Bristol and Bath Green Belt Report

Land at Black Rock

Aston & Co UK LTD 26/11/2018 [email protected]

Version Control Date Author Status Notes 23.01.18 JCA Draft 1.02 19.11.18 JCA Draft 1.03 26.11.18 JCA FINAL 1.04 BBC GB Stats

Drafted by: JCA Checked by: PJA

Date: 25.11.18 Date: 26.11.18

Signed:

Jeremy C Aston, BSc (Hons) FRICS

All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise, or quoted, or utilised in planning or development applications without the prior permission of Aston and Co UK Ltd.

1 | P a g e

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report traces the history of the Bristol and Bath Green Belt (GB) from its origins (1957) to the present and identifies the purpose of the GB within North Somerset (NS) and specifically at Portishead. It discusses its initiation, modification and highlights the Examining Inspectors’ views during its development. The latest GB reviews undertaken by the West of England Joint Spatial Plan (JSP) in 2015 and 2016 and the further detailed site/area specific work undertaken on cell 74c by the Landmark Practice in 2017 are considered. Feedback is also provided by The Landmark Practice on the Landscape Sensitivity Assessment by Wardell Armstrong.

The GB initially excluded any of the land being promoted, then included only the western half. During development of GB policy Examining Inspectors questioned the need for some areas at Portishead to be included. The two recent JSP reviews concluded that cell 74c containing this site makes a ‘limited contribution’ to Purpose 2 (to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another). This should be a ‘negligible contribution’ because as the JSP analysis states “Development of this cell would not reduce the gap between Portishead, Clevedon or Nailsea.” The analysis also concludes that the cell makes a ‘contribution’ to purpose 3 (to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment). This is recognised as a lesser ‘assistance’ role. The case is made that the ‘overall’ contribution of cell 74c within the review should be defined as a ‘limited contribution’.

The Examining Inspector’s comments during GB policy development, JSP reviews and the findings of The Landmark Practice demonstrate that the original purpose of the GB would not be affected by enabling development on the promotion land below the 15m contour. Furthermore, they support its release from GB during the preparation of the new NSC Local Plan (2016 – 2036). The principle of such development adjacent the existing settlement boundaries is supported by the extant Policy CS31 in NSC’s Core Strategy document which was modified by the Inspector during examination to provide increased flexibility for NSC to meet housing need.

At Portishead all the land adjacent to the settlement boundary is currently within GB so to implement Policy CS31 and provide flexibility at the settlement boundary of Portishead, it is necessary during the preparation of the new NSC Local Plan (2016-2036) for the identification of suitable locations for localised lifting of the GB. Therefore, it is imperative to review the impact of such development on the main purposes of the GB and the second key constraint within North Somerset, Flood Risk.

Future development land is being promoted east of Portishead along the Bristol Road and Portbury Hundred. Such development would further reduce the finite green gap and open character remaining between the Royal Portbury Dock and Portishead thereby ‘connecting’ Portishead to Avonmouth and thereafter Bristol. Avoidance of this type of coalescence/merger was the primary reason for the creation of the Bristol and Bath GB. This is acknowledged in the in the Stage 2, GB review at 3.29 where Cells 76a and 76b are recorded as making a ‘major’ GB contribution. Furthermore, each of the sites to the east of Portishead lies in Flood Zone 2 or 3 and is reliant on tidal defences. The land at Black Rock is in Flood Zone 1 and under the sequential test must therefore take precedence in future plan making.

This report supports the release of the land at Black Rock from GB to help NSC meet the high demand for housing in a sustainable location adjacent to one of the principle settlements within North Somerset.

2 | P a g e

CONTENTS

Title page 0 Version control 1 Executive Summary 2 Section Contents Page(s) 1.00 Introduction 4 2.00 Identification of Site 4 3.00 Green Belt Timeline Summary 5 4.00 The History and Evolution of the Bristol and Bath Green Belt 6-10 5.00 West of England JSP Strategic Green Belt Reviews 11-16 6.00 Current NSC Green Belt Policy 18-26 7.00 The Landmark Practice Report on Landscape and Visual Impact (2017) 27-28 8.00 East Keynsham Example – Bath and North East Somerset 29-30 9.00 What Do Other Experts in Planning and Landscape Think? 31 10.00 How Much of the UK Remains Open Countryside? 32-34 11.00 Conclusion 35

3 | P a g e

1.00 Introduction

1.1 This Green Belt (GB) report has been prepared to provide details of the history and evolution of the Bristol and Bath GB and more particularly the GB surrounding Portishead.

1.2 The document traces the emergence of the Bath and Bristol GB from 1957 when it was first proposed to its adoption by Somerset County Council in 1967 and the two boundary changes in 1973 (Bath) and 1975 (Gordano Valley). The reference documents referred to were sourced from the Somerset County Records Office, Taunton, Portishead Library and Bath Records Office.

1.3 The GB Policy in the existing NSC Local Plan, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the West of England Joint Spatial Plan (Stage 1 and Stage 2) study is outlined in this document as well as the case for the release of land from the GB at Black Rock, North Weston, Portishead.

1.4 As a consequence of housing pressures within Bath and North East Somerset (BANES), the recent release of GB land for housing at East Keynsham and safeguarding of further GB land in that location is also discussed, being relevant and comparable to the land being promoted.

1.5 The full planning case for the release of the land being promoted at Black Rock (NSC Ref: HE18124) from GB during the NSC Replacement Local Plan (2016-2036) process is set out in a separate Planning Report. That report also includes the case for permitting development of the promoted land irrespective of the outcome of its promotion for release from the GB.

