
Stage 2
3.12 In the event that the Inspector disagrees with the
Council and considers that Freshford Mill does qualify as a
MEDS, stage 2 of the process i.e. assessment of the
suitability of the site for designation and consideration of
the policy allowing limited infilling and/or redevelopment
needs to be undertaken. The objector is seeking its
designation under policy GB.3 in order to allow for mixed use
redevelopment (which it is clear from recent applications is
intended to include a significant residential element). The
Council considers that for a number of reasons explained below
the site is not suitable for such a designation.
Flood Risk
3.13 Freshford Mill lies wholly within the floodplain
of the River Frome (as shown on the Deposit Draft Proposals
Map, Inset 35 (CD A2.1.5)). Floodplain maps are regularly
updated by the Environment Agency and in the current maps the
whole of the main block of buildings on the site lie within a
zone 3 floodplain (i.e. areas most at risk from flooding) as
shown on the map attached as Annex 2. Whilst policy NE.14 of
the Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan (RDDLP) (CD A2.1.10)
allows for development within areas of flood risk where the
flood hazard can be mitigated or other circumstances apply,
the Council do not consider it appropriate to allocate a site
for mixed use development that lies within an undefended zone
3 floodplain. This accords with the precautionary approach set
out in PPG25: Development and Flood Risk (CD A1.1.25),
particularly in relation to proposed residential
development.
Vehicular Access
3.14 In addition to flood risk Freshford Mill is
subject to severe vehicular access difficulties. The approach
roads to the site are generally narrow (single carriageway
width) country lanes. In particular the approach from the west
along Rosemary Lane (providing the most direct and quickest
route to the A36 and the strategic road network) is, in
places, only 2.4 metres wide and subject to steep gradients.
On all approach roads there are also a number of blind bends
and extremely limited opportunities for vehicles to pass.
There are no footways on these roads, nor over most of the
route, any verges which pedestrians might use to avoid passing
traffic.
3.15 Mixed use redevelopment of the site would lead to
significant traffic generation on local narrow country lanes
that are not suited to accommodate such traffic flows. It is
difficult to be certain of the ‘directional split’ of traffic,
however, it is likely that the majority would use Rosemary
Lane to the west of the site as this represents the most
direct route to the A36. Rosemary Lane is subject to an
absolute weight limit meaning that it is not suitable for
goods vehicles.
3.16 The nature of the local road network and Rosemary
Lane in particular is such that two vehicles would not be able
to pass each other. As a result of narrow road widths and a
lack of inter-visibility for vehicles between passing
locations it is very likely that vehicles will have to reverse
significant distances in order to pass each other.
3.17 In addition the road width is such that, in
places, there would be a significant risk to other road users
i.e. pedestrians and cyclists. Government guidance set out in
Design Bulletin 32 “Residential Roads and Footpaths: Layout
Considerations” (extract attached as Annex 3) suggests that 3
metres should be regarded as the minimum width on a single
track road system to enable a car to pass a cyclist or
pedestrian with care. Stretches of the local road network are
narrower than this (see para 3.14 above) and are as narrow as
2.4 metres, which is inadequate to allow cars to pass
pedestrians and cyclists and even to allow some drivers to get
in or out of some vehicles in the event of a breakdown.
3.18 The likelihood of these risks arising is increased
by the car dependent nature of development due to the
unsustainable location of the site (see paragraphs 3.20 – 3.28
below). It should also be noted that Rosemary Lane regularly
floods in the vicinity of the site and therefore at such times
will not be available for use by traffic.
3.19 In assessing whether a site should be designated
as a MEDS there are parallels between Freshford Mill and the
Polysulphin Works in Keynsham. The combination of flood risk
and poor vehicular access were the main reasons why the
Polysulphin Works in Keynsham (ranked as the third most
substantial in terms of building mass) was not identified as a
MEDS under policy GB.3.
Sustainability
3.20 The Council also considers that sustainability
factors mean that allocation of Freshford Mill for mixed use
development would be inappropriate.
3.21 PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development (CD
A1.2.1) and PPG3: Housing (CD A1.1.3) whilst advocating the
re-use of previously developed land and buildings place
emphasis on development taking place in sustainable
locations. This guidance is supported by paragraph 17 of
PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (CD A1.2.7) which
states the Government’s support for the re-use of
appropriately located and suitably constructed existing
buildings in the countryside where this would meet sustainable
development objectives. Settlement patterns and accessibility
to service centres are amongst the factors that paragraph 17
of PPS7 advises should be taken into account.
3.22 These principles are reiterated in RPG10, the JRSP
and the RDDLP (e.g. see vision and strategy and settlement
classification chapters). In applying these principles to
Freshford Mill, the characteristics of the site are that it is
a previously developed site as defined in Annex C of PPG3, but
is isolated in terms of location, neither lying within nor
immediately adjoining a settlement. Access to public transport
from the site is poor (this is considered in more depth
below).
