South Bristol Link Planning Statement Bristol City Council and North Somerset Council July 2013

2

Notice This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for Bristol City Council and North Somerset Council, for information and use in relation to the proposed South Bristol Link.

Atkins (Water & Environment) assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with this document and/or its contents.

This document has 69 pages including the cover.

Document history Job number: 5103087 Document ref:

Revision Purpose description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date

Rev 1.0 Final CN LC AJ AJ 05/07/13

Client signoff Client Bristol City Council and North Somerset Council

Project South Bristol Link

Document title South Bristol Link

Planning Statement July 2013

Job no. 5103087

Copy no.

Document reference

130507 SBL – Planning Statement

3

Table of contents 1. Introduction 5

2. Site and surroundings 9

3. The Proposed Scheme 12

4. Historic Policy Development 16

5. Adopted Planning Policy Context 18

6. Planning Policy Assessment 22

7. Conclusion 49

8. Appendices 51 Appendix A - Development site allocations and planning commitments 53 Appendix B - Planning Policy History 57 Appendix C - Report on Common Land Exchange – Summary 61 Appendix D - Green Belt Assessment 67

4

5

1. Introduction 1.1.1. This Planning Statement has been prepared on behalf of North Somerset Council (NSC) and

Bristol City Council (BCC). It accompanies an application seeking full planning permission for the proposed South Bristol Link (SBL), which will provide a transport link between the A370 Long Ashton bypass within North Somerset and Hengrove Park within the Hartcliffe area of south Bristol. This will incorporate 4.5km of new and upgraded highway between the A370, the A38 and the Cater Road roundabout, including a shared cycleway and footway along the route corridor. The scheme proposals also include significant landscape and environmental provisions to integrate the road within both the urban and rural settings.

1.1.2. The project falls within the administrative boundaries of both NSC and BCC. The scheme is being jointly promoted by both local authorities in partnership, within the framework of the West of England (WoE). NSC and BCC act as joint applicants for the planning application, which is being submitted in identical format to both authorities.

1.1.3. An overview of the proposed SBL is shown in Figure 1 below. Detailed General Arrangement plans accompany the application – CTRAEB_730_HIG_110 to 114.

Figure 1. SBL Overview

6

Need for the scheme

1.1.4. The SBL is part of a transport package for the West of England sub-region, see Figure 2 below. The scheme is designed to improve accessibility to employment areas in south Bristol, a sub-regional focus for regeneration, and to provide businesses and residents with better connectivity to the remainder of the sub-region and its strategic transport network. The Aston Vale to Temple Meads (AVTM) guided bus scheme will combine with SBL to improve the journey time and journey reliability between Bristol Airport and Bristol city centre. More detail on the principle and need for the scheme is set out in detail in Environmental Statement (ES) Chapter 2 (Principle and Need for the Scheme), which accompanies this application for planning permission. The network of major transport schemes, as part of a wider integrated transport vision, is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Bristol Major Transport Schemes

7

1.1.5. An Economic Benefits Study accompanies this application for planning permission and is summarised in ES Chapter 9 (Socio Economic Assessment). The findings show that there is poor public transport access in south Bristol, poor connectivity to rail services, which combined with high levels of car ownership, create significant traffic congestion and delays on the primary route network.

1.1.6. The Economic Benefits Study concludes that while South Bristol presents complex social and economic needs including high levels of unemployment, poor business performance, low skills levels and extensive and acute deprivation; resolving transport issues are key to unlocking the potential of the area, including fostering regeneration and employment development.

1.1.7. The Study’s business survey found that transport issues discourage businesses from locating and investing in the south of the city. There is significant out-commuting from the area, which has a lower numbers of jobs than working residents. New job creation represents a major challenge to encouraging economic activity and improving social outcomes for local residents. This challenge will become progressively more serious as travel demand increases in the city and traffic conditions deteriorate with increased congestion.

1.1.8. “Recent studies on the proposed scheme produced by Atkins demonstrate that transport is a major barrier to economic growth in south Bristol, and that investment in the proposed scheme will play a key role in unlocking new growth. The primary economic benefit of the scheme will be helping to unlock the latent economic potential of south Bristol. This includes helping to unlock thousands of jobs that would not be delivered without major transport investment and unlocking some £199 million of additional GVA by 2030.”

Objectives of SBL

1.1.9. The SBL scheme has a strong strategic background with its roots in the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study (GBSTS), which identified these measures as part of a programme of necessary interventions to ensure sustainable growth and development within the West of England partnership area. In this context, the objectives of SBL are to facilitate regeneration and growth in South Bristol, reduce congestion in South Bristol and adjacent areas of North Somerset and improve accessibility from South Bristol to the city centre and to strategic transport links, including the trunk road network and Bristol International Airport.

Scheme Development

1.1.10. As set out in detail in ES Section 2.3 (Scheme History and Planning Status) and accompanying appendices, the principles of the SBL have been embedded in both the current transport planning process and development plan process for BCC and NSC from as early as 1992. The SBL scheme has a strong strategic background with its roots in the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study (GBSTS) produced in 2006, which identified a programme of necessary transport interventions to ensure sustainable growth and development of the West of England. This resulted in SBL being identified in the West of England Joint Local Transport Plan in 2007.

1.1.11. Throughout this time, the scheme was supported by a safeguarding allocation of the delivery of the transport scheme within the Bristol Local Plan 1997 (and Proposed Alterations to the Local Plan in 2003), including the North Somerset Replacement Local Plan 2007. The route is now safeguarded as a major transport scheme in the adopted Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy (adopted June 2011) and the North Somerset Core Strategy (adopted April 2012).

1.1.12. BCC and NSC consulted widely on the principles of the scheme and options for the alignment of the route corridor, in 2008 and 2009. This process culminated in the submission of a Programme Entry Major Scheme Business Case (MSBC) to the Department for Transport (DfT) in March 2010. Following the Comprehensive Spending Review of Autumn 2010, the authorities presented a ‘Revised Central Case’, which was submitted in an Expression of Interest to the DfT in December 2010. The revised scheme was included in the Development Pool of Local Major Transport Schemes, announced by the Minister on 4th February 2011, and a Best and Final Funding Bid (BAFB) submitted to the DfT on the 9th September 2011. Funding for the scheme was confirmed by the Chancellor, George Osborne, on the 29th November 2011 in the

8

Government Autumn Statement, with a successful Programme Entry announced by the DfT on 8th December 2011.

1.1.13. Regular consultation has been held with key statutory organisations (Environment Agency, English Heritage and Natural England), local interest groups and residents which has informed the development of the proposals. A pre-application public consultation exercise was held in May and June 2012, requesting comments on the draft route alignment, largely based on the BAFB scheme. The responses prompted a thorough design review process from July 2012 to March 2013, informed by ongoing stakeholder engagement, with further options appraised to determine the final proposed alignment and scheme design which form the basis of the current application.

The Planning Statement

1.1.14. In respect of this Planning Statement, the purpose is to demonstrate that SBL accords with the adopted Development Plan for BCC and NSC, with significant material considerations weighed in favour in the balance of determination. In order to demonstrate this, the Planning Statement comprises the following sections:

1. Introduction – provides an overview of SBL, including the need for SBL, challenges which SBL is seeking to address, SBL objectives and the content of the planning application for the delivery of SBL;

2. The Site and the Surrounding Area – provides an overview of the land use context and key constraints that have been considered in the design and development of SBL;

3. The Proposed Scheme – sets out the key design features of SBL, including environmental design and other measures of relevance to the consideration of policy in this Planning Statement. Described how the scheme is designed to link to major transport schemes in the area;

4. Historic Policy Development – summarises key stages in policy development which led to SBL’s current safeguarding allocation within the adopted BCC and NSC Development Plans;

5. Adopted Policy Context – provides an overview of the key planning documents against which SBL will be assessed, having regard to the decision making process involved in the determination of the planning application;

6. Planning Policy Assessment – assesses the SBL proposals, including key planning and environmental considerations of relevance to the planning application, against the Development Plan, NPPF and other material considerations;

7. Conclusion – summarises the key planning considerations for SBL.

1.1.15. In the interests of minimising repetition within the submission and to act as a route map around the various documents and plans submitted with the application, this Planning Statement provides cross-references to more detailed information in supporting documentation and should be read in conjunction with the full suite of planning application information.

9

2. Site and surroundings 2.1.1. The North Somerset section of the route is located to the east of Long Ashton within the urban

fringe to Bristol with the wards of Winford and Wraxall and Long Ashton. The character of the area is typical of an urban fringe location with urban features such as the Long Ashton Park & Ride and Brookgate Industrial area set beside against rural features such as Colliter’s Brook area and open land between the A38 and Highridge Common. Long Ashton is the largest settlement in the area and functions as a local retail service centre. The Ashton Court Grade II* Registered Park and Garden is located to the north west of the scheme and with the landscape surrounding the Court identified as a SSSI.

2.1.2. South Bristol is a strongly urban area. The proposed route crosses established residential communities including Bishopsworth, Hartcliffe, Whitchurch Park and Hengrove, also skirting the wards of Bedminster and Filwood. Within this section of south Bristol, Hengrove Park is a key employment and service area with facilities including the South Bristol Community Hospital, City of Bristol Skills Academy, Hengrove Leisure Centre and Cater Road Business Park, in addition to the employment opportunities presented in, Ashton Vale, including Brookgate Industrial Estate. Presently, Hengrove does not have a defined retailing centre with Bedminster acting as an important retailing destination for the area, supplemented by Bishopworth which has a top-up retailing function within a localised catchment. On the whole, South Bristol remains a highly deprived area, facing multiple social and economic challenges including income, unemployment, low skills levels, health, housing, environment and crime. As a result, and as set out above, it is a key focus of sub-regional regeneration of which SBL forms part.

2.1.3. In terms of existing transport infrastructure, the proposed scheme is intersected by the A38 and A370. The A38 currently provides the main strategic transport link between Bristol City Centre and Bristol Airport. The A370 provides links between Bristol City Centre and Weston-super-Mare and the M5 Motorway. The scheme will pass under main railway line between Bristol and Taunton.

2.1.4. Key existing transport infrastructure is summarised as follows: • The A370 provides a connection onto the M5 Motorway at Junction 20, which is some

17.3miles from Long Ashton. The M5 provides a connection Exeter in the south to Birmingham in the north. The Almondsbury Interchange in North Bristol links the M5 to M4 and major urban areas including Cardiff and London. Deficient motorway access is a key issue which is reported to suppress business growth at South Bristol;

• The A38 is the strategic connection from Bristol City Centre to Bristol Airport, which is 3.7 miles from the proposed SBL scheme. Bristol Airport is the major regional airport serving the south west of England and South Wales and is the ninth largest airport in the United Kingdom, currently handling 5.9m passengers per annum. The Airport serves a catchment area with a population of between seven and eight million people within a two hour drive time. Flights are available from the Airport to over 100 destinations across 30 countries, including 79 destinations served by scheduled services; In February 2011, North Somerset Council granted outline planning permission for development of the Airport to handle up to 10m passengers per annum.

• None of the key areas on the SBL Alignment (Long Ashton, Bishopsworth or Hartcliffe) are currently served by rail services and is therefore dependant on bus services to meet the public transport requirements of residents.

The Site

2.1.5. As noted above, SBL passes through the urban fringe of Bristol within the NSC administrative to the south west of Bristol, into the suburban areas of Withywood and Bishopsworth in south Bristol. The urban fringe section of the route, from the A370 to the eastern edge of Highridge Common, lies within the Green Belt.

10

2.1.6. A full description of the application site is provided with the Landscape Strategy which accompanies this application for planning permission. For ease of reference, the site is summarised in the same five route sections presented in this Strategy, as follows: Section 1: A370 to Railway Line This section of the scheme is located within the Greenfield land which forms part of the designated Bristol Green Belt. It is bounded to the west by the A370, beyond which leads to the settlement of Long Ashton and to the north by Long Ashton Park and Ride. To the east, is Brookgate Industrial Estate, which leads to the mixed residential employment area of Aston Vale. The Bristol to Taunton Railway Line crosses this section of the route east-west, the track-bed being on a raised embankment. The landscape within this section is characterised by level open ground comprising agricultural fields lain to grassland, aligned by mature hedgerows and scattered trees. An area of floodplain lies in the north of the section, which includes marsh and semi improved grassland Section 2: Railway Line to Castle Farm and A38 (Bridgwater Road) Southwards from the railway line, this section of the route passes through countryside which falls within the Green Belt between Ashton Vale and south west Bristol. The route follows to the west of the steep wooded slopes of Colliter’s Brook, which is identified as a Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI), and passes through the eastern flanks of South Bank Meadow Yanley Wildlife Site and Hanging Hill Wood Wildlife Site, an area of ancient woodland. The route crosses the former Yanley landfill site owned and managed by Viridor Ltd and ascends to reach the A38 to the east of Castle Farm, a Grade II Listed Building. PROWs and the National Trail run alongside and cross the route through this section. The wider landscape is characterised by large scale pastoral fields separated with mature hedgerows and trees. The buildings of Yew Tree Farm are located to the east of the route, with the extensive Computershare office building situated further east, accessed from the A38. The urban edge of south west Bristol lies some 500 metres to the east of the route corridor. Section 3: A38 to the edge of Highridge Common This section completes the extent of the route within the Green Belt, passing from NSC into BCC at the western boundary of Highridge Common. The proposed roundabout junction with the A38 will be centred over a triple conjoined Lime Kiln feature which is not formally designated but recognised as a locally important heritage asset. Open fields and gently undulating terrain continue to the south of the A38, with the wider landscape dominated by the backdrop of the residential properties forming the urban edge of Bristol lying east. The village of Dundry is located to the west on higher ground. The residential property of Highridge Cottage and the cluster of buildings of Burnell Ltd are located south of the proposed route, with Chestnut Cottage and its associated curtilage buildings to the north. Section 4: Highridge Common to King Georges Road The proposed route crosses the northern section of Highridge Common, an area of common land comprising open grassland with scattered scrub and tree cover, enclosed along the western boundary by hedgerows. The Common is identified as an SNCI and is considered a valuable area of wildflower rich meadow. Highridge Green and Highridge Road align the eastern and southern boundaries of the Common, fronted by two storey detached and semi-detached residential properties within generous sized plots, most with individual vehicles accesses. Section 5: King Georges Road and Queens Road Junction to Hengrove Way This forms the urban section of the proposed route passing through the Withywood and Bishopsworth areas of south Bristol. The route passes along King Georges Road, a residential street of two storey detached and semi-detached properties, each with front and rear gardens enclosed by a variety of boundary treatments. Each side of the road is fronted by a strip of wide amenity grass with a row of intermittent trees and standard lighting columns. This is traversed by strips of tarmac surfacing used as crossovers to individual properties and informal parking. Footways align the road alongside the property boundaries. A public house with outside seating area is situated at the southern corner of the junction with Queens Road.

2.1.7. The proposed route then crosses Queens Road to enter an area of unmanaged open grassland and scrub scattered with trees which forms a green corridor east-west between areas of housing from Queens Road to Hareclive Road. The land is held by BCC as ancillary housing land and is identified as a reserved corridor for the provision of SBL in the adopted development plan for Bristol City Council. It is used for informal recreation and is crossed by surfaced and unsurfaced pathway connections between the housing estates. These are characterised by two storey detached and semi-detached properties with some three storey apartment blocks arranged along cul de sacs accessed from Goulston Road and Gatehouse Avenue. The route passes directly

11

north of the Gatehouse Centre, a mixed community and employment facility adjacent to Hareclive Road.

2.1.8. A large area of green space opens out to the east of Hareclive Road which will accommodate a new junction for the proposed SBL route. This is fronted by a mixture of residential properties along Whitland Road to the south and the commercial properties of Cater Road Business Park to the north, fronting Whitchurch Lane. Once joined with Whitchurch Lane and onto Harcliffe Roundabout, this will complete the new carriageway of the proposed scheme. As outlined above, buses and other vehicles will follow existing roads along Hengrove Way, a dual-carriageway section with commercial development to the north and residential to the south. The bus route will then pass through Imperial Park and onwards to Hengrove Park via Whitchurch Lane.

Development site allocations and planning commitments

2.1.9. This following section sets out the future planned development for the area which is proposed through the emerging Site Allocations DPD and the formal planning application processes. This section should be read in conjunction with Appendix A: Development site allocations and planning commitments which provides a full list of development site allocations and planning commitments which, together, provide a full account of planned future development in the vicinity of SBL.