2.00 Identification of Site

2.1 The site at Black Rock consists of a parcel of land currently located in GB to the south west of the centre of Portishead and immediately in front of the former limestone quarry (Black Rock Quarry). The land directly adjoins the urban edge of North Weston at its north eastern extent and ends at the south west with the 12 cottages (known as Black Rock Villas) which were built for the Quarry workers and their families.

Area subject to study outlined in red. The Landmark Landscape Visual Assessment Report identifies specific locations below the 15m contour that are being considered for development (Fig 13 page 45).

4 | P a g e

3.00 Green Belt Timeline Summary Date Event Notes 1957 The original Green Belt (GB) Areas were initially Specific purpose was to prevent established around Bristol and Bath by merger of the two growing city’s Somerset County Council hence the GB title Bristol and Bath. used. 1964 Somerset County Council Development Plan Green Belt discussed but not yet in Report of Survey – First Review 1964 place near Portishead. 1967 The Somerset County Development Plan - Bristol and Bath Green Belt remains Bristol and Bath Green Belt, (adopted 1967) in place. Portishead and Gordano Valley remain unaffected. 1974 After local government reorganisation the Avon No change in Green Belt designated County Council Structure Plan adopted the area. Remains focused on Bristol extant Bristol and Bath Green Belt and Bath. 1975 At this stage a non-Statutory Amendment to The eastern part of the land being the Green Belt ran along the Public Footpath, promoted remained outside of the separating the promoted land into two with Non-Statutory Green Belt. only the western half included within GB.

1986 The Avon County Council’s proposals map for All of the land outside of the the South West Avon Green Belt first included settlement boundary of Portishead the entire land being promoted. was now included within Green Belt. This was a ‘proposal’ and had not yet been adopted. 1988 Avon County Council’s South West Avon Green In 1988 the full extent of the Belt Local Plan was adopted. promotion land at Black Rock (HE18124) was all brought under the GB. 1993 Alteration No 2 removed a small parcel of GB Minor GB alteration. land to the North East of the site. This had been included within the GB but following a successful High Court challenge was removed (Alteration No1 involved the Mendips Hills). Nov A Stage 1, Strategic Green Belt Assessment was The promoted land is located within 2015 undertaken as part of the evidence for the ‘Cell 74’ and was assessed under the West of England emerging Joint Spatial Plan. five characteristic purposes of GB. Nov A Stage 2, a more detailed Strategic Green Belt Cell 74 was now broken into three 2016 Assessment was undertaken as part of the sub-cells, 74a-74c and reviewed in evidence for the emerging West of England more detail. The objective was to Joint Spatial Plan. identify strategic (>500 units) development land opportunities within the GB. Nov The Landmark Practice, Bristol undertook a See separate report and findings. 2017 detailed Landscape and Visual Impact This included summer/winter Assessment of the promotion land (cell 74c). assessment.

5 | P a g e

4.00 THE HISTORY and EVOLUTION OF THE BRISTOL and BATH GREEN BELT

Somerset County Council Development Plan Report of Survey – First Review 19641

4.1 The Somerset County Council Development Plan First Review in 1964 envisaged that the Portishead urban district and the parish of North Weston would “continue to develop as an industrial and residential town” [Somerset County Record Office Ref: C/PL 2 77]. Areas of Great Landscape Value were identified but the potential inclusion of land around the settlement of Portishead was not yet mentioned.

4.2 GB areas were established around Bristol and Bath by Somerset County Council (initially adopted by the County Council in 1967, and approved by the Minister in 1966) and by Gloucestershire County Council (adopted in 1965 and approved in 1965) and were incorporated into their respective County Development Plans.

Town and Country Planning Act 1962 County of Somerset Development Plan Amendment No 12 (1966)2

1966 - Somerset County Green Belt

1 Somerset County Records Office, Taunton, Ref: C/PL 2 77. 2 C/PL2/65 Somerset County Records Office 6 | P a g e

1966 - Green Belt lies to south east of Portishead. The Map shows that the Green Belt follows the lower edge of Tickenham ridge. Text at para 8 states that the Green Belt excludes Portishead, North Weston and Weston in Gordano.

4.3 The 1966 Amendment No. 12 to the Somerset County Council Development Plan, sealed by the Minister of Housing on 6 July 1966, noted that the purpose of the GB was to check any substantial expansion around Bristol and Bath. It stated “the Green Belt notation represents a long term policy and it has only been drawn over areas where it is in the LPA’s view clear that the Green Belt policy will need to be maintained in the long term” [Somerset County Records Office Ref: C/PL2/65].

4.4 Importantly and of relevance at para. 8 the GB at that time expressly excluded Portishead, North Weston and Weston-in-Gordano. The red line and hatching to the bottom right of the above map identifies the GB’s extent. The Gordano Valley was not included in the GB designation.

4.5 Chapter XXI, Landscape and Amenity describes the need to safeguard the landscape and “the need to maintain a pleasant environment for the Somerset population and to safeguard the economic interests of the established holiday trade of the County.”

4.6 The County Development plan already described ‘Areas of Great Landscape Value’ including “a belt of country from the Bristol Channel, south of the city of Bristol, surrounding the city of Bath and terminating at the County boundaries of Wiltshire and Gloucestershire.” (377 c [i])

4.7 At paragraph 377 (d) it states “The Local Planning Authority has submitted proposals for the establishment of a Green Belt embracing some 145 miles2 of North Somerset to prevent the coalescence of Bristol, Keynsham, Saltford and Bath and to preserve the identity and the character of towns, villages and hamlets within the area.”

4.8 The GB proposal had therefore been made and was an extant policy in the immediate vicinity of Bristol and Bath but no GB was in place across the promoted site in 1966.