3.23 In terms of accessibility PPG3 (CD A1.1.3) and
PPG13: Transport (CD A1.1.13) outline criteria which assist in
assessing sites. Regional guidance in Annex A to RPG10 (CD
A2.12) also sets out accessibility criteria for new
residential development, including requiring development to be
within walking distance of a food shop and primary school
(600m). The village of Freshford (classified as a R3
settlement under policy SC.1 of the Local Plan) does provide a
small local store and a primary school, approximately 1.2km
from the site, but offers very little else and has very
limited employment opportunities. The closest centres where
such facilities are readily available is Bath and to a lesser
extent Bradford-on-Avon.
3.24 Paragraph 75 of PPG13 states that, walking is the
most important mode of travel at the local level and offers
the greatest potential to replace car trips. JRSP (CD A2.9)
Policy 1 aims to promote sustainable practices and in relation
to movement seeks to encourage cycling and walking whilst
minimising the need to travel by motorised vehicles and the
dependence on the private car. This objective is reiterated
in Policies 1 and T1 of the RDDLP.
3.25 Paragraph 78 of PPG13 (CD A1.1.13) goes on to
state that cycling also has the potential to substitute for
short car trips. However, the nature and topography of the
footpaths and roads in the vicinity of the appeal site, which
provide access to the limited services and facilities (shop,
post office and rail station) available in Freshford
(approximately 1.2km away), are that they are isolated, have
no lighting and natural surveillance and in respect of the
roads are narrow and lack footways. It is also noteworthy
that the footpaths providing direct access to the services and
facilities pass through the floodplain and are muddy in
inclement weather and are unlikely to be utilised on a daily
basis.
3.26 The closest bus service to the appeal site (route
No.94) has stops in Freshford (1km) and Sharpstone (0.3Km),
this route provides access to Bath and Trowbridge on a two
hourly basis. Freshford is also served by a rail station
approximately 1.5km from the appeal site, which has an hourly
service providing access to Bath, Bristol, Trowbridge and
beyond.
3.27 Having assessed the location of the site, it is
considered that due to these significant constraints and the
limited level of services available within walking or cycling
distance, residents of the proposed development are unlikely
to substitute car journeys with walking or cycling, except for
leisure purposes. As such future residents of a mixed use
development would be highly dependent on the car as a mode of
transport, due to the limitations of other modes of movement.
3.28 It should also be noted that the closest services
and facilities to the site are accessed via a route which is
prone to flooding and would be unavailable when the River
Frome is in flood. During such an event, the site would only
be accessible via the lanes from Bradford-on-Avon.
Furthermore, in periods of flood the bus route serving
Freshford and Sharpstone would not be available. This further
exacerbates the unsustainable nature of the objection site.
4.0 CONCLUSION
4.1 With regard to the two stage MEDS assessment
process the Council considers that Freshford Mill should not
be designated as a MEDS suitable for mixed use redevelopment
as suggested by the objector.
4.2 Whilst the Council agrees that its measurement of
the buildings at Freshford Mill presented in previous evidence
is inaccurate, the site is still regarded as not being
sufficiently substantial to qualify as a MEDS. Furthermore,
for the reasons set out in this proof i.e. flood risk, poor
vehicular access and sustainability factors, it is not
considered appropriate to allocate the site for mixed use
redevelopment. Proposals for mixed use redevelopment will
therefore need to be brought forward and considered through
reference to ‘very special circumstances’ to justify
inappropriate development in the Green Belt referred to in
PPG2 and RDDLP policy GB.1.
5.0 RECOMMENDATION
5.1 It is requested that the Inspector recommends
that no change be made to the Local Plan for the reasons set
out in the proof.
ANNEXES:
Annex 1 – Site map
Annex 2 – Freshford Mill showing the extent of zone 3
floodplain
Annex 3 – Extract from Design Bulletin 32: Residential
Roads and Footpaths: Layout Considerations
CORE DOCUMENTS:
CD A1.1.2 – PPG2: Green Belts
CD A1.1.3 – PPG3: Housing
CD A1.1.13 – PPG13: Transport
CD A1.2.1 – PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development
CD A1.2.7 – PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas
CD A1.1.25 – PPG25: Development and Flood Risk
CD A2.1.5 – Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan, Deposit
Draft 2002, Proposals Map
CD A2.1.10 - Bath & North East Somerset Local Plan, Revised
Deposit Draft 2003, Written Statement
CD A2.4.3 – Wansdyke Local Plan Inquiry Inspector’s Report
CD A2.9 – Joint Replacement Structure Plan
CD A2.12 – RPG10: Regional Planning Guidance for the South
West
OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS:
Topic Paper 7 – Green Belt
Proof B&NES 11 - MEDS |