2.1.10. Within the adopted BCC Core Strategy, south Bristol is a priority focus for development and comprehensive regeneration, including 60,000 sq. m of net additional office floorspace, 10ha of new indusial and warehousing land and 8,000 homes of mix of type and tenure. Development will occur across South Bristol, with major regeneration particularly focused on Hengrove Park. Overarching policy is provided by Core Strategy Policy BCS1, which is translated into site specific proposals by the draft Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (DPD, March 2013). As set out in Appendix A: Development site allocations and planning commitments, planned growth for South Bristol includes 430 residential dwellings at Hartcliffe Way and Hengrove Way, a major mixed use development at Imperial Park (much of which is built out) and 8,000 sq m of business development at ‘the Hangar Site’ and Filwood Park north of Hengrove Way.

2.1.11. Additionally, major extant planning permissions are in existence in the vicinity of the scheme. This includes the construction of 422 residential dwellings at Wills Factor, Hengrove Way, the redevelopment of the existing Imperial Tobacco factory building at Winterstoke Road, the redevelopment of Bristol City Football Club to provide a relocated 10,000 sq. m Sainsburys Foodstore and the construction of a new 30,000 seat Bristol City Football Stadium (with associated development).

2.1.12. Within North Somerset, the draft Site Allocations DPD proposes to allocate Barrow Hospital, Barrow Gurney as a major strategic site. The site has the benefit of permission for 43 open market dwellings, 172 C3 units and a C2 care home. Additionally, a major mixed use development is proposed land to the east of Wild Country Lane (comprising 1,000 dwellings, 12,000 sq. m employment space). This site was the subject of a successful legal challenge to the adopted North Somerset Core Strategy that has resulted in the reopening of the examination into the adopted Core Strategy.

12

3. The Proposed Scheme Scheme Description

3.1.1. The full extent of the scheme amounts to 81.4 hectares and is shown within the red line boundary plan. This incorporates potential site compound areas, exchange land for land used in the construction of the road at Highridge Common and areas intended for environmental mitigation. A full set of general arrangement drawings are submitted with the application.

3.1.2. The proposed development comprises the construction and realignment of a section of highway which is 4.5 kilometres in length from the A370 Long Ashton bypass within North Somerset to the Cater Road roundabout within the Hartcliffe area of south Bristol. This includes the minor realignment of sections of existing highway at Highridge Green, King Georges Road and Whitchurch Lane. The entire route is to be classed as an Urban All-Purpose Road (UAP) in accordance with TA 79/99.

3.1.3. The route includes the construction of new junctions with the A370, Brookgate, A38, Highridge Green / Highridge Road, Queens Road, and Hareclive Road. New bridges will be constructed to cross Longmoor Brook, Colliter’s Brook and to pass under the Bristol to Taunton Railway Line. The route corridor will incorporate a bus-only link to connect with the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads (AVTM) scheme to the east of the Long Ashton Park and Ride site, and dedicated bus lanes between the Brookgate junction and the new A38 roundabout junction. New bus stops and shelters, and a shared cycleway and footway will be provided along the route corridor. Associated proposals include drainage facilities, landscaping and planting.

3.1.4. As set out in the following section, the route will form part of the West of England rapid transit network (Metro Bus) and will be used by buses. The bus only link will enable bus services to link with the AVTM close to the Long Ashton Park and Ride site. Within the south Bristol section, once buses have reached the Hartcliffe Roundabout, services will follow existing roads via Hengrove Way to Imperial Park and onwards to Whitchurch Lane and Hengrove Park, the southern terminus of the North Fringe to Hengrove (NFH) service.

3.1.5. This section provides a brief overview of the different sections of the proposed SBL route. Further detail is provided in ES Chapter 4 (Description of Development).

A370 Long Ashton Bypass to A38 Bridgwater Road

3.1.6. Zone 1 is a 2km section of the route which links Long Ashton to the A38 at Castle Farm via Brookgate in Ashton Vale. As part of this route, the road will have to pass underneath the Bristol to Exeter railway line and this will require the provision of a new underpass. Key elements of Zone 1 are: • A new roundabout junction on the A370 near Long Ashton; • A single-carriageway, two-way, 40 mph, highway that will run south-eastwards for

approximately 1.5km to meet the A38 (Bridgwater Road) at a new signalised roundabout junction;

• Between the A370 and the A38, a signal controlled junction at Brookgate that will give access to Ashton Vale;

• Field access points from the new carriageway along the length of the route, an access to the Viridor landfill site, and an access track to Castle Farm to the west of the A38 junction.

• A ‘bus only’ link between Ashton Vale to Temple Meads scheme and the new signalised junction at Brookgate;

• Bus priority measures; • Provision of combined footway/cycleway to the north of the highway alignment between the

A38 and Brook junctions; • A new shared cycleway/footway on the northern side of the carriageway between the A370

(connecting to Festival Way cycle track) and Brookgate. This provision then continues on the eastern side of carriageway from Brookgate to Long Ashton Park and Ride.

13

A38 to Queens Road

3.1.7. Zone 2 is a 1.5km section of the route which links the A38 at Castle Farm to Queens Road in the residential areas of Bishopsworth. Key elements of Zone 2 are: • A new single carriageway, two-way, 40mph carriageway will extend eastwards from the A38

(design speed will reduce to 30 mph in proximity to Highridge Farm) • A new shared footway / cycleway on the northern edge of the new carriageway linking the A38

to King Georges Road • A new four arm signalised junction formed with Highridge Road; • The realignment of Highridge Green and a new priority junction in proximity to Sandburrows

Road; • Minor widening on King Georges Road to provide for a single carriageway road with median

strip. • On King Georges Road, provision of shared footway/cycleway to the north of the highway

alignment and footway to the south; • Connection with Queens Road / Grange Road to the east at a new signalised four arm

junction; • The bus rapid transit will share the carriageway with general traffic between the A38 and

Queens Road signalised junctions, with bus priority at the main traffic signals.

Zone 3: Queens Road to Hengrove Park

3.1.8. Zone 3 is a 3km section of the route which connects Queens Road in Bishopsworth to Hengrove Park via Imperial Park. It will use both new and existing carriageway provision. Key elements of Zone 3 are:

3.1.9. From the new junction formed with Queens Road / Grange Road, the SBL will extend eastwards on a new single carriageway, two-way road subject to a 30mph speed limit. This section will utilise a reserved transport corridor to connect to Hareclive Road via a new four arm signalised junction which will connect the SBL, a realigned Whitchurch Lane and Hareclive Road.

3.1.10. From the new traffic signal junction, the SBL route will extend eastwards on a realigned and widened section of Whitchurch Lane. This will connect the SBL route to the existing Cater Road roundabout where SBL new construction will terminate

3.1.11. From the new Queens Road junction to the Cater Road roundabout, rapid transit buses will share the single-carriageway provision with general traffic. Rapid Transit vehicles will then route via existing roads to link up to Imperial Retail Park, Hengrove Park, the Hospital and City of Bristol College;

3.1.12. Provision of shared footway/cycleway to the north of the highway alignment and footway to the south

3.1.13. A linear park between Queens Road and Hareclive Road with pedestrian and cyclist provision;

3.1.14. A signal controlled pedestrian crossing will be provided in the reserved corridor, along with other informal crossings.

Linking to major transport schemes

3.1.15. As noted above, SBL will form part of the West of England rapid transit network (Metro Bus) and is designed to link with major transport proposals, including at Bristol Airport. A fuller description of the manner in which SBL will link with major transport proposals is provided within the Transport Assessment (Section 3.3).

Bristol Rapid Transit (Metro Bus)

3.1.16. Subject to achieving the necessary consents, the SBL will link with the network to provide direct access to Bristol City Centre via the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads (AVTM) guided bus route. Within the south Bristol section, once buses have reached the Cater Road roundabout, services

14

will follow existing roads via Hengrove Way to Imperial Park and onwards to Whitchurch Lane and Hengrove Park. Services will then connect with the North Fringe to Hengrove (NFH) section of the rapid transit network to follow a through central Bristol to the M32, Cribbs Causeway and Emerson’s Green in the north.

3.1.17. The West of England authorities are committed to promoting stronger economic growth and moving closer to a future, more integrated transport network for the city region. Together they are developing a rapid transit system (to be marketed as the Metro Bus) that will provide important additional cross-Bristol public transport connections to Temple Meads and its surrounding Enterprise Zone. The Metro Bus will link areas such as the Bristol and Bath Science Park, the new Bristol Rovers stadium, Aztec West, Cribbs Causeway and the University of the West of England with Parkway Station and the City Centre, as well as delivering the much needed Stoke Gifford Transport Link and the SBL that improves access to Bristol Airport and helps relieve the environmental impact of traffic in Barrow Gurney.

3.1.18. Metro Bus is part of a planned, integrated approach to improving local transport within the West of England to target exactly the issues raised in recent reports of traffic congestion levels in Bristol. Encouraging and promoting the use of sustainable transport options (such as Metro Bus, bus, rail, cycling and walking) will improve connections to education, employment opportunities, leisure, health and shopping facilities; allow business to travel freely without delays bringing economic, environmental, safety and health benefits to many. It is designed to link to new jobs and growth at the Enterprise Zones and areas, encouraging regeneration and job creation.

3.1.19. The Metro Bus network aims to reduce carbon emissions by individual car users, the Metro Bus plans link with the development of local rail (Metro Rail), residents parking zones, 20mph zones, and encourage cycle use with new cycle paths along much of the network, increasing individual activity levels.

3.1.20. The four West of England authorities have successfully secured funding for investment of £244 million in transport for the West of England. This includes £197 million for the Metro Bus network (Ashton Vale to Bristol City Centre, North Fringe to Hengrove Package and the SBL) which will form a network linking south Bristol, the City Centre, and the Northern Fringe. The Ashton Vale to Temple Meads and North Fringe to Hengrove schemes are described at paragraphs 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 of the Transport Assessment which accompanies the planning application for the SBL scheme.

Bristol Airport

3.1.21. As noted in Section 2.1 above, Bristol Airport is the major regional airport for the south west of England and the ninth largest airport in the United Kingdom, currently handling 5.9m passengers per annum. In February 2011, North Somerset Council granted outline planning permission for development of the Airport to handle up to 10m passengers per annum. The approved development is subject to Planning obligations relating to surface access form a key part of the Section 106 Agreement, known as the Airport Surface Access Strategy (ASAS).

3.1.22. The purpose of this ASAS is to deliver a low carbon, accessible, integrated, efficient and reliable transport network serving Bristol Airport and the wider area. It aims to secure easy, reliable and efficient access to Bristol Airport for passengers and staff, increasing the use of public transport and reducing congestion and the carbon and air quality impacts of traffic travelling to and from Bristol Airport. It also seeks to facilitate access to jobs for local communities through the implementation of the Staff Travel Plan and ensure that the surface access arrangements contribute to the growth of Bristol Airport and enable it to deliver its full potential in delivering air services to the local catchment supporting economic growth. The aims of the ASAS are aligned with the transport policies and strategy set out in the JLTP3 (2011-2026).

3.1.23. In order to achieve these objectives, the proposed ASAS targets for increasing public transport use by passengers over the next five years are listed as follows: • To achieve growth in passenger numbers on the Airport Flyer Express that exceeds the

growth in air passengers at Bristol Airport consistent with achieving a target of 15% of air passengers using public transport at 10 million passengers per annum and a minimum annual growth rate of 30% more than the annual rate of air passenger growth;

• To secure successful and sustainable regular bus services serving Bath and South Wales;

15

• To review the feasibility of operating commercial services to Weston-super-Mare and Devon with potential operators;

• To secure growth in passengers using the 121 local bus service; and • To maintain the National Express 404 and 406 services which call at Bristol Airport.

Integration of public transport services with the Rapid Transit network

3.1.24. The Bus Metro Network will allow the Airport Flyer Express to leave the A38 south of Bristol and join the SBL to Ashton Vale, from where a guided busway will provide a fast and efficient link into the City Centre, linking with the Temple Quarter Enterprise Zone, Temple Meads Station and other central primary stopping points. Connections to the Hengrove to Northern Fringe part of the network will be available in the city centre providing links to the Science Park at Emerson Green, Bristol Parkway Station and the Filton/A38 enterprise areas. The eastern section of the SBL will also facilitate improved public transport access to south Bristol, Keynsham, Saltford and Bath. Taken together the rapid transit network will transform surface access to Bristol Airport. The scheme is expected to be operational in 2016.

3.1.25. Firm proposals for the integration of airport public transport services with the Bus Rapid Transit network will be developed once the West of England authorities have finalised the operating specification for the system and detailed journey times are available. It is anticipated that the Flyer Airport Express will use the SBL and Ashton Vale to Temple Meads sections of the Rapid Transit network when the SBL is completed. Selected airport services would continue to use the A38 for the journey into Bristol to ensure that access to the airport is maintained for Bedminster. The combined operation would provide up to eight services per hour between Bristol and the airport depending on demand and performance against targets.

3.1.26. Interchange facilities between the Flyer and the Hengrove to North Fringe rapid transit service will be available in Bristol city centre.

3.1.27. Bus services to Bath will use the SBL to the east of the A38. Travellers from south Bristol will also be able to connect with the Flyer services by taking the SBL Rapid Transit service to the Long Ashton Park and Ride interchange.

16

4. Historic Policy Development 4.1.1. This section should be read in conjunction with ES Chapter 2 (Principle and Need for the

Scheme), which demonstrates that the principle for the development of the SBL is long established in local and strategic policy. This section summarises the key stages in policy development which led to the current safeguarding allocation of SBL within the adopted Development Plans in BCC and NSC. A full account of key historic policy stages is provided in Appendix B: Planning Policy History.

Table 4.1 SBL Historic Policy Development

Policy level (strategic, local)

Policy name SBL details

Strategic Policy 1960-1994

County of Somerset Development Plan (First Review 1964, adopted 1972)

The County of Somerset Development Plan First Review provides the first policy iteration of SBL, which was, in turn, afforded policy status within the adopted Plan as a section of the ‘Avon Ring Road’, a radial route that was proposed to connect the northern, eastern and western fringes of Bristol

Avon County Structure Plan (Consultation Draft 1980, adopted 1994)

The Structure Plan and all of its subsequent alterations gave planning policy status to SBL through Policy TR.4. The scheme continued to form part of the Avon Ring Road scheme and was named as ‘Avon Ring Road (A.38 to A.370)’ and ‘Avon Ring Road (Carter Road to A.38)’ and the scheme alignment was identified on the adopted Proposals Map

Local Policy 1991-1997

Woodspring Rural Areas Local Plan1 (Consultation Draft 1992, Deposit Draft 1994, adopted 1994)

The adopted Local Plan and its subsequent draft versions reproduce Avon Structure Plan Policy TR.4 by safeguarding SBL within the Written Statement and the Proposals Map. During the Woodspring Local Plan Inquiry (Deposit Version 1996), a number of objections were lodged in response to the southern section of the Avon Ring Road, many of which centred on timeframes for delivery. The Inspector, in his 1998 Report into the Deposit Draft, did not recommend any Plan modifications in response to these objections

Bristol City Council Local Plan (Consultation Draft 1992, adopted 1997)

The route of SBL was safeguarded in each draft version as the ‘south Bristol Section of the Avon Ring Road’, through Policy M31. Within the Inspector’s Report (1997), in response to the assertion that the schemes within Policy M31 are ill founded, the Inspector asserts that the “principle of these road schemes have been established in the Structure Plan [...] it would not be sensible to delay the further consideration or the adoption of the Bristol Local Plan whilst this work was being carried out.”

Strategic and Local Policy (pre-2004)

Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (RPG10, adopted September 2001)

Policy TRAN1, SS.2, SS.3 and SS8 combined to create the transport strategy for Bristol and the South West of relevance to SBL. Policy S.8 seeks to direct “investment in programmes for economic, physical and social regeneration, with an emphasis on encouraging development in the more

1 Historic local authority administrative boundaries were in force at this stage, which included Avon County and Woodspring District. Upon local government reorganisation in 1996, Woodspring District became NSC and Avon County was divided between the newly formed NSC, BCC, B&NES and SGC.

17

disadvantaged areas, including south Bristol.” NSC, BCC, Bath and North East Somerset and South Gloucestershire Joint Replacement Structure Plan (JRSP, Deposit Version 1998, adopted September 2002)

Adopted Policy 47 gives priority to the implementation of transport programmes. Paragraph 2.74 of the adopted Structure Plan notes: “The construction of a road between the A38 and the A370, primarily to improve access to Bristol International Airport (BIA), may also benefit south Bristol by helping to relieve traffic congestion, providing better access to existing industrial estates in Ashton Vale, and in the longer term allowing the release of further potential employment sites in the area.