7 | P a g e

4.9 It is nonetheless important and relevant to highlight the founding reasons behind the Green Belt’s emergence in planning policy;

4.10 Reasons for the Green Belt - (1) 2 ”It is considered that any substantial expansion of the built up areas of Bristol in the Green Belt and Bath into the County of Somerset should be checked: also the merging of Bristol, Keynsham, Saltford and Bath should be prevented and the identity and existing character of the surrounding towns, villages and hamlets should be preserved. Land adjoining the boundaries of the County Boroughs of Bristol and Bath has therefore been defined in the Development Plan as Green Belt.” (Town and Country Planning Act 1962 County of Somerset Development Plan Amendment No 12 (1966), para 4.8)

4.11 Policy of Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) in the GB - (2) “It is the intention of the LPA when considering applications for planning permission for development within the GB to limit such development generally to that necessary for the continued vitality of the countryside and the villages therein, so that the present rural character is preserved for the well-being of the inhabitants of the cities and countryside alike.” (Town and Country Planning Act 1962 County of Somerset Development Plan Amendment No 12 (1966), para 49)

4.12 “Outside the villages selected for expansion or infilling the purposes for which building (and the change of use of existing buildings) will be permitted in the Green Belt are agriculture and forestry, sport, cemeteries, institutions standing in large grounds or other uses appropriate to rural areas or the life of a village or hamlet.” (para 3)

4.13 Development detrimental to the visual amenities of the Green Belt - “Generally the LPA will exercise their powers of control of development throughout the Green Belt and the villages therein with a view to the preservation of rural character and to ensuring that the visual amenities will not be injured by proposals for development within or conspicuous from the Green Belt, which although they would not prejudice its main purpose might be inappropriate by reason of their siting, materials or design.” (para 4)

Extension and Alteration of the Green Belt since 1967

4.14 In 1974, following local government re-organisation the new Avon County Council adopted the Bristol and Bath GB and included it within the Avon County Structure Plan3.

4.15 At this stage, land between Portishead and the Royal Portbury Dock was protected under local plan policy GB5 until a later Avon County Council Structure Plan Review included it. The land being promoted remained as ‘white land’ and was not located within the designated GB.

4.16 Since the initial approval of the GB there have been two extensions. The first was made in 1973 and involved Bath. The second in 1975 covered an area between Clevedon and Portishead extending from the edge of the statutory GB running along the lower slope of Tickenham Ridge to the Bristol Channel. The purpose of this extension was to include the Gordano Valley within GB.

4.17 When first introduced in 1975 as a ‘non-statutory extension’, the GB covered only half the land being promoted. The agricultural field directly adjacent to the settlement was outside the GB, providing some flexibility for expansion at the edge of Portishead.

3 Woodspring Rural Area Local Plan, Written Statement 1989, Chapter 6 8 | P a g e

4.18 “Once the general extent of the GB has been approved by the SP, detailed GB boundaries defined in adopted LP’s or earlier approved Development Plans should be altered only exceptionally. At the same time, if GB boundaries are being defined in new areas, they should not be drawn excessively tightly around existing built-up areas as this could devalue the concept of the GB. (Taken from 1974, SW Avon GB Adopted Local Plan – Written Statement, para 4.3)

4.19 Justification for the extended Inner Boundary by North Woodspring was stated to be; “protection of the setting of the Gordano Valley (policy GB4 Appendix 1), Weston Big Wood or Walton Down”

1975 - Non-statutory extension to the Green Belt – divides the proposed development site in two (at public footpath)

9 | P a g e

4.20 The intention of the future extension of the GB at Portishead was described as “to check substantial expansion of the built up areas of Clevedon and Portishead into the Gordano Valley and along the coast, and to preserve the identity and existing character of the villages of Walton in Gordano and Weston in Gordano”4.

4.21 Avon County Council – South West Green Belt Local Plan 1987-1988 (source Bath Guildhall Heritage Centre)

4.22 A proposal map identified the GB area as including the entire site by 1986:

1986 – GB area horizontal hatched

4.23 Consultation on this proposal led to The South West Avon Green Belt Local Plan (1988) which was adopted on 29.12.88 and the GB from this point forward included all of the promotion land.

4.24 There was a High Court Challenge on the land that had been taken into GB to the north east of the site at Forehill, Portishead. Because of an Appeal Court Action (a judgement on 26 June 1991, sealed on 29.07.91 and amended on 29.07.91), the designated GB was quashed in respect of an area of land at Forehill, Portishead.

4 County of Avon Structure Plan, Written Statement Nov 1980 page 110, para. 11.65 10 | P a g e

5.00 West of England Joint Spatial Plan (JSP) Strategic Green Belt Reviews

5.1 The West of England JSP undertook two GB reviews during the development of the emerging JSP5:

Green Belt Assessment, Stage 1, Nov 2015

5.2 This report was a high-level review of the GB and divided the GB into the following cells for analysis:

The report summarised the aims of the Bristol and Bath GB;

5.3 “The aim of the Green Belt in the West of England has been, in the main, to prevent the urban sprawl and merger of Bristol and Bath. It is apparent, however, from the 2002 Joint Structure Plan that emphasis was placed on preserving the setting and special character of the villages and towns within the Green Belt, as well as the overall aim of checking the growth of Bristol and Bath and preventing the merger of the two cities” (3.4).

5.4 The report listed the primary function of the GB as preventing coalescence between the primary settlements;

5 West of England Joint Spatial Plan (JSP) Publication Version - here 11 | P a g e

5.5 Cells between a number of settlements perform the role of preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another. These include the cells in the following corridors (5.4):

 Bristol, Keynsham, Saltford and Bath;  Bristol, Winterbourne/Frampton Cotterell/Coalpit Heath, Yate/Chipping Sodbury;  Bristol and Thornbury;  Bristol Port/Bristol urban area and Portishead;  Bristol, Long Ashton and Nailsea/Backwell;  Portishead and Clevedon;  Bath, Bradford on Avon and Trowbridge (outside the plan area).