North Somerset Replacement Local Plan (Consultation September 2002, adopted 2007)

Adopted Local Plan Policy T/9 (Highway Schemes) safeguards SBL as follows: “A38/A370 Two routes are safeguarded between these major roads, a link to the east of Barrow Gurney (the A38-A370 Link Road, known as the ‘orange route’) and the south Bristol Ring Road (known as the ‘red’ route). Phase 1 of the Ring Road is a link from the A370 to the A38; Phase 2 continues from the A38 into Bristol; both phases are safeguarded by the Local Plan. The lack of a modern road link between the A38 and A370 has led to increasing traffic problems on the B3130 through Barrow Gurney. As well as relieving the village, the new roads will improve access to Bristol International Airport, reinforcing its status as a regional facility and major local employer.”

Strategic policy (post 2004 and since abolished)

Draft South West Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS, Submitted 2006, Consulted 2006, Examination in Public 2007, Proposed Changes 2008, Consultation 2008).

Policy HMA1 sought to develop a focused programme of regeneration initiatives at south Bristol to broaden the housing stock, improve the quality and diversity of retail, employment and service provision and improve accessibility. In respect of transport outcomes, the Policy sought “to improve access for all to and from south Bristol and to provide for orbital movement, supporting regeneration and employment growth”.

18

5. Adopted Planning Policy Context5.1.1. This section provides an overview of the key planning documents against which SBL will be

assessed, having regard to the decision making process involved in the determination of the planning application. The full Planning Policy Context is provided in Chapter 7 of the ES.

Policy Framework

5.1.2. The Planning and Compulsory Act 2004 (the 2004 Act) requires that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material circumstances indicate otherwise. The 2004 Act changed the plan making system in England. Most planning authorities are in the process of adopting new development plans under the new system and transitional arrangements are in place.

5.1.3. Since these changes to the plan making system were introduced, the regional tier of government has been removed through the Localism Act 2011. As a result of this, the Regional Strategy for the South West and any saved Structure Plan policies has been revoked (effective on 20th May 2013) and no longer form part of the Development Plan.

5.1.4. Whilst the regional and sub-regional tier of planning policy has been revoked, the evidence base for the RGP10, the Draft South West RSS, and the Joint Replacement Structure Plan remains a material consideration. The weight to be given to this evidence base depends on the individual circumstances of the developments under consideration and is a matter of judgement for the decision-taker.. Pre-Application advice from NSC Case Officer re-affirms that while RPG10 is no longer part of the development plan, its evidence base still has limited weight.

Commons Act 2006

5.1.5. The Commons Act (royal assent 19th July 2006) aims to protect areas of common land in a sustainable manner delivering benefits for farming, public access and biodiversity. The Act provides better protection for common land and greens against abuse, encroachment and unauthorised development whilst prohibiting the severance of common rights, preventing commoners from selling, leasing or letting their rights away from the property to which rights are attached.

The National Planning Policy Framework

5.1.6. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 27th March 2012. The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England, including guidance against which all development plans must be in broad conformity. Although the NPPF remains a material consideration in planning decisions, it is therefore appropriate that it is considered prior to the adopted Development Plan.

5.1.7. According to NPPF, proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.1.8. While the NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making, it provides guidance to local authorities on the assessment and determination of development proposals. Central to this is application of the presumption in favour of ‘sustainable development’, which is cited as follows (NPPF, :2012: paragraph 14):

5.1.9. “At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking.

5.1.10. For decision-taking this means: • approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and• where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting

permission unless

19

• any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits,when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

• specific policies in this Framework indicate that development should be restricted.”

The Statutory Development Plan

5.1.11. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (PCPA) 2004 gives statutory force to a plan-led system of development control. Applications must therefore be determined in accordance with the approved development plan, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.1.12.

Bristol City Council

5.1.13.

The Statutory Development Plan for BCC is made of the adopted BCC Core Strategy (21 June 2011) and saved policies of the adopted Bristol Local Plan (1997). The BCC Core Strategy was prepared under the PCPA (2004) and sets out the overall approach for planning development in Bristol up to 2026 and beyond.

The BCC Local Plan (1997) was prepared under the Town and County Planning Act (1990).

5.1.14.

Under Direction from the Secretary of State (27th March 2010), certain policies from within the Local Plan were saved and used to cover the period up until the LDF was in a position to take over.

5.1.15. The NPPF, at paragraph 215, advises how policies adopted prior to 2004 (before the PCPA came into force) should be applied in planning decisions:

Following the adoption of the Core Strategy in 2011, some of the policies of the 1997 Adopted Bristol Local Plan that were previously ‘saved’ for future use (by the Secretary of State in 2010) have now fallen away. Others have been incorporated into the Core Strategy and some remain saved pending the production of further development plan documents.

5.1.16. “Following this 12-month period [from the day of publication of the NPPF – 27 March 2012], due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).”

5.1.17. Consequentially, the decision maker, in their determination of this application for planning permission, should afford weight to saved Bristol Local Plan Policies according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF.

North Somerset Council

5.1.18.

5.1.19. The NSC Core Strategy is the principle strategic planning document for North Somerset and contains strategic policies to guide development to 2026. The document was adopted under the PCPA (2004).

The Statutory Development Plan for NSC is made of the adopted NSC Core Strategy (21 April 2012) and saved policies of the North Somerset Replacement Local Plan (RLP) which was adopted in March 1997.

5.1.20. Although formally adopted, the Core Strategy was subject to a legal challenge by Bristol University, a judgement on which was made on the 14th February 2013 with an addendum dated 7th March 2013. Policy CS13 (Scale of New Housing) was found to be unlawful by reason of the Core Strategy Inspector’s failure to give 'adequate or intelligible reasons for his conclusion that the figure made sufficient allowance for latent demand i.e. demand unrelated to the creation of new jobs'. This matter has been remitted back to the Planning Inspectorate for re-examination.

5.1.21. Although Policy CS13 only was found to be unlawful, the Judge indicated that the effect of the challenge could have a knock on effect for other policies. All affected policies presently have the status of emerging policy (albeit with significant weight) and are consequently a material planning consideration but not part of the adopted development plan. Until such time that the policies are

20

adopted the equivalent Local Plan policies form part of the development Plan and should be considered.

5.1.22. As a result, while many of the Local Plan policies that ‘saved’ under a direction from the Secretary of State in 2010 have fallen away as a consequence of the adoption of the Core Strategy, until such time that the Core Strategy’s legal challenge is resolved, the Local Plan policies form part of the Development Plan. The full list of remitted policies is provided in Chapter 7 of the ES.

5.1.23. In the case of SBL, the only affected policy is Core Strategy (2012) Policy CS6 (Green Belt) and Local Plan Policy RD/3 Development in the Green Belt.

As set out above, weight should be afforded to the remaining saved North Somerset Local Plan policies according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF, in the determination of this application for planning permission.

Material Considerations

Regional and Sub-Regional Policy

5.1.24. Strategic transport policies are prepared in the context of the third Joint Local Transport Plan (JLTP3) for the West of England. This document sets out the strategy and delivery plans for improving transport in the sub-region for the five years from 2006 and sets out a vision for transport to 2026. The JLTP3 combines the plans of the four councils of Bath and North East Somerset (B&NES), South Gloucestershire (SGC), NSC and BCC, underpinned by the respective adopted local plans. The JLTP3 will also be reflected in the emerging Local Development Frameworks.

5.1.25. SPDs add further detail the policies in the Local Plan and can be used to provide further guidance to development on specific sites, or on particular issues, such as design. SPDs are also capable of being a material consideration in planning decisions but are not part of the development plan. A full list of SPDs of relevance to the development proposals is provided in ES Chapter 7 (Planning Policy Context) and assessed in light of the SBL proposals in the following section,

Adopted Supplementary Planning Documents

Emerging Policy

Planning Policy Assessment.

5.1.26. According to NPPF paragraph 216:

“From the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: • the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater

the weight that may be given); • the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the

unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and • the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this

Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).”

5.1.27. In BCC, a Publication Version of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (March 2013) has been prepared. An opportunity to make representations was carried out between 22nd March and 10th May 2013 before it is submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination in early July 2013. The Site Allocations and Development Management Policies set out: • Development Management policies: These are detailed planning policies which will be used

by the council when assessing planning applications; • Designations: This is land which should be safeguarded (e.g. for open space or transport

infrastructure) or where specific policies apply (e.g. local centres);

21

• Site allocations: These are sites to be allocated for development for particular land uses, forexample, homes, business and mixed-uses. The intention is to provide clarity to planningapplicants and the community regarding the land uses that, in principle, are acceptable to thecouncil on specific sites.

5.1.28. Upon adoption, the DPD will replace saved policies of the BCC Local Plan.

5.1.29. NSC consulted on its draft Sites and Policies DPD between February and April 201. Once adopted, the document will supersede the remaining policies of the North Somerset Local Plan. The DPD is expected to be submitted to the Secretary of State in early 2014, following another round of consultation on the publication version of the document in autumn 2013. The Site and Policies DPD covers two broad areas: • Site specific policies: allocating sites for specific uses or defininig areas within which a specific

policy approach will be taken; • Development Management policies: providing generic guidance in respect of how different

types of development or issues will be treated.

22

6. Planning Policy Assessment6.1.1. This section assesses the SBL proposals in light of the context of the Development Plan, NPPF

and other material considerations. The planning and environmental considerations of relevance to the application are set out in turn, including an overview the potential impacts of the proposals on the environment and amenity of the surrounding area drawing on the ES and supporting assessments which form part of this application for planning permission. The Assessment provides conclusions on whether the development proposal generally complies with the national and local planning policies, in light of material considerations.

6.1.2. In order to demonstrate compliance with the adopted Development Plan, each of the planning and environmental considerations is presented, where possible, under NPPF Core Policies. These are listed as follows: 1. Achieving sustainable development

i. SBL Safeguarding allocation2. Building and strong and competitive society

i. Socio Economic Assessment3. Promoting sustainable transport

i. Transport Assessment4. Requiring good design

i. Sustainability Assessment5. Promoting healthy communities

i. Health Impact Assessmentii. Recreational and Amenity Land Assessment

6. Protecting Green Belti. Green Belt Assessment

7. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and costal changei. Flood Risk Assessment and Water Framework Directive

8. Conserving and enhancing the natural environmenti. Agricultural land;ii. Ground and land contamination.iii. Amenity (air quality, noise and light pollution);iv. Landscape and Visual Impact;v. Ecology

9. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment10. Cumulative Assessment

6.1.3. The ES, which accompanies this application for planning permission, provides a detailed overview of all the relevant planning policies that have been considered in the development of the SBL scheme proposals. This ensures that any secondary environmental effects caused through impacts on site specific or local policies have been recognised in the ES. This is provided in ES Chapter 7 (Planning Policy Context).

Achieving Sustainable Development

6.1.4. According to NPPF (paragraph 14), development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

6.1.5. The route for the SBL accords with an up-up-date Development Plan by virtue of its safeguarding allocation within the statutory Development Plan of BCC and NSC. This is summarised as follows: • BCC Core Strategy (2011) Policy BCS10 (Transport and Access Improvements) affords

SBL policy status by defining it as part of a number of transport infrastructure improvementsand safeguards “Land required for the implementation of transport proposals will besafeguarded to enable their future provision”.

23

• BCC Local Plan (1997) Policy M20 (Highway Network Improvements to the PrimaryRoad Network) defines the alignment of SBL in the adopted Local Plan Proposals Map(December 1997).

• NSC Core Strategy (2012) Policy CS10 (Transportation and Movement) affords the SBLpolicy status and it is seen as part of the West of England major transport schemesprogramme set out in the JLTP (2011).

• NSC Replacement Local Plan (1997) Policy T/9 – Highway schemes defined the alignmentof SBL in the adopted Local Plan Proposals Map (as amended, April 2012)

6.1.6. According to the NPPF, weight should also be applied to emerging policies according to, matters including, their stage in preparation and degree of consistency with the NPPF. The BCC draft Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (March 2013) is at an advanced stage in its preparation and has been prepared in accordance with the NPPF. It is considered that significant weight should be applied to its policies in the determination of this planning application. • BCC Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (draft March 2013) Policy

DM24: Transport Schemes; safeguards land for the delivery of SBL and does not permit development which would prejudice its implementation. It defines the alignment of the scheme on the draft Proposals Map (March 2013). Upon implementation, it will supersede the saved policies of the BCC Local Plan (1997).

6.1.7. Similarly, NSC has been preparing its Sites and Policies DPD and it is considered that weight should be accorded to the following policies: • NSC draft Sites and Policies DPD (February 2013): Policy DM20: Major highway

schemes; the policy seeks to protect major highway schemes from inappropriate development and ensures that land identified for major highways schemes and safeguarded and shown on the Proposals Map.

6.1.8. According to the NPPF, the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. In order to achieve this, it advises that local authorities should apply “a presumption in favour of sustainable development” to the determination of planning application, in the context of the PCPA (2004) above.

6.1.9. As SBL accords with an up-to-date statutory development plan, it remains to test the scheme against key material considerations, including the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which is addressed in the following sections

Building a strong and competitive society

6.1.10. This Planning Statement is accompanied by an Economics Benefit Study which sets out the clear commitment of SBL to facilitate regeneration and growth in south Bristol, reduce congestion in south Bristol and adjacent areas of North Somerset and improve accessibility from south Bristol to the city centre and to strategic transport links, including the trunk road network and Bristol International Airport. This is explored in this section.

Planning Policy

6.1.11. In the delivery of sustainable development, the NPPF places significant importance to the delivery of economic growth, including the following Core Policies:

6.1.12. Building a strong, competitive economy: Sets a clear commitment to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, which the planning system should faculties by seeking “to address potential barriers to investment, including a poor environment or any lack of infrastructure”

6.1.13. Supporting a prosperous rural economy: A positive approach to sustainable development should be adopted which supports sustainable economic growth in rural areas;

24

6.1.14. Promoting sustainable transport: Critically the Framework outlines that solutions providing reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reductions in congestion should be promoted. Adjoining local authorities should “work together to develop strategies for the provision of viable infrastructure necessary to support sustainable development”.

6.1.15. The following policies within the BCC Core Strategy are of particular relevance to this proposal: • Policy BSC1 – South Bristol: This directs significant development to south Bristol which

prioritises the comprehensive regeneration of the area as a priority, including infrastructure improvements relating to cycling, walking and public transport;

• Policy BSC8 – Delivering Thriving Economy: Aims to strengthen economic performancethrough the provision of sufficient and flexible employment land supply, addressing barriers to employment and promoting the city for investment opportunities;

• Policy BSC10 – Transport and Access Improvements: Supports the provision of an integratedtransport system to improve accessibility and meet the levels of new development, including rapid transit and SBL.

6.1.16. The following policies within the NSC Core Strategy are of particular relevance to this proposal: • Policy CS10 – Transport and Movement: Promotes improved and integrated transport

networks providing access to jobs, homes, services and facilities. • Policy CS20 – Supporting a Successful Economy: Makes provision for at least 10,100

additional employment opportunities over the Strategy period and seeks to counter high levels of out-commuting.

Assessment

6.1.17. A socio-economic impact assessment was carried out as part of the ES for the proposed SBL scheme. The assessment is based on findings from the Economics Benefit Study of the SBL (a supporting statement to the application) which examines the likely economic benefits of the scheme, especially in terms of unlocking and facilitating economic growth, set against the scheme’s objectives (set out in Section 1 above). The study highlighted that the south Bristol area suffers from low levels of economic activity, low skill levels and high levels of unemployment which, combined with significant out-commuting, have contributed to acute deprivation. Additionally, a review of existing studies showed that transport is a major barrier to economic growth in south Bristol, and that investment in the proposed scheme will play a key role in unlocking new growth.

6.1.18. Drawing on the findings of the afore mentioned studies, including Unlocking Our Potential: The Economic Benefits of Transport Investment in the West of England (Atkins, 2012) as well as on survey information provided by local businesses, the Study concludes that without significant investment in transport infrastructure, south Bristol (much like the wider West of England sub-region) faces a number of important challenges. According to the Study: • The majority of businesses said that congestion in the area currently affects the operation of

their business • Property agents confirmed that it was a major factor negatively affecting inward investment in

south Bristol. • Failure to deliver significant improvements to the road network and public transport services

will constrain future travel choices, reducing the scope for public transport to accommodate the needs of people and businesses.