5.6 The site being promoted at Black Rock is located in cell 74 and this was described in the report on page 55:

5.7 The land in question within the wider area of cell 74 was therefore considered to directly support purposes 2, 3 and 5 of which 5 is an ‘assistance role’.

Green Belt Assessment Stage 2, Nov 2016

5.8 The GB Assessment Stage 2 followed a year later to provide part of the evidence base for the preparation of the West of England Joint Strategic Spatial Plan. This second stage examined specific smaller parcels of land to determine their contribution to serving GB purposes.

12 | P a g e

The original cells were therefore subdivided to enable a more detailed review:

Cell 74, in which the site is located, was divided into 74a, 74b and 74c. The land is located in 74c.

Statistics Table

Area m2 (acres) % of the whole cell 74 Cell 74 Cell 74a 1,053,527 (260) 54 Cell 74b 625,921 (154.7) 32 Cell 74c 284,038 (70.2) 14 Total: 1,963,486 (484.9) 100 Black Rock Site (below 15m 44,000 (10.9) 2.2% of Cell 74, 15.5% of Cell contour) 74c Proportion of the entire North Entire GB 63,742 ha (page 5, Stage 0.007 Somerset GB 2 GB review)

Map of the GB Cell Areas and table above identifies the relevant areas of each cell, % of the whole (cell 74) and the relative % of land being promoted for release (below the 15m contour) 13 | P a g e

5.10 Due to the fact that nearly half the plan area is covered by GB, the stage 2 report focused on attempting to identify potential large strategic development sites by examining each cell in detail.

5.11 At section 2.7-2.11, the review noted that under the NPPF there is a difference in emphasis over the five roles of the GB and stated the following:

5.12 Green Belt purposes 1, 2 and 4 are directly expressed (at para 2.8):

 1 - to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas;  2 - to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another;  4 - to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns;

Whereas, purposes 3 and 5 are expressed as assistance roles:

 3 - to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;  5 - to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

5.13 It is important and relevant that this analysis notices the primary originating purpose of the GB, which was to prevent the coalescence of major towns. This follows the evidence of the evolution of the Bristol and Bath GB that has already been described.

5.14 A scale with three ratings was used for this next level of assessment:

5.15 The result of the Stage 2 review for the relevant cell 74c is tabulated on page 170 of Appdx. 3:

14 | P a g e

5.16 Purposes 1 & 4 – ‘N/A’ confirming that no contribution to the purposes of the GB is made.

5.17 Purpose 2 – preventing Portishead and Clevedon merging into one another. The contribution made is clearly very limited because, as the assessment comment states, ‘Development of this Cell would not reduce the gap between Portishead, Clevedon or Nailsea’.

5.18 It is therefore suggested that the conclusion that there is a ‘Limited Contribution’ to Purpose 2 cannot be correct? Development of this land would not reduce the gap between Portishead and Clevedon and therefore there can surely be no contribution to Purpose 2, which reflects the risk of Portishead and Clevedon merging?

5.19 If the term ‘Limited Contribution’ were considered to be used correctly section 2.12 of the review identifies the weight of this statement as follows: “These are cells which are considered to have only a limited or negligible contribution to individual purposes. They do not have a significant role in themselves and do not have a significant role in supporting or assisting the purposes of Green Belt in combination with other cells”.

5.20 The weight to be afforded to the contribution to Purpose 2 of the GB is therefore considered to be negligible or none.

5.21 This is a point that is supported by the more detailed Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) work undertaken by The Landmark Practice and set out later in this report.

5.22 Purpose 3 - assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The stage 2 review concluded that the cell assists in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The Landmark LVIA resulted in the creation of a constraints and opportunities plan which demonstrates that when cell 74c is considered in even greater detail, there is potential for

15 | P a g e

development below the 15m contour to be undertaken in a manner that would have very limited (if any) effect under purpose 3.

5.23 The overall effect of cell 74c is stated to be ‘contribution’ – ‘The cell only contributes to preventing merger of Clevedon and Portishead to a limited extent. Assists in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment’.

5.24 As already highlighted, this summary conflicts with the statement made under Purpose 2 within the same table. Given the case that the Purpose 2 should read ‘no contribution’ or currently states ‘limited contribution’ and that Purpose 3 of the GB is an ‘assist’ rather than a primary role, the overall rating should be no contribution or ‘limited contribution’.

5.25 Under the JSP GB assessment Stage 1 (table duplicated above), cell 74 was said to contribute to the Purpose 4, ‘To preserve the setting and special character of towns’ because it preserves the setting of Weston-in-Gordano Conservation Area. However, this was not carried forward into the Stage 2 assessment and Purpose 4 in that is marked ‘N/A’.

5.26 That view is supported as Purpose 4 relates to towns (Portishead and Clevedon), not small settlements. It is accepted that the GB has a role to play is preserving the setting of Weston-in- Gordano but that would be under Purpose 3. When considering the part of cell 74c that the site lies within the topography provides visual and physical separation from Weston-in-Gordano and the Black Rock Villas and former Black Rock Quarry already mark the western extent of the historic development of Portishead (as demonstrated in the separate Cultural and History report).

These two GiS maps illustrate how extensive the quarrying to the western edge of Portishead was and that together with Black Rock Villas (former quarry workers cottages – 1928) Weston in Gordano is shielded from view of the land at Black Rock

16 | P a g e

The blue arrow points to the location of the promoted land

17 | P a g e

6.00 Current NSC Green Belt Policy

West of England Joint Spatial Plan (JSP), Publication Document, Nov 2017

6.1 The Joint Spatial Plan (JSP):

 supports the retention of ‘the overall function’ of the GB;  states that the GB should only be altered in ‘exceptional circumstances’ through the forward plan process, and;  notes that, at that time, Local Authorities should have regard to GB performance in the long term, ensuring they are capable of enduring beyond the plan period (para 18, page 16).