6.1.19. The Economics Benefit Study confirms that SBL also demonstrates a strong economic case based on DfT’s ‘standard’ approach to appraisal which demonstrates the considerable economic benefits of the scheme.

6.1.20. The scheme was also found to make a significant contribution to economic growth by helping to improve business productivity as a result of shorter and more reliable journeys, better labour force access and business clustering benefits. This includes assistance in unlocking thousands of jobs that would not be delivered which, in conjunction with the major transport schemes, result in the unlocking some £199 million of additional GVA by 2030.

6.1.21. In terms of impact, the Study concludes that SBL will have an overall positive socio-economic impact. During the construction phase an element of disruption to businesses, residents and

25

people commuting into or out of the area, is expected in the short term. However close consultation with those affected is expected to minimise the levels of disruption. Once completed, the scheme will increase accessibility to Bristol city centre and the employment, education, training, retail and leisure opportunities available there, to people living in south Bristol. This will also contribute to generating additional potential revenue in the city centre due to increased sales in retail and leisure establishments, and so to meet BCC Policy BCS2.

6.1.22. SBL is also anticipated to deliver a number of construction jobs as well as indirect employment and business opportunities. The scheme will support the delivery of major developments planned/ underway in the south Bristol area including provision of new business parks, Bristol Airport expansion, Hartcliffe education campus, community hospital and leisure centre have the potential to generate an additional 5,600 FTE jobs across 18.2ha of development sites (MSBC, 2010).

6.1.23. With regards to greenhouse gases, it is anticipated that the SBL will result in improved air quality and associated reduction in carbon emissions; this is directly linked to quality of life improvements as well as being equivalent to greenhouse gas emission savings of £1.056 million, according to the latest Transport Economic Efficiency calculations (Atkins, May 2013).

Conclusion

6.1.24. As detailed in the socio-economic assessment and Economic Benefits Study and in line with adopted planning policy, the SBL scheme will provide congestion relief and improved public transport infrastructure in south Bristol and areas of North Somerset. It will improve accessibility from south Bristol to the city centre and to strategic transport links including Bristol Airport.

6.1.25. The reduction in traffic on the highway network north of SBL, enabling more reliable journey times, for private vehicles and public transport alike has been found to deliver economic benefits both through reduced business costs and improved accessibility for travel to work, which will help improve efficiency in the labour market. Furthermore, it will help to unlock wider benefits through improved perceptions of the area, from both existing businesses and potential inward investors.

6.1.26. The primary economic benefit of the SBL scheme would therefore be helping to unlock the latent economic potential of south Bristol and therefore meeting the aims of BCC Policies BSC1 and BSC8, and NSC Policy CS20. SBL would also increase accessibility to Bristol city centre and to the employment, education, training, retail and leisure opportunities available there, to people living in south Bristol, in line with BCC Policy BSC10 and NSC Policy CS10. SBL, as a sustainable transport scheme, is considered to contribute to building a strong and competitive urban and rural economy in line with the NPPF and the statutory development plan.

Promoting sustainable transport

6.1.27. In line with national policy requirements, a Transport Assessment (TA) accompanies this application for planning permission. This sets out the transport provisions of the proposed SBL scheme in detail, providing an assessment against local and strategic transport policy, impacts of the scheme on the local highway network and provisions for sustainable transport modes, including walking and cycling.

Planning Policy

6.1.28. The NPPF in Section 4 (Promoting Sustainable Transport) identifies a number of Core Planning Policies which are directly related to the SBL scheme. These include;

6.1.29. Supporting sustainable transport modes that give people a real choice and contribute to the reduction of green house gas emissions and congestion;

6.1.30. A Transport Assessment should support any application for planning permission that is likely to generate significant amounts of movement which demonstrates that the development makes provision for sustainable modes of transport and incorporates measures to reduces its environmental impact;

26

6.1.31. Local planning authorities should identify and protect sites and routes, which could be critical in developing infrastructure to widen transport choice.

6.1.32. The following BCC Local Policies are of particular relevance to the planning application: • BCC Core Strategy (2011) Policy BCS1 supports the delivery of improvements to the transport

infrastructure to provide an integrated transport system in Bristol. This provides for the delivery of major transport schemes, including SBL and AVTM, which SBL provides a direct link to;

• BCC Core Strategy (2011) Policy BCS10 (Transport and Access Improvements) affords SBLpolicy status by defining it as part of a number of transport infrastructure improvements. Policy CS10 also makes reference to the ‘expansion of the Park and Ride at Long Ashton’ which the SBL proposals directly support;

• BCC Local Plan (1997) Policy M20 (Highway Network Improvements to the Primary RoadNetwork) defines the alignment of SBL in the adopted Local Plan Proposals Map (December 1997).

6.1.33. The following NSC Local Policies are of particular relevance to the planning application: • NSC Core Strategy (2012) Policy CS10 (Transportation and Movement) affords the SBL

policy status and it is seen as part of the West of England major transport schemes programme set out in the JLTP (2011).

• NSC Replacement Local Plan (1997) Policy T/9 – Highway schemes defined the alignment ofSBL in the adopted Local Plan Proposals Map (as amended, April 2012)

6.1.34. In addition, JLTP3 represents a material consideration in the determination of this planning application. It considers that “the Rapid Transit network is essential for sustainable economic growth, by providing a deliverable, cost effective, reliable and attractive alternative to the car.” JLTP3 acknowledges the regional importance of SBL, indicating that it will support regeneration and economic growth, reduce congestion and improve accessibility. Without SBL, it concludes, that “congestion will increase and investment could go elsewhere”

Assessment

6.1.35. The TA concludes that the SBL scheme has the potential to facilitate regeneration and economic growth in south Bristol by improving connections for public transport users, cyclists, pedestrians, commercial vehicles and those travelling in private vehicles. Key benefits associated with the scheme are summarised as follows: • SBL will provide a new strategic highway link between the A370, A38 and Hartcliffe for

general traffic which will improve accessibility to south Bristol from the city centre and surrounding areas to provide better connectivity for business and private journeys and reduce the congestion on key interchanges linking to these areas.

• SBL provides an alternative connection between South Bristol, the A38 and the A370. Atpresent the most direct alternative route is along the congested A3029 Winterstoke Road via the Parsons Street gyratory and along either the A38 Bridgwater Road or the A4174 Hartcliffe Way.

• Journey times between Cater Road and the M5 are expected to be reduced.• SBL will attract traffic which is currently travelling along residential streets which is used by

commuters during peak periods. This includes Whitchurch Road, Bishopsworth Road, KingsHead Lane, Yanley Lane and Barrow Street. Due to the residential nature of these streets andtheir proximity to local schools, the SBL will provide important environmental and safetybenefits associated with reduced traffic flows.

• While the SBL will attract some traffic currently travelling along commercial and retail streets,such as Winterstoke Road, the level of suppressed demand for travel ensures that forecastreductions will reduce congestion, rather than traffic flow, in such areas.

• SBL including a Metro Bus element with modern, comfortable, low emission vehicles with highquality waiting facilities and integrated ticketing. Bus lane and priority provision along the routewill ensure that these services provide fast and reliable connections to increase theattractiveness of this mode relative to journeys using private cars.

27

• SBL presents opportunities for journey time savings for existing bus services which usesections of the proposed route, particularly those running to and from south Bristol. Journeytime of the Airport Flyer service between Bristol Airport and the city centre are also predictedto be reduced.

• The implementation of the SBL will also result in improved journey times for buses that runto/from south Bristol, with the biggest decrease in average journey time expected for busesbetween the airport and the city centre.

• The scheme will provide a new east-west cycle and pedestrian link, connecting Bishopsworthwith the A38 and A370 at Long Ashton. This improved provision will encourage more journeysby active modes, providing potential for positive health outcomes.

• Overall, it is expected that the scheme will improve access to education, employment, leisure,health and retail services; and will reduce congestion in south Bristol and adjacent areas ofNorth Somerset.

6.1.36. The construction impacts of the scheme on the local highway network will be controlled by the implementation of the agreed version of the Pre-Construction Environmental Management Plan which is submitted as part of this application for planning permission. This includes provisions for the production of a Traffic Management Plan ahead of construction activities starting, including details of traffic and pedestrian management as well as proposed diversions and access routes.

6.1.37. With regards to the operational phase of the scheme, the TA finds that all junctions along the SBL route are forecast to operate within capacity in 2016. In 2031 all the junctions are expected to continue operating within capacity, except for a number of junctions highlighted below that are forecast operate above design capacity but within theoretical capacity by 2031:. These include SBL’s junction with the A370 (during the AM Peak period), A38 (during the PM period) and Highridge Road (during the AM period).

6.1.38. Whilst the expected situation at the A38 and A370 is shown to be manageable, the capacity results for junctions with Highridge Road and with Queens Road / King Georges Road indicates that consideration will need to be given to complementary traffic management measures by 2031, including measures better manage demand for travel.

Conclusion

6.1.39. SBL is expected to reduce congestion in south Bristol and eastern North Somerset, thus improving access to employment, education, leisure and retail services and assisting in the delivery of a sustainable, integrated transport system for Bristol and the reduction of journey time in key employment areas. The scheme comprises a Metro Bus element and includes extensive provision for walking and cycling. Taken together, the scheme is considered to accord with all the relevant national and local transport policies and guidance listed in the previous section.

Requiring Good Design

6.1.40. A Sustainability Statement has been prepared to support the planning application for the SBL scheme. Taken together, this sets out the key issues which have been taken into account in the sustainable design and construction of SBL including provision for energy, waste and recycling, water, pollution, green infrastructure, biodiversity, historic environment, landscape and townscape, travel, local community and well-being.

Planning Policy

6.1.41. There are several relevant BCC Core Strategy policies in respect of sustainability: • Policy BCS9 – Green infrastructure: Seeks to protect, maintain and enhance the strategic

green infrastructure network; green infrastructure loss would only be permitted where it is allowed for in adopted DPD or to meet the aims of the Core Strategy;

• Policy BCS13 – Climate Change: Advises that development should seek to both mitigate andadapt to climate change by including high standards of energy efficiency, renewable and low-

28

carbon energy supply systems; and demonstrate how the development would adapt to climate change;

• Policy BCS15 – Sustainable Design and Construction: Requires new development toincorporate measures including the conservation of water resources, minimisation of flood risk, sustainable construction materials, energy efficiency, and opportunities to incorporate measures to enhance biodiversity into the design of development;

• Policy BCS16 – Flood risk and water management: Development should be sequentiallydirected to areas with the lowest risk of flooding and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures to ensure it is resilient to flooding;

• Policy BCS22 – Conservation and the historic environment: New development shouldsafeguard or enhance heritage assets and the character and setting of areas of historical importance;

• Policy BCS23 – Pollution: Development should be located and designed as to avoid having anegative impact on environmental amenity or biodiversity by reason of air, land or water pollution.

6.1.42. There are also several relevant NSC policies in respect of sustainability. • Policy CS1 – Addressing climate change and carbon reduction: Requires new development to

demonstrate a commitment to reducing carbon emissions through good design and the use of renewable energy;

• Policy CS2: Requires sustainable design and construction in new development whichincreases energy efficiency and prioritises sustainable low or zero carbon forms of renewable energy;

• Policy CS3: Development should not result in environmental pollution or harm to amenity,should be sequentially directed to areas of lower flood risk and incorporate sustainable measures for the control of flood risk;

• Policy CS4: Development proposal should to promote and enhance the biodiversity network inNorth Somerset and avoid net loss of biodiversity interest;

• Policy CS5: Requires that the design of new development protects and enhances thecharacter, distinctiveness, diversity and quality of North Somerset’s landscape and townscape;

• Policy CS9: Requires new development to safeguard, improve and enhance the existingnetwork of green infrastructure.

Assessment

6.1.43. The Sustainability Statement concludes that SBL performs well against a number of indicators. These are listed as follows: • Transport/ accessibility : The scheme contributes to the reduction of congestion and the

combination of public transport infrastructure and a foot and cycleway running the entire length of the route will contribute to a modal transport shift which incurs positive benefits;

• Safety: Traffic management measures include speed restrictions of 30mph throughout theurban areas;

• Waste, recycling and re-use of resources: The scheme includes waste prevention and wasteminimisation measures such as optimisation of alignment to minimise impact on undisturbed ground, to optimise cut and fill volumes and re-use excavated topsoil on site;

• Soil: The quality and quantity of soil on site would be protected by implementing appropriatetechniques for stripping, storing and re-use, including the implementation of a Soil Handling and Management Strategy and a Construction Soil Management Plan will be included within the CEMP;

• Materials: A Materials Management Plan will be prepared to manage and control the import offill materials and appropriate reuse of excavated material within the scheme;

• Flood risk: The scheme is found to have a good level of protection against flooding, as set outin the Flood Risk Assessment allowing for climate change impacts;

• Water: Overall the scheme will deliver positive effects on the water quality due to theincorporation of additional mitigation measures, including detention basins and attenuation

29

tanks and, where practicable, grey water systems at site compounds to reduce run-off from site, improve water efficiency and lessen the potential for polluting discharges;

• Ecology and landscape: New ecological features and landscaping will be incorporated in thescheme’s design partially to compensate for the losses of some ecological habitats and features, but also in order to enhance the local biodiversity and visual amenity.

6.1.44. Potential negative effects were found in relation to: noise levels (both during construction and operation), air quality during the construction, the scheme’s lighting, loss of some ecological habitats and features, the character of the Bishopsworth and Malago Conservation Area, visual amenity, construction traffic impacts and increased materials and energy use. The mitigation measures for these effects have been set out in the ES and other relevant technical assessment chapters. The incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures in the scheme’s design will enhance the scheme’s sustainability performance and will help achieve the CEEQUAL ‘Very Good’ or ‘Excellent’ rating as expected.

Conclusion

6.1.45. SBL delivers positive performance against a number of indicators considered as part of the Sustainability Assessment including transport, safety, water, materials, flood risk, water and ecology. This demonstrates that the scheme will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term, but over the lifetime of the development. It is conclude that the scheme meets the requirements of good design contained in the NPPF and statutory development plan.

Promoting Healthy Communities

6.1.46. This section considers the findings of two assessments, the Health Impact Assessment (Chapter 12 of the ES) and the Recreation and Amenity Land Assessment (Chapter 19 of the ES), which combine to meet policy requirements for promoting healthy communities.

Planning Policy

6.1.47. The UK White Paper on health, 2010 including the following key objectives: • Tacking the wider determinants of health: tackling factors which affect health and wellbeing• Improving the health of the poorest, fastest and reducing inequalities in health;• Promoting healthy behaviours & lifestyles/ Adapt the environment to make healthy choices

easier;• Protecting green spaces; and• Improving access to land so that people can grow their own food.

6.1.48. Within this context, the NPPF seeks to promote safe and accessible environments and developments where crime and disorder do not undermine the quality of life of a community. It also seeks to deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs, including planning positively for the creation of new spaces and guarding against the unnecessary loss of existing spaces. Within this context, ‘Assessing Needs and Opportunities: A Companion Guide to PPG17’ (ODPM, 2002) is retained insofar as its methodologies are useful to assess whether the development of existing spaces is acceptable (in the context of the provisions of the External Review of Government Planning Practice: The Taylor Review, December 2012).

6.1.49. SBL connects with Highridge Green Road, which forms the north eastern boundary of Highridge Common. The delivery of the scheme proposals results in the loss of a small portion of common land at this location.

6.1.50. Common Land is afforded protection by the Commons Act (2006) which aims to protect areas of common land and greens against abuse, encroachment and unauthorised development. It prohibits the severance of common rights, preventing commoners from selling, leasing or letting their rights away from the property to which rights are attached. For loss of Common Land of >200sqm, there is a requirement under the Commons Act 2006 to provide replacement land for registration as common land (this replaces Section 147 of the Enclosures Act 1845). SBL is subject to this provision, which is addressed in the Assessment section below.

30

6.1.51. The following policies from the statutory development plan for BCC are of relevance: • BCC Core Strategy (2011) Policy BCS9 – Green Infrastructure: Affords protection to the

integrity and connectivity of the strategic green infrastructure network which should be maintained, protected and enhanced;

• Saved BCC Local Plan (1997) Policy L3 – Greenways and Cycling: Provides for the protectionof a network of Greenways to provide off-road routes for walking and cycling;

• Saved BCC Local Plan (1997) Policy M16 – Cyclists and Pedestrians: Development will bepermitted only when it incorporates measures to take advantage of opportunities to enhance pedestrian and cycle provision;

6.1.52. The following policies from the statutory development plan for NSC are of relevance: • NSC Core Strategy (2012) Policy CS9 – Green Infrastructure: Seeks to protect, improve and

enhance the existing and proposed network of green infrastructure, with the aim of ensuring that there is a multi-functional network which promotes healthy lifestyles and improves biodiversity and landscape character;

• NSC Local Plan (1997) Policy T/7 – Rights of Way and Public Access: Seeks to protect,develop and improve the rights of way network and other forms of public access. This policy provides the development management criteria against which development proposals involving public rights of way and public access are assessed;

• NSC Local Plan (1997) Policy T/8 – Strategic Cycle Routes: Only permits development whichwould not prejudice the implementation of the strategic cycle network.

The following material considerations are also of relevance: • JLTP (2011-2026) includes a number of key objectives in respect of health, including

encouraging more physically active travel, improving access to health and employment and improving the quality of life and a healthy environment.

• The BCC draft Green Space Plan (October 2010, Neighbourhood Partnership Area ofBishopsworth, Hartcliffe and Whitchurch Park Green Space Plan: Ideas and Options Paper) acknowledges that amenity space at the reserved corridor is suitable to be relinquished for the delivery of SBL, subject to appropriate mitigation. Additionally, it acknowledges that a portion of Highridge Common should be released for the scheme, which should be designed in a manner which “minimises and mitigates the impact” of the development.

Assessment

6.1.53. A community profiling exercise was carried out to inform the Health Impact Assessment (Chapter 12 of the ES). Findings suggest that the south Bristol area exhibits concentrations of vulnerable groups, a higher proportion of children and older people compared to the local and regional averages and a slightly higher proportion of women. Sensitive receptors are also located within the area including residential homes, primary and secondary schools, two surgeries and South Bristol Community Hospital and community centres.

6.1.54. The analysis of health impacts focuses on the identification of potential health impacts of the proposed SBL scheme on the identified priority population sub-groups during construction and operation; these are listed as follows: • During construction, health impacts were found to be generally minor and moderate negative,

of low and medium intensity, short-term, intermittent and/or temporary in nature. Health determinants that might experience negative changes including accessibility, risk of injury, active travel, access to green space, air and pollution, quality of life, personal safety and perception of crime, social inclusion and community severance and climate change. A health determinant that may experience a positive change is employment.

• During the scheme’s operation, the health impacts were generally found to be positive,permanent in nature and long term, including improved accessibility, active travel, access to green space, air pollution, quality of life, social inclusion and employment. Certain areas were found to feel negative effects associated with the development, predominantly along the reserved corridor, King Georges Road and Highridge Green, south of Sandburrows Road which were predicted to experience increase noise levels associated with the scheme.

6.1.55. In respect of recreational activities, adopted and emerging DPDs acknowledge that land at Highridge Common and the reserved corridor should be released for the delivery of SBL, subject

31

to the agreement of an appropriate programme of mitigation to minimise the impact upon them. Additionally, adopted planning policy protects the existing network of PROWs and cycle routes.

6.1.56. The assessment of recreation and amenity is included in Chapter 19 of the ES, sets out a number of amenity effects which result from SBL on recreational routes and spaces. The assessment considers all effects from noise, air quality and visual, however, for the purposes of the planning statement, in combination only will be considered. The amenity impacts are summarised as follows: • The scheme will have a significant adverse visual impact on PROW users between the A370

and the railway line together with users of the possible open space north of the mainline railway line. This is combined with significant noise effects within 30m of the route alignment on opening year and 40m of the route alignment at design year , the effects of which will decrease as distance from the scheme increases.

• The scheme will have a significant adverse visual impact on PROW users between the railwayline and A38. This is combined with significant noise effects within 30m of the route alignment on opening year and 40m of the route alignment at design year, the effects of which will decrease as distance from the scheme increases.

• The scheme will have a significant adverse visual impact on PROW users between the A38and Highridge Common. This is combined with significant noise effects (above 63dB LAeq, 16hr) within 25m of the route alignment on opening year and 30m of the route alignment at design year, the effects of which will decrease as distance from the scheme increases.

• Highridge Common: A moderate adverse visual impact would be felt on the Common. Inrespect of noise, adverse significant effects would be felt along the scheme alignment as it crosses the Common Land, with these impacts decreasing as distance from the scheme increases. The majority of this area would experience adverse moderate long term impacts, again, decreasing in impact with increases distance from the scheme. Users of the section of the existing Common north of Sandburrows road would experience short and long term decreases in noise impact

• PROWs adjoining King George’s Road will experience a moderate adverse visual impactwhere there is a direct view of the site. In respect of noise, significant effects (above 63dB LAeq, 16hr) will be experienced on opening year within 15m of a direct view of the route alignment and within 20m of a direct view of the route alignment at design year, the effects of which will decrease as distance from the scheme increases;

• Users of the reserved corridor for informal recreation as an amenity space, walking or cyclingwill experience a moderate adverse visual effect combined with an adverse noise effect, which will be experienced on opening and design years within 15m of the route alignment, the effects of which will decrease as distance from the route increases.

6.1.57. Notwithstanding these considerations, the scheme proposals provide significant enhancements and mitigation, which includes: • Walking and cycling: While there will be some impacts from the SBL route on existing

PROW and other local footways, the usage and effects of the scheme have been assessed and the design has been adapted to accommodate for these. A key feature is the provision of a joint cycle and footway along the length of the SBL scheme. This will provide an orbital route directly linking Long Ashton, Brookgate and the south west of the city to Bishopsworth and Withywood to the south of Bristol. This enhances urban and rural connectivity and significantly reducing overall journey times between these two points;

• Highridge Common: The provision of replacement land and scheme design at HighridgeCommon was the subject of optioneering and public consultation exercises undertaken in 2011. As a consequence of this detailed assessment, SBL is designed to connect with existing highway land in order to ensure that minimal land take is required to accommodate the development, thus lessening the potential impact on the Common Land. As part of the SBL scheme proposals two uncontrolled crossing points comprising pedestrian refuges are provided in order to ensure that movements are, in terms of functionality, equally advantageous to the public. Landscape mitigation planting, including reinstating vegetated

32

field boundaries with tree lined hedgerows and semi formal arrangements of trees and mounding, will reinforce the existing landscape character at this section of the Common.

• Proposals provide replacement for land which is lost to the proposals and replacement land isdesigned to match the quality and accessibility of the existing Common Land. The exchange land for the common is 3.5 times greater than the area lost to the SBL proposals. It is located to the north west of the existing common land and consists of pasture with hedgerow and hedgerow trees to the perimeters of the two fields. The land is pasture comprising species rich un-improved grassland but with areas of semi-improved grassland on the western side suitable for biodiversity enhancement and/or to receive translocated sward from the common. The land presents a similar physical and visual relationship between the existing highway and the Common as does the present common land. It is capable of making direct connection to the existing Common and existing highways and rights of way. Additionally it provides a much greater level of passive security relative to alternatives options for the provision of exchange common land. A summary of a report prepared by Burges Salmon on the Common Land Exchange is provided at Appendix C of this Planning Statement.

• Reserved Corridor: At the Gatehouse Avenue section of the reserved corridor, theoverarching design principle along this section is to create a green corridor using species and forms more familiar with an urban park, including ornamental and geometric trees and buffer planting to reinforce boundaries with residential properties. Planting is also designed to enclose a shared footway/cycleway following the line of the scheme and connecting with adjoining residential areas. At the Whitland Road section, it is proposed to introduce small groups of semi-mature trees and a set of drainage basins which, together with undulating bank profiles to allow a growth of emergent vegetation;

• AVTM Open Space Exchange Land: The Land will be accessible via the new sharedcycleway and footway, from existing footpaths, from the re-diverted public footpath which passes to the west of the exchange land and also from the Brookgate Junction. In terms of being equally advantageous to the public, it is of a similar physical nature also being part of the same dairy farming unit and there is public access as set out above. Essential mitigation landscaping will provide an enhanced recreational environment. In terms of functionality the exchange land could be used for similar recreational purposes as the open space in terms of dog walking and general walking by the local community.

Conclusion

6.1.58. In conclusion, there will be some amenity impacts from SBL on users of existing recreational routes for walking and cycling, amenity spaces and common land. Land is safeguarded at all of these spaces and routes for the provision of SBL which, as acknowledged by adopted and emerging Development Plan policy, should be released for these purposes subject to mitigation. The planning application includes a comprehensive programme of mitigation and enhancement, which is summarised above and set out in detail in the Recreational and Amenity Space Assessment, and includes open space at the reserved corridor, replacement land at Highridge Common and a joint cycle and footway along the length of the SBL scheme. These beneficial enhancements weigh heavily in the balance of the application’s determination and, it is concluded, generally comply with the national and local planning policies outlines in the planning section above.

Protecting Green Belt Land

6.1.59. A Green Belt Assessment accompanies this application for planning permission (Appendix D), the findings of which are summarised in this section.

Planning Policy

6.1.60. Policies relating to Green Belt are set out at all levels of planning policy. Section 9 of the NPPF deals specifically with protecting Green Belt land and confirms that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts, that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl and to safeguard the countryside by keeping land permanently open. The NPPF at paragraph 80 confirms that the Green Belt serves five purposes:

33

• to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;• to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;• to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;• to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and• to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

6.1.61. The guidance within the NPPF (paragraph 87) goes on to outline that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in ‘very special circumstances’. Certain forms of development are however deemed not to be inappropriate in the Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. Amongst these forms of development are ‘local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location.’

6.1.62. Relevant policies from the statutory development plan for BCC and NSC are listed as follows: • Bristol City Council Core Strategy (2012) BS6 – Green Belts: States that the current extent of

the Green Belt will be maintained and protected from inappropriate development; • NSC Core Strategy (2012) Policy CS6 – Green Belts: Requires that the Bristol-Bath Green

Belt will remain unchanged during the plan period, however following a legal challenge this policy now has the status for emerging policy (albeit with significant weight);

• NSC Replacement Local Plan (1997) Policy RD/3 – Green Belts: Deals with development inthe Green Belt and restricts such development unless it is for certain purposes, which include ‘the carrying out of engineering or other operations or for changes of use of land which maintain the openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt’. Following legal challenge, this policy forms part of the Development Plan, having been partially superseded by the Core Strategy.

6.1.63. The general alignment of the proposed development is safeguarded in the NSC Replacement Local Plan (2007), the Bristol City Council Core Strategy (June 2011) and the BCC Local Plan (1997); as such it would not be treated as a departure from the Development Plan.

Assessment

6.1.64. The proposed development constitutes local transport infrastructure as it is not a trunk road or motorway and is designed to improve the local area of south Bristol and will benefit the local area in both transport and economic terms. It therefore does not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt provided that the NPPF’s tests in relation to openness, requirement for a Green Belt location and not conflicting with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt are met. The assessment which is appended to the ES includes an analysis of the scheme against the five purposes of the Green Belt set out in the above policy section. The analysis finds that the proposal does not conflict with the fundamental purposes of the Green Belt. Any minor issues have been resolved by sensitive design of the scheme and careful attention to its final detailed alignment. The analysis concludes that the proposed development is not inappropriate in terms of the five purposes. • Openness of the Green Belt: The assessment also looks at the SBL scheme against the

NPPF in order to demonstrate that the scheme does retain the openness of the Green Belt; that is requires a Green Belt location; and that the proposed scheme constitutes a ‘very special circumstance’. Openness of the Green Belt – the Green Belt Assessment concluded that the detailed design of the proposed development in terms of its built form and location along with the proposed mitigation in the form of additional sympathetic landscaping have been developed to blend into the local landscape and would therefore not negatively impact in terms of prominence and setting of the Green Belt countryside or views of the Green Belt. The effect on openness of the proposed development is limited; the proposed development has been sensitively designed; the lighting is minimal, limited in extent and controlled; the planting provides mitigation and so any harm to the Green Belt has a minimal effect and the impact on openness is not material and therefore it is acceptable in this regard.

• Requirement for a Green Belt Location – Green Belt policy contained within the NPPF(2012) under paragraph 90 confirms that local transport infrastructure is not inappropriate development in the Green belt provided it demonstrates a requirement for a Green Belt

34

location, preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. The requirement for a link connecting to south Bristol is justified by the economic benefits of the proposal which arise from linking the A370 and its connections to the major road network to the north of Bristol with south Bristol. The effect of the link will be to facilitate regeneration and reduce congestion in south Bristol and to improve accessibility to the city centre and strategic transport links. The assessment therefore confirms that the proposed development complies with the criteria for appropriate development in the Green Belt and should be regarded as appropriate development.

Conclusion

6.1.65. In conclusion, an alignment for the proposed development is safeguarded in the North Somerset Replacement Local Plan (2007), North Somerset Core Strategy (April 2012), the Bristol City Core Strategy (June 2011) and the Bristol Local Plan (1997) and therefore the proposed development would not be treated as a departure from the Development Plan. In terms of Green Belt policy, National Planning Policy confirms that local transport infrastructure, such as the proposed development, is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt provided that the NPPF’s tests in relation to the requirement for a Green Belt location, openness and not conflicting with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt are met.

6.1.66. The above assessment confirms that there is a requirement for the proposed development to be located in the Green Belt in order that a transport link can be formed between the A370 Long Ashton Bypass and Hengrove Park to fulfil the key scheme objectives of facilitating regeneration and growth in south Bristol; reducing congestion in south Bristol and adjacent areas of north Somerset; and improving accessibility from south Bristol to the City Centre and strategic transport links.

6.1.67. The proposal does not conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. It has been demonstrated that the proposed scheme would preserve the openness of the Green Belt and would not be considered inappropriate development. It is therefore acceptable in policy terms. In conclusion, the proposed development should be regarded as appropriate development in the Green Belt and complies with all levels of Green Belt policy and as such is acceptable in this regard.

Meeting the challenges of climate change, flooding and coastal change

6.1.68. A Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy (March 2013) has been produced in support of this application for planning permission. This includes a Level 3 Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and Drainage Strategy which sets out detailed proposals for the management flood risk and surface water drainage arising from quantitative analysis and hydraulic modelling. This also includes a Sequential and Exception Test in accordance with the provisions of the NPPF.

6.1.69. Additionally, a Water Framework Directive (WFD) Compliance Detailed Assessment (April 2013) is submitted in support of this planning application. This demonstrates that the scheme complies with the WFD Directive (2001), that is, that the development does not cause deterioration in water body status or prevent a water body from meeting Good Ecological Status/Potential (GES/GEP) or create a situation whereby mitigation measures can no longer be achieved.

Planning Policy

6.1.70. The NPPF and the Development Plan place great importance on the protection of water quality and the protection the existing and future environment from flood risk.

6.1.71. NPPF paragraph 100-104 sets a number of tests and requirements, which are significant material considerations which weight in the balance of the application’s determination. This includes a risk-based Sequential Test be applied to all new development that is proposed in areas of higher flood risk. This aims to direct new development towards areas with the lowest probability of flooding (Flood Zone 1), including locating more vulnerable development in the low flood risk areas and more water compatible uses in higher risk areas.

35

6.1.72. The application will be determined against the adopted development plan, which is provided by the following policies: • BCC Core Strategy (2012) Policy BCS16: Requires development in Bristol to follow a

sequential approach to flood risk management, prioritising sites with the lowest flood risk in the first instance. Where a development is to be located in an area at risk of flooding, it will need to be designed so as to be resilient to flooding as well as incorporating suitable mitigation measures.

• Policy BCS23 and by NSC Core Strategy (2012) Policy CS3: States that development inFlood Zones 2 and 3 will only be permitted where it meets the sequential test set out in the NPPF and associated technical guidance.

6.1.73. SBL is classified as ‘essential infrastructure’, which is characterised as a ‘less vulnerable’ to flood risk relative to other uses, for instance, residential development according to the NPPF’s classifications of vulnerability. The vast majority of the SBL scheme is located within Flood Zone 1 (i.e. areas with the lowest risk of flooding), while other limited sections of the route are into areas of higher flood risk (Flood Zone 2 and 3) associated with Ashton Brook, Colliter’s Brook and the Malago in Bishopsworth.

Assessment

6.1.74. A Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy (March 2013) has been developed in accordance with methodology set out in DMRB Volume 11 and in consultation with the EA, NSC and BCC. The Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy also sets out the staged approach to the application of the Sequential and Exception Tests that has been adopted, in line with the Environment Agency Standing Advice.