6.2 The JSP also records that 48% of the West of England area is within the Bristol and Bath GB (para 18, page 16).

6.3 The JSP accepts, due to constraint of the GB, the need to release some strategic land from the GB to accommodate the scale of housing need. This is explained in the Spatial Strategy Topic Paper.

6.4 Policy 2 of the JSP therefore includes:

“The general extent of the Green Belt is maintained except where it is required to be amended through local plans to enable the delivery of the Strategic Development Locations at Coalpit Heath, North Keynsham, Yate, Bath Road, Brislington and Whitchurch”.

6.5 Land has previously been released from GB at East Keynsham through the replacement local plan process. This site was of a similar size to the land being promoted and provides an interesting comparison that is detailed below.

6.6 On advice from NSC, the land at Black Rock was submitted for consideration within the West of England emerging strategic plan on 29 November 2016 (JSP Ref: 504637) and directly to NSC following their Call for Sites 2017 (NSC Ref: HE18124).

18 | P a g e

6.7 The JSP identifies the mechanism for amendments to the GB as a Local Plan matter:

“Local Plan preparation will provide the mechanism to amend local Green Belt boundaries. In the meantime, these locations will remain as part of the Green Belt. Opportunities to extend Green Belt will be explored through local plans such as at Thornbury/Buckover and Nailsea/Backwell” (para 13 page 20).

North Somerset Council Core Strategy, January 2017

6.8 The Core Strategy (CS) contains the most recent set of policies since whilst it was originally adopted in April 2012, following a High Court Challenge policy CS13 scale of new housing was reviewed. Whilst this was re-adopted in September 2015, the final remitted policies potentially affected by the above were subject to examination and modification at the Examining Inspectors recommendation to make the CS sound before its adoption on 10 January 2017.

6.9 The CS sets out the long-term planning framework for North Somerset. It includes a spatial vision and spatial objectives looking ahead to 2026 (para 2.9 LDS).

6.10 The adopted CS document sets out 10 Priority Objectives on page 20. Objective No. 7 states:

“Continue to support North Somerset’s existing Green Belt in order to prevent the sprawl of Bristol and its encroachment into valued countryside and to preserve the character of existing settlements; elsewhere, valued strategic gaps between settlements and characteristic green spaces and areas will be protected and enhanced”.

6.11 Policy CS6 appears under a title ‘Living within environmental limits’:

6.12 CS6: North Somerset’s Green Belt

“Within North Somerset, the boundaries of the Bristol – Bath Green Belt will remain unchanged during the plan period.

Further amendments to the Green Belt at Bristol Airport will only be considered once long-term development needs have been identified and exceptional circumstances demonstrated.

This policy contributes towards achieving Priority Objective 7”.

The only exceptions identified being changes for necessary expansion at Bristol Airport and the Royal Portbury Dock.

6.13 Policy CS14 identifies the desired distribution of housing under the plan:

“Outside Weston, most additional development will take place at the towns of Clevedon, Nailsea and Portishead on sites within or abutting settlement boundaries, but outside the Green Belt.”

“Settlement boundaries define the area within which residential development is acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with other policies in the plan. Development outside the settlement boundaries will only be acceptable where a site is allocated in a Local Plan or where it comprises sustainable development which accords with the criteria set out in the relevant settlement policies (CS28, CS31, CS32 and CS33).”

19 | P a g e

6.14 Under the Core Strategy approach at 3.192 it states:

“In the three towns most of the growth is or has taken place at Portishead. Flexibility is introduced into the policy approach to support a suitable scale of development being delivered adjoining settlement boundaries of these towns. Clevedon and Portishead are both highly constrained by Green Belt and flood constraints, although there may be opportunities at Nailsea outside the Green Belt”.

6.15 The CS sets out area policies.

6.16 Policy CS31: Clevedon, Nailsea and Portishead - Within Portishead a minimum number of 3,300 dwellings will be delivered 2006-2026.

6.17 The Site Allocations Plan Examination identified that there has been significant under delivery against this target and the Examining Inspector recommended application of a 20% buffer to allocating land for development. This will inevitably require a review of the GB during the development of the emerging NSC Local Plan 2016-2036.

6.18 During its examination before its adoption, flexibility was built into the CS by adding drafting recommended by the Examining Inspector to make the plan sound. At para 4.78 the adopted plan reflects this:

“New residential development within the settlement boundaries, and residential development for up to about 50 dwellings adjoining the settlement boundaries, will be supported provided it does not harm the objectives of the plan. Within these towns, developments of more than 50 dwellings have wider infrastructure and environmental impacts which need to be properly considered through a development plan. New development will only be permitted where it is demonstrated that the local infrastructure is sufficient to accommodate the demands of the development (for example, school places, community buildings and foul and storm water drainage systems). Larger sites must come forward as allocations, so that they can be consulted upon as part of the plan process, their impacts can be assessed in advance and any necessary mitigation measures identified at the outset.”

6.19 The issue at Portishead is that for any sizeable development to come forward and improve housing supply, there are two key constraints: GB and Flood Risk (see separate Flood Risk Report).

20 | P a g e

NSC Policies Map 22.01.18 - here

These two maps from NS website indicate the extent (hatched) of the GB at Portishead.

21 | P a g e

Examining Inspector’s report into the soundness of CS6, CS14, CS 19, CS28, CS30, CS 31, CS32 and CS33

6.20 The Inspector's comments and the examination of the final version of the local plan is important because a number of modifications were recommended and added to the plan so that it was capable of adoption.