6.1.75. In summary, the salient points arising from the Strategy are as follows: • The FRA has considered flood risk from all potential sources, including combined fluvial / tidal

events, pluvial, groundwater and reservoir failure; • Hydrological and hydraulic modelling has been undertaken to assess the baseline conditions

and with scheme impacts, along with potential mitigation measures. Calculations have been undertaken of the hydraulic capacity of the existing river network including river channels, culverts and structures. One of the key design principles, agreed with the Environment Agency (EA) was to use the Ashton Vale to Temple Meads (AVTM) hydrological and hydraulic model to assess the impacts of the proposed scheme on tidal and fluvial flood risk in western sections of the route;

• This approach also assures that where appropriate, refinement of mitigation measures isreferred to in the ES; and

• The level of hydrological and hydraulic assessment has been undertaken in proportion to theperceived level of flood risk in the area. Thus, limited modelling has been undertaken for the small watercourses and field drains south of the A38 and on Highridge Common, as the level of flood risk from these channels is considered to be low.

6.1.76. The drainage strategy and FRA combine to inform the comprehensive package of design and mitigation measures included within SBL, which are used to reduce the probability of flood risk from all sources in line with the agreed methodology. These are summarised as follows; • At the A370 to Brookgate (Ashton Brook) new crossings are proposed designed as clear span

structures with soffit level above 1% AEP + climate change levels with a freeboard allowance. At this location, SUDS will limit additional runoff to Greenfield rates;

• At Long Ashton Park and Ride to A38 Colliter’s Brook a CFSA with additional 5000 sq. mstorage volume is designed to reduce peak water levels to below baseline level. New crossings are designed as clear span structures with soffit level above 1% AEP+ climate change. SUDS are provided at this location to limit additional runoff to Greenfield rates. The structural integrity of an existing culvert at New Colliter’s Brook is to be maintained through strengthening works provided by SBL;

36

• At the A38 to Highridge Common/Road re-culverting is proposed, where possible, togetherwith the implementation of new culverts designed to convey 1% AEP event (plus climatechange) which, together with SUDS, will mitigate any surface water flooding issues;

• At Highridge Road/Common to Hengrove Park SUDS are designed to limit additional runoff toGreenfield rates, where possible, or provide 30% betterment in constrained areas. Thestructural integrity of an existing culvert on the Malago is maintained through strengtheningworks.

• A range of model scenarios have been assessed and mitigation options proposed which areeffective at managing flood risk associated with the combined effects of SBL, AVTM andAshton Gateway proposals in light of whichever combination of developments proceed.

• The proposed mitigation works ensure that the route does not increase flood risk elsewhere.With the exception of a short element near Queens Road, the route will be flood free at the1% AEP event (including an allowance for climate change), and therefore outside of FloodZone 3. Hydraulic modelling has shown that when the effects of SBL, AVTM and AshtonGateway developments are combined sufficient compensatory storage can be provided toprevent an increase in tidal / fluvial flood risk.

6.1.77. The WFD Assessment of the water environment is based upon methodology detailed in the DMRB HD45/09 which is used to determine the impacts that roads may have on the water environment, including the potential impacts of routine runoff and pollutants on water quality, in the short and long term. In order to ensure compliance with the WDF Directive, a number of mitigation measures have been recommended. These include: • Culverts to include a depressed invert and extensions to allow fish passage within existing

designs; • All bridges proposed as part of the scheme to have otter ledges/separate dry otter

culverts/mammal culverts suitable for aquatic species; • Morphological improvements to enhance the reach such as increasing the sinuosity and

installing fencing to help vegetation establish; • Hydromorphological advice required to assist with the alignment of the de-culverted channel,

when considering relaingment options, distance between channels and maintenance road and in relation to stabilisation of banks at Colliters Brook.

The Sequential Test

6.1.78. The Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy sets out a detailed staged approach to the application of the Sequential and Exception Tests that has been adopted, in line with the Environment Agency Standing Advice, which is summarised as follows: • S.1: The Sequential Test has already been carried out for the site (for the same development)

at the strategic level (Local Plan): The adopted BCC and NSC SFRAs have been used as evidence base to support the adopted Core Strategies, to ensure that all sources of flood risk are fully assessed before each development plan allocation was adopted through the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) process. The route for SBL was safeguarded in accordance with this process and provides evidence that the sequential test has been applied to the route at a local plan level. The proposed scheme therefore passes question S.1.

• S.2 The development vulnerability is appropriate to the Flood Zone: SBL is categorised as‘essential infrastructure’ by the NPPF, which is defined as “essential transport infrastructure (including mass evacuation routes) which has to cross the area at risk”. According to the NPPF Flood Zone Classification, essential infrastructure is deemed appropriate in Flood Zone 1 and 2. Subject to agreement of the Exception Test and design measures set out above, the proposed scheme passes question S.2 and thus passes the Sequential Test.

The Exception Test

6.1.79. The NPPF (paragraph 102) sets out two tests which must be met in order to pass the Exception Test. These are set out in detail in the Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy which accompanies this application for planning permission and are summarised as follows:

37

6.1.80. E.1: It must be demonstrated that the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, informed by an SFRA where one has been prepared

6.1.81. The NPPF acknowledges that in the case of essential infrastructure, there are strategic sustainability drivers to be taken into account, which can justify locating development in areas of higher flood risk. In the case of SBL, these are summarised as follows: • The adopted Development Plan for the area jointly safeguard land for the delivery of SBL.

SBL is one of a package of transport schemes that together will create a rapid transit network across the sub-region, linking key employment, housing and leisure areas. This will facilitate regeneration and growth in south Bristol, improve accessibility from residential and employment areas in south Bristol to the city centre and to the strategic transport network, including Bristol Airport;

• In order to deliver the strategic transport package, NSC and BCC consulted widely on theprinciples of the scheme and options for the alignment of the route corridor, in 2008 and 2009. This process culminated in the submission of a Programme Entry Major Scheme Business Case (MSBC) to the DfT in March 2010. Following the Comprehensive Spending Review of Autumn 2010 and the submission of additional supporting material, funding for the scheme was confirmed by the Chancellor and the DfT in 2011. The joint production of a Major Scheme Business Case (MSBC) by both local authorities has helped bring together the detailed justification upon which this Exception Test is based.

• Whilst the various options appraisals have helped decide the appropriate route, minimisingflood risk and the effect of the development on sensitive areas, the Scheme will also form an important element of the sub-region’s sustainability strategy by helping to reduce the need to travel by car, offering attractive alternatives in the form of public transport, cycling and walking, whilst ensuring that basic services are easily accessible, both safely and affordably. SBL thus meets the requirements of Test E.1.

6.1.82. E.2: A site-specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall. • The preceding sections detail the Level 3 FRA which has been prepared in support of the

application. This demonstrates that the development will be safe for its lifetime, taking account of the vulnerability of its users. The proposed mitigation works ensure that the route does not increase flood risk elsewhere. With the exception of a short element near Queens Road, the route will be flood free at the 1% AEP event (including an allowance for climate change), and therefore outside of Flood Zone 3. Hydraulic modelling has shown that when the SBL, AVTM and Ashton Gateway developments are combined sufficient compensatory storage can be provided to prevent an increase in tidal / fluvial flood risk. This meets the requirements of Test E.2, that is that a site specific FRA demonstrates that the development of safe from flood risk over its lifetime.

Conclusion

6.1.83. The FRA and the Drainage Strategy and the WFD Assessment have been developed in consultation with a range of consultees including the EA, BCC and NSC. The environmental design and mitigation measures combine to ensure that the proposed use and site location are compatible in terms of flood risk and SBL will have no negative impact on flood risk elsewhere or have any adverse effects on water quality. SBL would therefore comply with the flood risk requirements under the NPPF, including the Sequential and Exception tests, together with BCC Core Strategy PoliciesBCS16 and BCS23 and by NSC Core Strategy Policy CS3.

Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

6.1.84. As set out in the introduction, this section will consider the SBL’s relationship to the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment, with specific consideration of the following topic areas; • Agricultural land;

38

• Ground and land contamination.• Amenity (air quality, noise and light pollution);• Landscape and Visual Impact;• Ecology

Planning Policy

6.1.85. According to the NPPF, the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by; • “Protecting and enhancing values landscapes, geological conservation, interests and soils;• Recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services;• Minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible,

contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity,including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current andfuture pressures;

• preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put atunacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, wateror noise pollution or land instability; and

• Remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land,where appropriate.”

6.1.86. Additional NPPF policies of relevance to the topic areas listed above include: • Where the significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, the

use of the poorer quality land should be prioritised • Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management

Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan; • Planning decisions should aim to minimise and reduce noise and other adverse impacts on

health and quality as a result of new development, whilst acknowledging that development should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them. Areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and prized for their recreation and amenity value should be identified and protected;

• By encouraging good design, planning policies and decisions should limit the impact of lightpollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation;

• The effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment orgeneral amenity of the population should be taken into account in planning decisions, having regard to pollution control regimes;

6.1.87. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles (of relevance to the scheme): • “if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an

alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused [....]

• opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged;• planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of

irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees foundoutside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in thatlocation clearly outweigh the loss.”

6.1.88. Relevant policies from the Development Plan for BCC are listed as follows: • BCC Core Strategy (2011) Policy BSC10: Requires development to be sited where negative

impacts of vehicles such as fumes and noise, can be minimised. • BCC Core Strategy (2011) Policy BCS23: This requires development to avoid negatively

impacting on local environmental amenity or biodiversity by way of noise, dust, air, land or water pollution or exposure to land contamination. Development proposals on sites where

39

contamination is known or suspected is required to be supported by a Land Contamination Assessment, including proposed remediation.

• Saved BCC Local Plan (1997) Policy NE2: Development which would have a significantadverse effect on identified features of importance will not be permitted;

• Saved BCC Local Plan (1997) Policy NE3: Development involving the loss of, or damage to,trees or woodlands which are of landscape, amenity or nature conservation value will not be permitted, unless unacceptable harmful effects of the development can be overcome;

• Saved BCC Local Plan (1997) Policy NE5: This policy protects Sites of Nature ConservationInterest (SNCI). Development which is likely to have an adverse effect on the nature Saved BCC Local Plan (1997) Policy NE6: Development which maintains the integrity of the wildlife network and includes measures to enhance the nature conservation value of remaining open land will be permitted;

• Saved BCC Local Plan (1997) Policy NE11 This policy relates to the retention and protectionof existing natural features and habitats and requires development to compensate from unavoidable loss of habitats, include native vegetation and respect the local landscape and character;

• Saved BCC Local Plan Policy ME2: Development that would result in unacceptable impact byreason air, land or water pollution would not be permitted, having regard to the location, design and layout of a development, and appropriate mitigation measures.

6.1.89. Relevant policies from the Development Plan for NSC are listed as follows: • NSC Core Strategy (2012) Policy CS3: Development that would result in air, water or other

environmental pollution or cause harm to amenity, health or safety will only be permitted if appropriate mitigation measures are put in place to mitigate against any potential negative impact;

• NSC Core Strategy (2012) Policy CS4 of the North Somerset Core Strategy (April 2012):Requires that the biodiversity of North Somerset be maintained and enhanced through, amongst other measures, the design of new development. Net loss of biodiversity through development should be avoided;

• Saved NSC Local Plan (1997) Policy ECH/11: Development which could harm, directly orindirectly, nationally or internationally protected species of flora or fauna or the habitats used by such species will not be permitted unless that particular harm could be avoided or mitigated and the species protected by the use of planning conditions or planning obligations;”

• Saved NSC Local Plan (1997) Policy ECH/12: Development which would be likely to have adirect or indirect adverse effect or which conflicts with the conservation objectives of a potential, candidate or designated Special Protection Area, Special Area of Conservation, or Ramsar Site will not be permitted.”

• Saved NSC Local Plan (1997) Policy The North Somerset Replacement Local Plan (March2007) contains the following relevant policies; policy ECH/11 and ECH/12 provide protection to nationally and internationally protected species of flora and fauna and designated habitats such as SPA’s, SAC’s and Ramsar sites;

• Saved NSC Local Plan (1997) Policy ECH/14: Planning permission will not be granted fordevelopment that would have a significant adverse effect on local biodiversity or geological interests, unless the importance of the development outweighs the value of the substantive interest present.

6.1.90. The Bristol Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) is a material consideration in this application or planning permission. It provides the framework for habitat and species conservation in Bristol. Produced by the Bristol Biodiversity Partnership, it is aimed at organisations, businesses, groups and individuals, which are either working to protect and enhance biodiversity in the city, or who may impact on it in some way.

40

Assessment

Agricultural Land

6.1.91. ES Chapter 19 (Land Use and Soils) assesses the impact of SBL on agricultural soils, farming and other rural land uses, including proposals for replacement land at Highridge Common.

6.1.92. The assessment established that little of the agricultural land to be lost to the Scheme is of Best and Most Versatile (BMV) quality (Grades 1 to 3a). Most of the agricultural land through which the SBL will pass is used for grazing. A total of 16ha of agricultural land would be lost to the engineering and landscaping footprint of the Scheme but little of this is of BMV quality. The significance of this loss has therefore been assessed as very minor adverse in terms of the national land resource. The assessment proposes a number of mitigation measures to minimise the impacts of the SBL on the affected agricultural land, particularly resolving issues of access and severance. Proposed mitigation measures include the provision of access under the Longmoor Brook Bridge of cattle and pedestrians and establishing Common grazing rights on the exchange land to compensate for landtake. Further details are contained in ES Chapter 19: Table 19.1 (Significance of Residual Effects on Agricultural and Equestrian Holdings.

Ground and Land Contamination

6.1.93. ES Chapter 18 (Ground Conditions and Land Contamination) sets out the assessment which has been prepared to inform the planning application for the SBL scheme. The study was carried out following guidance set out in CLR11 and in accordance with the provisions of planning policy set out above. Within this context, the assessment considered effects arising from the construction and operation of SBL on existing ground conditions, including the assessment of potential contaminants on or adjoining the route corridor, including the creation of pathways for migration.

6.1.94. The assessment established that the scheme will cross or pass adjacent to nine potential sources of contamination including traversing three landfills (Yanley 2, Yanley 3 and Stones landfills). The assessment concluded as follows; • Overall, the assessment considered that the effect of the scheme with regards to land

contamination is anticipated to be neutral. However, minor adverse effects may occur during construction by a temporary increase in leaching of contaminants to groundwater in the underlying Secondary A and B Aquifers and to Colliter’s Brook. Minor beneficial effects may occur to Colliter’s Brook during the operational phase by a reduction in contaminated groundwater migrating to the Brook. None of the effects identified are considered to be significant effects. Industry best practice would be adopted during construction.

• With regards to ground instability, the assessment found that the SBL scheme would have aslight adverse impact on the ground stability associated with the landfills. However, with careful consideration of the landfill materials in the design of the slopes and road through the landfills along with regular maintenance and inspections, the assessment concluded that the impact would be limited.

6.1.95. As part of the pre-construction mitigation, a phase 2 ground investigation is recommended to be undertaken in order to target areas where further information is required for refining the design and mitigation measures. The ground improvement solutions for the three landfills will also be further developed through an optioneering exercise. The results of the phase 2 ground investigation will also provide the necessary data to undertake detailed controlled waters risk assessments (DQRA) to inform the exercise.

6.1.96. Additionally, a Coal Mining Risk Assessment appended to the Ground Conditions and Land Contamination assessment provides details on the coal mining legacy in the study area. The information reviewed for the purpose of the assessment indicated that the route corridor is at low risk of ground collapse/movement because of historic coal mine workings and untreated shafts.

41

Amenity

Air Quality

6.1.97. An Air Quality Assessment (AQ) accompanies this application for planning permission. A copy is appended to the ES and its findings are provided in ES Chapter 10 (Air Quality).

6.1.98. The AQ methodology has been designed to accord with adopted national and local policy and has regard to the matters which were identified in the EIA Scoping Report.

6.1.99. The assessment established that the fugitive dust emissions may arise is along the alignment of the SBL as a result construction activities, potentially affecting a broad number of residential properties within 200m of the site boundary In line with guidance set out in the NPPF, the AQ Assessment proposes a broad programme of mitigation measures to be adopted within the Construction Environmental Management Plan to ensure that the risk of dust from construction operations is minimised. Subject to the implementation of these techniques, the air quality assessment concludes that construction activities associated with SBL would not give rise to any significant air quality effects on adjoining properties or facilities.

6.1.100. During the operational phase of SBL, the AQ Assessment demonstrates that the scheme will not give rise to any significant effects on local air quality.

Noise

6.1.101. The planning application is accompanied by a Noise and Vibration Assessment which is appended to the ES, the findings of which are assessed in ES Chapter 11 (Noise and Vibration).