6.21 Inspectors statements of relevance:

CS6: North Somerset’s Green Belt “The policy states that the Green Belt boundaries will be unchanged during the plan period. That will not preclude any subsequent plan from reviewing those boundaries. Any subsequent local plan review, taken through the appropriate route to adoption, is capable of superseding the current plan and all the wording within it” (para 32).

CS14: Distribution of Housing

6.22 At para 36 and 37 the Inspector identified that the original policy wording was too restrictive.

6.23 Policy wording was altered to facilitate consideration of up to 50 dwellings adjacent to the settlement boundary at Portishead.

“The policy wording will enable additional housing land to be brought forward on smaller sites immediately adjacent to settlements, which will improve the flexibility of the plan and reduce the risk of housing under-supply whilst remaining consistent with the spatial strategy. The word “abutting” is appropriate because it is normally in the interests of good planning and design to ensure that new development adjoins and integrates with the settlement and does not intrude excessively into open countryside” (para 37).

“The size limitations have the advantage of providing greater certainty, and they are approximate so can be flexed in accordance with local circumstances. Larger unallocated developments would present a significant risk to the spatial strategy. It is entirely appropriate in accordance with the plan- led system that larger sites should be brought forward in local plan or neighbourhood plan allocations” (para 38).

Sites and policies plan part 1: development management policies

6.24 The development of the Local Plan document was divided into two parts because of the challenge over the Core Strategy. The LDS is not specific, nor the plan itself but it is assumed this covers the period to 2026 as with the CS until superceded by the NSC Replacement Local Plan 2016- 2036. The Replacement Local Plan 2016-2036 is to be prepared in parallel with the emerging JSP, which will be subject to review by the end of 2018 (para 2.15 LDS)

6.25 Part 1 sets out development management policies - North Somerset Sites and Policies Plan Part 1, Adopted July 2016. This plan was submitted for examination in July 2015 and the Inspector’s final report in April 2016 found the plan sound and it was adopted by the full council on 19 July 2016. This plan was therefore finalised ahead of the full text of the Core Strategy. Consultation has recently (Dec 17 - Jan 2018) commenced on the North Somerset Replacement Local Plan 2016-2036 that will carry forward and update relevant policies to create a new Local Plan in line with the adopted CS.

22 | P a g e

Source LDS Oct 2017

6.26 The North Somerset Council Local Plan policy on GB is set out in full below:

DM12: Development within the Green Belt

6.27 In determining planning applications consideration will be given to the impact on the openness of the GB for both extensions and replacement buildings and regard will be taken of the design (including bulk, height and floorspace), siting and overall scale of the development on the site.

6.28 The following will need to be assessed:

 The location of the site  The visual character of the site and its surroundings  The effect of the proposal on the open and rural character of the area in general  Prominence  The visual and physical impact (including the impact of lighting)  Plot size

6.29 In the case of proposals to extend replacement buildings, the floor space of the original building that was on the site on or prior to 26 July 1985 will be calculated as the "original floor space", not the floor space of the replacement building.

6.30 Buildings that were built after 26 July 1985 that had permission granted but not implemented within the 5 years prior to 26 July 1985 will be considered to form part of the "original" building.

6.31 Proposals for domestic outbuildings and garages within existing residential curtilages are not considered inappropriate development and should be of a scale and height subordinate to the original dwelling and should not adversely affect the openness of the GB. Normally they should be small scale and single storey. Account will be taken of the scale and number of outbuildings already on the site and the scale by which the original dwelling has increased.

23 | P a g e

Development in settlements in the Green Belt with settlement boundaries

6.32 Limited infilling and redevelopment will not be regarded as inappropriate within the villages in the GB but which have retained their settlement boundaries. Such development, including extension to buildings, will nevertheless still be required to comply with other policies in the Local Plan.

Redevelopment and infilling on previously developed sites in the Green Belt outside settlement boundaries

6.33 On previously developed sites (as defined in the NPPF) outside the settlement boundary limited infilling, or partial or complete redevelopment is not inappropriate provided it would not have a greater impact on the openness of the GB and the purposes of including land within it. Redevelopment should:

 not extend beyond the perimeter of the buildings which make up the bulk of the built up area of the site; and

6.34 Infilling should:

 not extend beyond the perimeter of the buildings which make up the bulk of the built up area of the site; and  should be visually contained within the site and should not exceed the scale or height of the existing buildings; and  be sustainable in terms of being well related to existing settlements, and having safe and convenient pedestrian and cycle access to services, amenities and a bus or rail service.

6.35 Partial or complete redevelopment proposals should:

 not extend beyond the footprint of the existing buildings unless the proposal by virtue of its height or location on the site would have an equal or lesser impact on the GB than the existing buildings; and  result in environmental improvements on rundown or derelict sites; and  be sustainable in terms of being well related to existing settlements, and having safe and convenient pedestrian and cycle access to services, amenities and a bus or rail service.

Appropriate facilities for outdoor sports and recreation

6.36 New buildings and facilities associated with sport and recreation provision in the GB should be:

 directly related and subsidiary to the main outdoor use;  be of a scale and size proportionate to the sporting or recreational use;  be sensitively designed and located to reflect the character of the area and minimise any harm to the openness and purposes of the GB; and  where outdoor lighting is proposed a lighting scheme should be adopted which minimises obtrusive light, in terms of sky glow, glare and light trespass.

24 | P a g e

Material change of use:

6.37 A material change of use which maintains the openness of the GB is not considered to be inappropriate development provided it does not conflict with the purposes of including land in the GB for example agricultural to equestrian use.

6.38 In the supporting justification to policy DM12 NSC state that they do not support any proposed changes to the boundary.

Sites and policies plan part 2: site allocations plan.