6.1.102. This assessment has been carried out based on Government Guidance. The assessment examines the effects of the Scheme on traffic noise and vibration levels in south-west Bristol. It also assesses the ‘direct effects’ or the introduction of new road traffic sources and ‘indirect effects’ or the redistribution of traffic on the existing road network as a result of SBL. ES Chapter 11 provides a detailed description of the methodology employed in the assessment, together with the current noise climate in the area.

6.1.103. A total of 5,937 residential and 16 non-residential properties within 600m of the proposed SBL route alignment were assessed for noise effects arising from the scheme. In addition, approximately 9,000 additional residential receptors were assessed for noise effects up to a distance of approximately 1,500m from the scheme. Noise levels have been predicted both with and without the scheme at the scheme opening year (2016) and when the scheme was operational (design year 2031). Two 2.5m high noise barriers have been included in the scheme design to reduce the noise impacts within the reserved corridor.

6.1.104. Applying the scope and method to the scheme design, gave rise to the following findings: • On opening there are approximately 1,100 properties with perceptible increases in noise and

approximately 2,100 properties with perceptible decreases in noise. The greatest noise increases occur in the reserved corridor and the greatest decreases in noise occur along Highridge Green. Decreases in noise are expected at some of the Important Areas near the scheme;

• Overall, on scheme opening, there would be more properties experiencing adverse noiseimpacts but fewer properties experiencing significant adverse noise levels. The Noise Assessment proposes to reduce the effects of adverse noise levels through the provision of noise insulation at approximately 90 properties to levels below those where significant effects would occur;

• In the longer term the project was found to result in perceptible increases in noise at 520properties and perceptible decreases in noise at 210 properties. Perceptible changes in noise are not expected at any of the Important Areas. Although there are decreases in noise with the scheme in place there is a net increase in the number of properties which would experience both adverse and significant adverse noise levels. However, the provision of noise

42

insulation, as recommended, would reduce internal noise levels at approximately 90 properties to levels below those where significant effects would occur.

• The Noise Assessment also undertook a cumulative assessment, which considered thecombined effects SBL and other significant transport schemes, including the AVTM scheme. The cumulative assessment shows that impacts in the opening year would be slightly better than considering the scheme in isolation, however, this has a negligible effect in the longer term (by the design year).

6.1.105. In conclusion, the scheme gives rise to both major increases in noise and major decreases in noise. Where possible noise impacts are reduced by a combination of roadside noise barriers and the provision of noise insulation. Taking noise insulation into account there would be fewer properties exposed to significant internal noise levels in the design year than if the scheme were not built.

Light Intrusion

6.1.106. An Obtrusive Light Impact Assessment Report accompanies this application for planning permission. Its findings are also assessed as part of ES Chapter 14 (Landscape and Visual Impact) and the Assessment is appended to the ES. The purpose of the Lighting Impact Assessment (LIA) is to provide and establish the position and extent of properties which would potentially be affected by SBL lighting proposals, in order to inform the appropriate design of road and lighting for SBL. Assessment points were located on public land and restricted to ground level views.

6.1.107. The Assessment points out that lighting during the construction phase is likely to exhibit more obtrusive lighting impacts due to the temporary nature of the installation and the low levels of design normally undertaken for construction lighting, which is used for Health and Safety and or site security. As a result, it is recommended that an obtrusive lighting section is added to the draft Construction Management Plan, which imposes a number of conditions, including employing automatic detection control lighting and cut off luminaries. Further details are provided in the Obtrusive Light Impact Assessment Report.

6.1.108. The scheme was found to have no significant obtrusive lighting effects on the view from Ashton Court, residential properties on Ashton Drive, and Castle Farm. At these locations it is recommended that the GN01 guidelines are applied; full cut-off luminaries with no tilt are installed; and during the construction period, that a lighting curfew is applied (with the exception of at the A370 junction). At King Georges Road, it was found that the effects of the proposed lighting will be better performing than the existing baseline semi cut off luminaires due to the improved optical performance.

6.1.109. Properties along Highridge Common, King Georges Road, the reserved corridor and the Hareclive Road junction were found to be more sensitive to change: • At Highridge Common, the introduction of the road and the traffic on it will act as a visual

barrier to the common land beyond. Provided that luminaries are full cut off flat glass then the impact on the white house and Chestnut cottage was found to be limited. It is recommended that at final detailed design survey calculations are undertaken to better inform the scheme design in order to limit the effects on the wider common;

• At King Georges Road the proposed luminaries were found to be better performing than theexisting; however, glare from new luminaires along the road and cycle path may give rise to effects on properties in this area;

• At the Reserved Corridor, it is acknowledged that the scheme runs in close proximity toproperties and is likely to have an effect. In order to mitigate this, it is recommended that additional surveys inform the scheme design, and that the adoption of a number of mitigation measures is considered, including correct luminaries distribution and the application of GN01;

• At the Hareclive Junction, the scheme also brings a new highway closer to residentialproperties. At this location, the application of GN01 guidelines and the use of full cut-off luminaries with no tilt is recommended.

43

Landscape and Visual

6.1.110. A Landscape, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LTVIA) of the proposed development has been produced as part of the ES submitted in support of the proposed development. The assessment describes and considers all of the potential and beneficial impacts of the development on both the landscape resources and visual amenity of the area.

6.1.111. The LTVIA involved a desk study to develop an understanding of the site in terms of general landscape character, special values and interests, local value and wider contexts. The desk study was followed by a series of field surveys carried out in January and February 2013. The investigation of the site and surrounding area sought to identify key issues and constraints in respect of the impact of the development on views into the proposed site, effects on the landscape of the site and the relationship between the proposed development and the surrounding landscape.

6.1.112. The LTVIA splits the proposed development into five distinct sections for the purposes of its assessment, as follows: • Section 1 – A370 to Railway Line (including flood storage lagoons and separate cycleways);• Section 2 – Railway Line through to Castle Farm and the A38 (Bridgwater Road) (through

more open countryside and including rail underpass and crossing of Colliter’s Brook);• Section 3 – Castle Farm to the edge of Highridge Common;• Section 4 – Highridge Common to King Georges Road; and• Section 5 – King Georges Road (residential area with wide central verges) and Queens Road

Junction to Hengrove Way (along the existing reserved corridor).

6.1.113. The assessment concluded that the proposed development would involve the loss of agricultural land, largely comprising permanent pasture land, woodland and other non-agricultural land would be lost to the scheme. The majority of the proposed development would be located in an area of good quality urban fringe landscape and therefore any proposed planting aims to integrate the scheme into the surrounding landscape with the primary requirement to reflect the character of the adjacent landscape. The main landscape impacts include some loss of hedgerows and trees through the rural area, permanent diversion Public Rights of way, loss of common land and green infrastructure and impacts on setting of historic assets, specifically Ashton Court Estate, Long Ashton Church and Castle Farm. These impacts will be mitigated through measures that are sensitive to the different landscapes that the proposed development would pass though (i.e. rural / urban). Overall, the scheme is likely to create a more strongly defined edge to south west Bristol than the current context in relation to form and vegetation structure and provide landscape and biodiversity enhancements.

6.1.114. In the short term the proposed scheme would result in visual impacts on the setting of designated areas and individual properties in the open countryside; Public Right of Way users and residents in localised proximity to the route in the urban context. However in the long term proposed landscaping will reduce or remove these impacts and provide areas with landscape improvements providing visual interest.

6.1.115. The proposed scheme will have permanent impact on the visual amenity and landscape setting, most significantly in sensitive locations. However with careful handling and high quality detailed design it will reduce these impacts whilst also providing enhancements through landscape amenity, biodiversity functions, landscape integration and visual interest which is compliant with the aims of planning policy in terms of landscape and the protection of the countryside and as such is acceptable in this regard.

6.1.116. A number of mitigation measures have been included linked to the construction of the proposed development, these include: • Minimise and carefully select location for construction access routes, working areas and

number and size of site compounds and keep areas clean and tidy to minimise visual and landscape impacts;

• Minimise loss of existing hedgerows and trees through local minor alignment changes and useof sequential mitigation approach to include standard width working area, narrowed working area. Where possible translocate hedgerows and grassland sward to suitable receptor sites;

44

• Avoid night time working in remote locations where visual impact of static and moving lights isenhanced;

• Ensure mitigation planting uses local provenance nursery stock and seed with mixes andspecies adjusted to local vegetation types;

• Ensure temporary stopping up or diversion of PRoWs is minimised in both extent and durationand is well advertised;

• Embankment slopes to be appropriate to maintenance and to visually integrate into thelandscape and to be seeded with mix appropriate for maximising biodiversity potential; and

• Early construction of Rail Bridge to facilitate surface construction of road and reduce sitetraffic movements on public highway.

6.1.117. The key mitigation strategies for the proposed development, once operational, are outlined below: • Protection of existing hedgerows and mature trees, if lost; reinstate or translocate;• Planting on railway embankments to improve screening;• Bus route from Long Ashton Park and Ride to tuck in close to the field boundary to screen it;• Provide cattle under bridge instead of more visually impacting overbridge;• Species rich grassland proposed to enhance habitat creation;• Shared footway / cycleway to provide sustainable transport and enhance accessibility;• Bus stops to be simple, clean, modern structures;• Landforms created designed not to appear to regular or engineered;• Alignment at Colliter’s Brook amended to retain woodland;• Protect Hanging Hill Ancient Woodland (TPO’d) during construction;• Woodland and tree and shrub belts incorporated to provide screening;• Retention of existing rail bridge for non-motorised users and new bridge for motorised users,

reflecting materials and finishes of existing bridge;• Roundabout moved away from the A38 to reduce visual impact on Castle Farm;• Integration of wet grassland and attenuation ponds for biodiversity gain, landscape

enhancement and visual interest;• Existing lime kiln to be retained in middle of roundabout on A38 to avoid loss of heritage

asset;• Route cuts through northern edge of Highridge Common which results in significant landscape

effects and visual impacts; land exchange is provided directly to the west of HighridgeCommon to mitigate loss;

• Visual improvements to route through urban area by providing new street furniture, new trees,sections of hedgerow and ornamental planting;

• Along reserved corridor greener parkland area proposed and road split to reduce trafficintensity; and

• Preparation and implementation of appropriate aftercare landscape management andmaintenance measures to ensure primary mitigation achieves its full potential.

6.1.118. It is predicted that there will be slight to moderate adverse impacts on the landscape and visual amenity of the area during the construction phase of the works; however these impacts will be temporary and will likely affect the localised area with visual receptors limited to those in close proximity to the scheme.

6.1.119. Once completed, the proposals will initially have a moderate adverse impact on the landscape resources and visual amenity of the area due to the change in views and the new route traversing through the agricultural fields and in the transitional landscape on the fringe of the settlement; cutting through sections of existing vegetation, especially as the highway crosses Colliters Brook through Hanging Hill Wood. However, in the medium to long term the proposed extensive new woodland and tree, hedgerow, shrub planting and species rich grassland will mature, providing screening of the proposals, provide planting reinstatement with landscape and biodiversity improvements/ benefits along the urban corridor thereby resulting in, overall, only a slight adverse impact of the site and surrounding landscape. There will be slight beneficial impact in selected areas, for example to the exchange land and to Castle Farm where there will be overall landscape and visual benefit as a result of scheme alignment and landscape enhancements.

45

Ecology

6.1.120. An Ecological Impact Assessment forming part of the EIA is submitted in support of the proposed development.

6.1.121. The Ecological Impact Assessment involved a desk study to gain information on statutory and non-statutory designated nature conservation sites within 2km of the proposed development, with a search area of 30km for European designated sites with bats as a qualifying feature. Records within 2km for notable habitats and species were also searched for. The following field surveys were also undertaken between 2011 and 2012 to form a basis for the assessment: • Phase 1 Habitat Survey and protective species scoping survey;• Botanical survey;• Dormouse survey;• Bat survey (activity and roost);• Reptile survey• Water Vole survey;• Badger survey;• Otter survey;• Brown hare survey;• Great crested newt survey;• Breeding bird survey;• Terrestrial invertebrate survey;• White-clawed crayfish survey; and• Hedgehog habitat assessment.

6.1.122. The surveys and desk based assessments looked at European sites, SAC’s. Nationally designated sites, Non-statutory designated sites, Habitats and Notable Species. Details of the findings are set out in Chapter 13 of the ES.

6.1.123. The Ecological Impact Assessment concluded that the Scheme will directly impact three non-statutory designated sites: Highridge Common SNCI, Colliter’s Brook SNCI, and Hanging Hill Wood WS. Impacts to Highridge Common SNCI through habitat loss and fragmentation have been assessed as significant and as such a programme of habitat translocation has been proposed. Assuming appropriate monitoring and management it is hoped the translocated grassland will be incorporated into the SNCI designation.

6.1.124. Impacts to the integrity of Colliter’s Brook SNCI and Hanging Hill Wood WS are minor and have been assessed as not significant in a county context.

6.1.125. Habitats of value within the Scheme include broadleaved woodland, mature & veteran trees, hedgerows, unimproved and semi-improved grassland, and open water. The proposed development will result in the loss of these habitats. Assuming implementation of mitigation measures, impacts to these habitats has been assessed as not significant. Agreed mitigation includes habitat translocation and retention of habitats of value where possible. Additional habitats will be created as part of the overall landscape structure including woodland and hedgerows and a series of surface water attenuation ponds to be created as part of the drainage management scheme for the site.

6.1.126. Two bat roosts assessed as being of national nature conservation importance are present within 1.5 km of the Scheme. A range of bat species have been recorded within the Scheme, including greater and lesser horseshoe bats. The Scheme provides good quality foraging habitat for bats, given the presence of woodlands, watercourses, mature hedgerows and trees. The proposed development will result in the loss of existing foraging habitats as well as one known roost sites in a mature tree. However, the retention of woodland areas, creation of wildlife corridors and creation of the associated waterbodies will provide new foraging areas for bats. New bat roosts (e.g. bat boxes) will be taken into account during the detailed design stage.

6.1.127. In the short term, residual impacts to the conservation status of foraging and commuting lesser horseshoe bat population will be significant in a district (North Somerset) context. In the long term, it is envisaged that impacts through loss, severance, and fragmentation will be reduced and

46

Impacts to the conservation status of foraging and commuting lesser horseshoe bats will be not significant in a district (North Somerset) context.

6.1.128. The mitigation measures proposed will ensure impacts to the conservation status of bats (other than lesser horseshoe bats) will be not significant in the context of the Scheme and its immediate environs.

6.1.129. There was no evidence of great crested newts within the waterbodies assessed as having potential to support great crested newts within the Scheme and surrounding area taking into account barriers to the movement of newts.

6.1.130. Habitats within the application site currently provide food and nesting opportunities for badgers, birds, reptiles, otters, hedgehogs, and terrestrial invertebrates. The implementation of mitigation measures will mean impacts to these species and species groups have been assessed as not significant.

6.1.131. A number of biodiversity enhancements have been included within the Scheme design, including careful design of surface water interceptor and attenuation ponds, provision of bird boxes, and provision of bat boxes.

Conclusion

6.1.132. The above section demonstrates that the SBL scheme will have some impacts on the local natural environment as a consequence of the implementation of the scheme. The NPPF recognises that development will often leads to impacts on the local area and should not be subject to unreasonable restrictions. The comprehensive programme of mitigation across the areas of agricultural land, ground and land contamination, amenity, landscape and visual impact, and ecology are designed to mitigate the effects of the scheme as far as possible, and, in areas, are likely to have a beneficial impact. It is concluded that the proposal complies with the national and local planning policies outlined in the preceding section

Historic Environment

6.1.133. The planning application is accompanied by a Historic Environment Assessment which is appended to the ES and is assessed in ES Chapter 15 (Historic Environment), the contents of which is summarised in this section.

Planning Policy

6.1.134. National policy relating to the historic environment is set out in Section 12 of the NPPF, ‘Conserving and enhancing the historic environment’. The guidance states that when determining planning applications, LPAs should require applicants to set out the significance of any heritage asset (and its setting) affected by the proposed development with a level of detail that is proportionate to the asset’s importance. Should a site have the potential to include archaeological interest, developers should submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where required, a field evaluation.

6.1.135. Relevant planning policy from the adopted BCC Development Plan is listed as follows: • BCC Core Strategy (2011) Policy BCS22 Conservation and the Historic Environment:

Safeguards and enhances of heritage assets and the character and setting of areas of acknowledged importance;

• Saved BCC (1997) Local Plan Policy NE9 Historic Landscapes: Development which wouldadversely affect their character, appearance or setting of historic landscape will not be permitted.