6.39 This part of the Local Plan was subject of examination during 2017 and at the time of drafting the final Inspector’s report has not been issued.

6.40 During the Site Allocation Plan Examination for the extant plan the Inspector, Wendy Burden identified a shortfall in 5-year housing supply through under delivery [IDC-4]. Furthermore, during the Examination of the Core Strategy the Examining Inspector recommended modifications to the final drat to provide flexibility at the settlement boundaries to meet the housing need identified in the CS.

North Somerset Council Local Plan 2016-2036

6.41 NSC have recently commenced the preparation of the new Replacement Local Plan (2016-2036) and Aston & Co have made representations into the process for the lifting of the GB over the site and continue to promote it as a sustainable location suitable to meet the housing needs of the local plan area.

6.42 In connection with the Replacement Local Plan NSDC issued a ‘Call for Sites’ between January and February 2017 to identify land and broad locations that may be suitable for housing and economic development within North Somerset. Sites submitted will be assessed to see whether they are suitable for development through NSDC’s Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA). This site was submitted into that process on 2 February 2017 and NSDC verified that it would be considered. The full list of sites put forward has not yet been published. The site that is reviewed in this report lies outside the flood zone and the case is made that the Green Belt should be lifted.

Summary of the NSC Policy Position on Green Belt

6.43 The NSC Core Strategy holds significant weight as an adopted policy and was examined and found sound before its adoption on 190 January 2017. This plan supports the retention of the GB but recognises the need for flexibility out the settlement boundaries including Portishead in order to meet housing demand.

6.44 The settlement boundaries at Portishead are surrounded by GB therefore the new Local Plan 2016-2036 will need to consider and deal with this matter, as will the updating of the Core Strategy, which is a commitment for the end of 2018.

6.45 These policies need to align for the replacement plan to be found sound.

25 | P a g e

6.46 Of the sites put forward into the JSP and NSC Call for Sites process those that lie east of Portishead are located in cells identified within the JSP strategic GB review as necessary for maintaining the gap between Portishead, Avonmouth and Bristol. Under purpose 2, this is a significant and essential contribution. The Flood Risk Report will also identify demonstrate that unlike the land at Black Rock this same land is in Flood Zone 2 or 3 and therefore under the sequential test must fail in ranking/comparison.

Source: Green Belt Assessment Stage 2, Nov 2016 (pages 19 & 26)

26 | P a g e

7.00 The Landmark Practice Report on Landscape and Visual Impact (2017)

7.1 This report was commissioned from The Landmark Practice in 2017 and included a detailed landscape and visual impact assessment of the land at Black Rock being promoted within the West of England JSP and North Somerset Local Plan (2016-2036) processes. It evaluated the site during the summer and winter season and the full report is separately provided.

7.2 In particular it looked in detail at the land within Cell 74c including the land at Black Rock.

7.3 The SLVA concludes that the site makes only a limited contribution to preventing neighbouring towns (Portishead and Clevedon) from merging into one another (Purpose 2) and identifies the opportunity to create a more robust and welcoming edge to Portishead.

7.4 Whilst also acknowledging the site assists in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment (Purpose 3) it concludes that with a landscape led scheme that respects the findings of the report (Fig 13, page 44), “the continued retention of this area within the Green Belt is not justified in the context of retaining a sense of openness and connectivity across the site” (page 44).

Existing ‘welcome’ to the settlement of Portishead

7.5 When NSC launched their Local Plan 2036 Issues and Options consultation on 3.09.18 at the same time they published an evidence base. This included a Landscape Sensitivity Assessment by Wardell Armstrong dated March 2018.

7.6 That document looked at Portishead and concluded that the landscape containing the promotion land is of high sensitivity (para. 6.2.41). The Landmark Practice were asked to review and respond to this report and concluded:

27 | P a g e

7.7 “In conclusion, whilst we acknowledge the findings of the Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (March 2018), that the area within which the site is located is of high sensitivity, we highlight that detailed review of topography, visibility of the site, together with the nature of the existing settlement edge has identified that specific areas of the site are capable of accommodating residential development without adverse impact on the landscape character and visual qualities of the site and wider landscape. There is an opportunity to provide an enhanced, sympathetic settlement edge for Portishead. We recommend, therefore, that the SLVA that has been prepared is considered alongside the Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (March 2018) when considering sites for future residential development.

We would welcome discussion with the North Somerset Landscape Officer on these matters if helpful.”

7.8 That full Landscape and Visual Assessment (winter and summer) and the follow up note drafted in response to the recent documents published by NSC forms part of our response to the North Somerset Council Issues and Options Consultation, 2017.

28 | P a g e

8.00 East Keynsham Example – Bath and North East Somerset

8.1 Bath and North East Somerset face similar housing supply pressures and in the development of the extant local plan, the provision of adequate land supply meant a choice between effects on the World Heritage status of the City, or release of land from GB. The latter choice was taken and supported during examination by the Inspector ahead of adoption (paras 194-208 – Examining Inspectors Report, June 2014).

8.2 This limited release of GB land now places the revised edge of the settlement of Keynsham closer to Saltford and the settlement of Bath. It involved allocating land where following consent development has since commenced and is bring forward 220-250 new homes and a Primary School. Immediately east adjacent to the land released from GB other land has been safeguarded to meet future additional future development needs. This site is located at the heart of the Bristol and Bath Green Belt whose primary founding purpose was to prevent the merger of the towns and retain a sense of openness.

8.3 Tough forward plan choices need to be made and it must be right that during this decision making process GB constraint does not preclude the best/optimum outcomes.

8.4 At Bath it would be short-sighted to interfere with World Heritage Status and not allow selected GB release. At Portishead it would be similarly foolish to allocate land in the tidal flood zone when climate science is now an accepted scientific fact.

29 | P a g e

8.5 Land east of Keynsham released from GB for 250 houses and a Primary School under the forward plan system. The ‘safeguarded’ land includes the additional 4 fields to the east providing flexibility for additional housing over the plan period without further effects on the GB.

30 | P a g e

9.00 What Do Other Experts in Planning and Landscape Think?

9.1 There are two key bodies representing the planning profession within the UK with particular expertise relevant to the GB:

 The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI), and;  The Landscape Institute (LI).

9.2 The RTPI considered this issue in ‘Where should we build more homes?’ and believes we need to make green belts work for everybody.

9.3 They recognise that the managed approach to urban expansion, whilst avoiding urban sprawl around our major cities, has been successfully achieved through planning policies such as green belts and that the planning profession has championed this policy for over 60 years. But they also understand that it is important to revisit the purposes that green belts need to fulfil over the coming generation.

9.4 This needs to be undertaken carefully through the forward plan process but they say:

“The value of green belts is not simply about what is ugly and what is attractive, as some argue. We need to talk about who green belts are for, and about their social impact, along with their continued role in shaping and managing urban growth.”

9.5 An inflexible approach to this critical planning area will have perverse consequences. It will lead to the emergence of new villages and cities in open countryside with the GB ‘skipped.’ Such new urban developments in isolated open countryside would require extensive new infrastructure and that is neither sustainable nor viable development.

9.6 The Landscape Institute (LI) members are involved daily in assessing landscape effects in relation to planning policy and development proposals. They published a recent paper, Green Belt Policy , in April 2018 within which they encourage the need for a review of GBs to ensure they remain fit for purpose.

9.7 The LI is committed to placing landscape at the heart of the current debate, embedding landscape principles into planning practice, and promoting a wider understanding of the value, function and long-term management of GB land across the UK. In this paper they highlight a very important point:

“Green Belt policy, in its current format, fails to reflect the advances that have been made since the 1950s in a range of planning services. For example, the advent of digital technology, such as geographical information systems and remote satellite sensing, has given us the ability to examine, understand, analyse and plan for development in a way that was not possible when the concept of ‘Green Belt’ was introduced.” (Page 2, point 4).

9.8 Whilst recognising that open land is a finite and irreplaceable asset, they identify the possibilities for the transformation and enrichment of GB land which could deliver far greater benefit than the current ‘spatial separation’ designation.

31 | P a g e

10.00 How Much of the UK Remains Open Countryside?

10.1 A BBC Question Time audience member, 23.11.17 challenged the panel with the following statement:

“But I believe the green belt should be built on and it should be built on soon, because we have, I think there is about 92% of our land mass just not built on at all.”

This was checked by the UK’s Independent Fact-Checking Charity (FullFact) who concluded:

The amount of the UK’s landmass that has been “built on” is different to the spread of urban areas. Estimates of how much of the UK isn’t built on range between 88% and 99.9%.

Full details of their findings can be viewed using the above link which includes reliable sources such as the Office for National Statistics.

10.2 The BBC’s Home Editor, Mark Easton reported on this in November 2017 using recently released data from the European Corine Land Cover Inventory Project.

10.3 In the UK Overall only 5.9% of land is built on:

32 | P a g e

10.4 By country the break down is:

10.5 The Corine Land Cover Map for North Somerset:

Source document here

33 | P a g e

10.6 The following table summarises the data above and demonstrates that much of England and North Somerset remains open countryside or undeveloped open space:

Farmland Natural Green Urban Built On UK 56.7% 34.9% 2.5% 5.9% England 72.9% 14.5% 3.8% 3.8% North Somerset 71.74% 8.82% 2.67% 16.65% (Corine)

10.7 The following table contains the data from the statistics table in Section 5.

Black Rock Site (below 15m 44,000m2 (10.9 acres) 2.2% of Cell 74, 15.5% of Cell contour) 74c Proportion of the entire NSC Entire GB 63,742 ha (page 5, Stage 0.007% of North Somerset GB GB 2 GB review) land

34 | P a g e

11.00 Conclusion

11.1 Coalescence/Merger - The Bristol and Bath GB evolved in a clear fashion with a specific primary purpose: to prevent the coalescence of the major towns and preserve the identity of villages and hamlets. This positions remains supported under extant policy.

11.2 Flexibility Required for Permanence - It was recognised ahead of the initial proposal of the non-statutory extension that included part of this site that there was a need for flexibility when defining GB. That position remains essential to achieve permanence in the GB. Given the CS housing demand for Portishead, the flexibility in extant Policy CS31, the Examining Inspector’s statements in the examination of the Site Allocations Plan for the extant NSC Local Plan and the fact that Portishead is constrained by GB and flood zones, the NSC Local Plan 2016-2036 must review the GB to establish the most sustainable housing solutions capable of delivery within the next 20 years.

11.3 No Significant Contribution – The JSP Stage 2 GB study provides evidence of the limited contribution that cell 74c makes to the purposes of the GB. That work has been taken forward by the Landmark Practice whose report supports lifting the GB to enable much-needed housing development below the 15m site contour. The developable area of the promoted land (see Figure 13 Landscape, Opportunities and Constraints page 45 of the Landmark Report) represents 15.5% of sub- cell 74c, 2.2% of the overall cell 74 and 0.007% of North Somerset GB land.

Other core arguments are evidenced in the reports accompanying this one and the separate Planning Statement draws these together with information on Culture and Heritage, Flood Risk, Ecology, Transport and Highways and a package of mitigation and benefits that support:

A) The lifting of the GB across the land at Black Rock. B) Allocation of the land (below 15m contour) for built development6.

6 See Figure 13, Landscape and Visual Appraisal, page 45 – Opportunities & Constraints, for details 35 | P a g e