• Saved BCC (1997) Local Plan Policy B2 Local Context: States that proposals which wouldcause unacceptable harm to the character and/or appearance of an area, or to the visual impact of historic buildings, views or landmarks, will not be permitted.

6.1.136. Relevant local planning policy from the adopted NSC Development Plan is listed as follows:

47

• North Somerset Core Strategy (2012) Policy CS5 – Landscape and the Historic Environment:Seeks to protect, enhance and conserve sensitive areas and the historic environment throughthe careful, sensitive management of development;

• Saved North Somerset Local Plan (1997) Policy ECH/4 – ‘Listed buildings: States thatdevelopment proposals affecting a Listed Building and / or its setting will only be approved ifthe historic interest and its setting are preserved;

• Saved North Somerset Local Plan (1997) Policy ECH/5 – Historic parks and gardens:Development affecting historic parks and gardens or their setting, will only be permitted whereits historic character, appearance and importance will not be unacceptable harmed and wherethe development enables features historic interest to be conserved, enhanced or restored.

• Saved North Somerset Local Plan (1997) Policy ECH/6 – Archaeology: Development will notbe permitted where it would involve significant alteration or cause damage to nationally-important archaeological remains or would have a significant impact on the setting of suchremains.

Assessment

6.1.137. The Historic Environment Assessment is based on the concept that the environmental effect of the proposals, in relation to an individual asset, is determined by identifying the asset’s value and then assessing the impact that the proposal would have on the significance of the asset. This accords with the provisions of the NPPF and with English Heritage guidance (The setting of heritage assets’, October 2010).

6.1.138. The study area for the historic environment assessment comprises all known heritage assets within a linear corridor, 500m either side of the red line boundary. Consideration has also been given to the wider locality to provide archaeological and historical context and to assess impacts on views from Westleaze and Wyke, and Yanley Conservation Areas. Further consideration has been given to the setting of the Ashton Court Estate, the boundary of which lies just north of the northern end of the Scheme.

6.1.139. Within the study area there is one Grade I Listed Building (high significance), two Grade II* Listed Buildings (high significance), and twenty Grade II Listed Buildings (medium significance). There is one Grade II* Registered Park & Garden, and sixty-eight undesignated heritage assets. There are also four Conservation Areas within the study area, considered to be of medium significance: • Bishopsworth and Malago Conservation Area (Bristol City Council)• Long Ashton Conservation Area (North Somerset Council)• Westleaze and Wyke Conservation Area (North Somerset Council)• Yanley Conservation Area (North Somerset Council)

6.1.140. The Historic Environment Assessment concludes that the SBL route corridor would run through an area of limited heritage and architectural interest. There would be no effect on the setting of listed and historic buildings identified within the study area due to the presence of intervening vegetation. Overall, the proposed development would not affect the historic character of the Bishopsworth and Magalo Conservation Area. However, the development of the new road across part of Highridge Common would have a slight adverse effect on its historic character.

6.1.141. The assessment found no evidence to suggest adverse impacts on known or potential archaeological deposits where the proposed development passes through the rural area leading to Ashton Vale Park and Ride. The restoration and conservation of the triple limekiln within the A38 junction would avoid its destruction and have a moderate beneficial effect; however, the proposed roundabout and highway adjacent to Castle Farm would have a moderate adverse effect.

6.1.142. The assessment established that the effect of the SBL scheme on the Ashton Court Estate would be limited to slight adverse, and may be mitigated further through the use of sensitive screen planting along the route of the proposed development.

Conclusion

48

6.1.143. The Historic Environment Assessment concludes that the SBL route corridor runs through an area of limited heritage and architectural interest. The scheme has a slight effect on Aston Park and Highridge Common and a moderate effect on the setting of Castle Farm, all of which will be reduced through implementation of mitigation measures, particularly the maturing of landscape planting. Additionally, the restoration and conservation of the triple limekiln within the A38 has a beneficial effect on the heritage asset.

6.1.144. Taking route as a whole, it is considered that the scheme design and mitigation measures reduces adverse effects on the historic environment, and takes the opportunity to incur beneficial effects on heritage assets. The scheme therefore complies with adopted planning policy for the historic environment set out in the previous section.

49

7. Conclusion7.1.1. SBL supports the policies, goals and objectives of the JLTP3 and the statutory Development

Plans of both BCC and NSC. The SBL scheme has a strong strategic background with its roots in the Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study (GBSTS), which identified these measures as part of a programme of necessary interventions to ensure sustainable growth and development within the West of England area.

7.1.2. In this context, the objectives of SBL are: • To facilitate regeneration and growth in south Bristol;• Reduce congestion in south Bristol and adjacent areas of North Somerset;• Improve accessibility from south Bristol to the city centre and to strategic transport links,

including the trunk road network and Bristol International Airport.

7.1.3. BCC and NSC have worked closely with its neighbouring authorities, transport providers, local groups and stakeholders to develop a strategy for the provision of viable infrastructure necessary to support sustainable development. SBL is a central element in bringing forward a sustainable and viable transport network to support the sub region.

7.1.4. The West of England authorities are committed to promoting stronger economic growth and moving closer to a future, more integrated transport network for the city region. SBL is designed to link with these major transport proposals, including Bristol Airport and the West of England rapid transit network, known as the Metro Bus. The Metro Bus will provide a fast and efficient link between South Bristol, Ashton Vale and Long Ashton Park and Ride, Temple Meads and the City Centre and, from there, to Cribbs Causeway and Emerson’s Green and key employment areas such as Aztec West.

7.1.5. The route for the SBL accords with an up-up-date Development Plan by virtue of its safeguarding allocation within the statutory Development Plan of BCC and NSC. According to NPPF (paragraph 14), development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

7.1.6. The Planning Policy Assessment section above, in conjunction with the accompanying EIA and suite of technical documents, demonstrate that the SBL is a sustainable scheme whose adverse effects have been mitigated and beneficial effects enhanced in terms of socio economics, transport, design and sustainability, health, recreation and amenity land, food risk and water quality, agricultural land, ground and land contamination, amenity (air quality, noise and light), ecology and the historic environment in accordance with the NPPF, BCC Core Strategy (2011) policies BCS1, BSC9, BSC10, BCS13, BSC15, BCS16, BCS22, BCS23, saved BCC Local Plan (1997) policies B2, L3, M16, M20, ME2, NE2, NE3, NE5, NE6, NE9, NE11, NSC Core Strategy (2012) policies CS10, CS1, CS2, CS3, CS4, CS5, CS9 and saved NSC Local Plan (1997) policies T/7, T/9, T/8, ECH/4, ECH/5, ECH/6, ECH/11, ECH/12, ECH/14. In addition the Protecting Green Belt Land section above demonstrates that exceptional circumstances exist to justify the use of land within the Green Belt for the SBL in accordance with NPPF, BCC Core Strategy (2011) Policy BS6, NSC Core Strategy (2012) Policy CS6 and NSC saved Local Plan (1997) Policy RD/3.

7.1.7. It is concluded that the proposal generally complies with the national and local planning policies outlined in the preceding sections. In the absence of any other material considerations that might weigh in the balance against the proposal, it is considered that conditional planning permission should be granted.

7.1.8. The applicant would have no objection to the imposition of planning conditions that meet the tests set out in Circular 11/95 – The use of conditions in planning permissions. However, we would appreciate being consulted on any draft non-standard prior to any decision being taken on the application.

50

51

8. Appendices

52

53

Appendix A: Development site allocations and planning commitments

8.1.1. The majority of development in the vicinity of the SBL scheme that is proposed through the Development Plan and planning application processes is located within the Bristol City Council administrative area. As noted above, the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD is in draft form, however, it is at an advanced stage in its development. Key development site allocations within the vicinity of the SBL scheme are set out in Table 8.1 below.

8.1.2. The Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD is presently in draft form (March 2013). It is at an advanced stage in its development, having identified preferred site specific development allocations together with broad indications of development capacity and scale. In line with the planned growth in the Core Strategy, a significant proportion of development is directed to south Bristol. Key developments within the vicinity of the SBL scheme are set out in Table 8.1 below.

Table 8.1: Draft development site allocations proposals in south Bristol Site reference and location Scale of development proposed Site ref: BSA1109. Land adjoining Hartcliffe Way and Hengrove Way Inns Court.

430 residential dwellings

Site ref: BSA1111. Marksbury Road College Site

85 residential dwellings. 2,000-3,000 sq. m of business uses.

Site ref: BSA1113. Land adjoining Airport Road between Creswicke Road and the east of Illminster Avenue.

100 residential dwellings.

Site ref: BSA1116. Open spaces on either side of Inna Court Drive, Inns Court.

70 residential dwellings.

Site ref: BSA1117. Land adjoining Airport Road between Cresiwcke Road and to the east of Illminster Drive.

50 residential dwellings.

Site ref: BSA1120. Land and buildings between 2 to 20 Fillwood Broadway

20 residential dwellings and 1,000 sq. m of retail uses.

Site ref: BSA1122. Sports court and former swimming pool site on the north east corner of the Filwood Broadway and Creswicke Road Junction.

35 residential dwellings.

Site ref: BSA1301. Site of former City of Bristol College (Hartcliffe Campus), Hawkfield Road, Hartcliffe.

300 residential dwellings.

Site ref: BSA1302. Plot 2 – Phase 6 Imperial Park South Side Wills Way Bristol. Note: Much of this development is built out, including planning permissions refs 11/01864/P, 11/01863/P,11/01865/P. Planning permission 11/01866/P is pending consideration.

The following elements of the proposed development are built out: the erection of a 60 bedroom hotel (4,500 sq. m – Use Class C1), a public house (1200 sq. m – Use Class A4), business uses (2400 sq. m – Use Class B1a), a car showroom (1,350 sq. m – sui generis). A scheme for a residential care home (3,000 sq. m – Use Class C1), 31 houses and 12 flats has a planning application which is under consideration.

Site ref: BSA1304. Bristol Water Bedminster Depot Bishopworth

25 residential dwellings.

54

Road Bedminster Down. Site ref: BSA1401. Hengrove Park

1000 residential dwellings.

Site ref: BSA1402. Former New Fosseway School, Hengrove.

175 residential dwellings.

Site ref: BSA1407. Maesknoll Elderly Person's Home, Bamfield, Hengrove.

Undefined.

Site ref: BSA1411: Ashton Vale and former Alderman Moore Allotments Off Ashton Road Bristol. Note: This does not include the wider hybrid application of which the residential element forms part – planning application reference 09/02242/P. Access would be gained from North Somerset via extant NS planning application reference: 09/P/1061/F2.

116 dwellings. The residential element forms part of a wider hybrid planning application for the new Bristol City Stadium, which provides, in addition, for the erection of a 30,000 seat stadium incorporating other uses (conferencing and hospitality 5,574 sq. m, retail unit 382 sq. m and community facilities), relocation of a young persons home, construction of a hotel (3,500 sq. m), restaurants/bars (A3/A4 – 1599 sq m), a drive-thru restaurant (5,336 sq. m)/

Site ref: BSA1110. Filwood Park Hengrove Way Bristol. This is also the subject of an extant planning permission ref: 12/00352/P.

50 units and 8000 sq. m business use BSA1110 known as 'the Hangar Site and Filwood Park north of Hengrove Way

8.1.3. In addition to the growth which is proposed through the Development Plan process, Table 8.2 provides a list of major extant planning permissions, which are located in the vicinity of the south Bristol link scheme.

Table 8.2: Extant planning permissions in the vicinity of the SBL scheme (BCC) Planning application reference and location

Scale of development proposed

07/04030/F: Former Office Block To Wills Factory Hengrove Way Bristol

Alterations to and refurbishment of existing building and construction of a new building to comprise a mixed use development totalling 422 residential apartments,

10/05279/F: Imperial Tobacco Ltd Winterstoke Road Bristol BS3 2LJ

Demolition of existing factory buildings (Use Classes B1 and B2) and the erection of new office building (Use Class B1) with associated car parking and landscaping. Loss of 10, 650 sq. m of B2 floorspace and gain of 9,717 sq. m of B1a(a) floorspace.

10/04777/P: Bristol City Football Club Ashton Road Bristol BS3 2E

Outline application for redevelopment of Bristol City Football Club ground site for a relocated Sainsburys foodstore (Use Class A1), petrol filling station with car wash, car park and associated works. (Major application). Net gain of 4,516 sq. m.

8.1.4. Table 8.3 provides a list of notable developments, which are either built out or under construction in the vicinity of the SBL scheme. Many of these were initially proposed through the Core Strategy and have since been delivered.

Table 8.3: Built out or under construction developments in the vicinity of the SBL scheme

Planning application reference and location

Scale of development proposed

11/01865/P: Plot 3 – Phase 6 Imperial Park South Side Wills Way Bristol

Outline planning application – Erection of business units (Use Class B1) and a car showroom with sales, management and vehicle servicing. (Major application)

55

07/00966/F: Land Adjacent To Redhouse Queens Road Bishopsworth Bristol

Development of a 66-unit 'very sheltered housing' scheme with associated community facilities, on-site car parking provision and landscaping.

01/02265/F: 75 Queens Road Bishopsworth Bristol BS13 8PG

Erection of 15 No. one/two bedroom flats and associated parking.

06/03024/F: Withywood Community School Molesworth Drive Bristol BS13 9BL

New academy comprising two storey pavilions surrounding a courtyard and landscaping to replace existing Withywood Community School.

05/00461/PB: Hengrove Park Hengrove Way Bristol

Redevelopment of informal open space to provide a mixed-use scheme, comprising a new public park and managed habitat area (48 hectares), health facility (C2), pool & dry sports facility (D2) residential (C3, up to 690 dwellings), offices and light industry (B1 30,000 sqm), storage and distribution (B8, 10,000 sqm), retail (A1, 1,000 sqm), food & drink (A3 and A5 1,000 sqm). The proposal also includes means of access from Hengrove Way, Whitchurch Lane & Bamfield and other associated infrastructure and landscaping works.

07/05087/F: Phase 1 Hengrove Park Hengrove Way Bristol

Erection of four storey Skills Academy building providing vocational training facilities for 16-19 year olds. Includes separate deck for car parking and mechanical and electrical plant areas.

08/03008/F: Hengrove Leisure Park Hengrove Way Bristol

Erection of KFC drive-thru restaurant (Use Class A5) with associated car and cycle parking and ancillary development.

08/03532/F: Phase 1 (Hengrove Leisure Centre) Hengrove Park Hengrove Way, Bristol

Redevelopment of informal open space to provide Hengrove Leisure Centre (Use Class D2), car parking, landscaping and associated works, and access to Phase 1 infrastructure.

07/05332/F: Phase 1 (south Bristol Community Hospital), Hengrove Park, Hengrove Way, Bristol

Redevelopment of informal open space to provide south Bristol Community Hospital (Use Class C2), car parking, landscaping and associated works.- Part of the Hengrove Park regeneration scheme.

0/01697/F: Hengrove Leisure Park Hengrove Way Bristol

Proposed formation of land form features as a continuation of the Hengrove Park Plaza development, submitted under application ref 08/03532/F.

07/03490/F: Imperial Park Wills Way Bristol

Construction of retail (Class A1) and restaurants and cafes (Class A3) together with management office (Security and toilet facilities) – Amendments to the approved scheme ref. 06/00842/F involving revised external elevations to unit 12, the replacement of the approved security and toilets with retail floorspace (93 sq m) and the replacement of 93 sq m of A3 floorspace with security and toilet facility floorspace.

06/02600/F: Bridge Learning Campus (former Hartcliffe Secondary School) Teyfant Road Bristol BS13 0RL

Redevelopment of Hartcliffe Engineering Community College and Teyfant Community School, including the demolition of the existing educational buildings, to provide a replacement 945 place secondary school, 200 place vocational centre for ages 14-19, 80 pl

8.1.5. As noted within the Planning Policy Context section above, NSC Site Allocations DPD is also in draft form. There is one major strategic site of relevance is located at Barrow Hospital, Barrow Gurney. The site has planning permission for a care village including 43 open market dwellings, 172 C3 units, a C2 care home and associated facilities.

8.1.6. In addition, there is one major North Somerset planning permission. This is at land to the east of Wild Country Lane, south of railway and north of the A370, Long Ashton (planning application reference 10/P/0066/OT2). The application seeks outline planning permission for mixed use development comprising circa 1,000 dwellings, 12,000sq.m, employment space (B1a, b or c).

56

This site was the subject of a successful legal challenge to the adopted North Somerset Core Strategy, which has resulted in the reopening of the examination into proposed Core Strategy housing numbers.

57

Appendix B: Planning Policy History Former Avon County and former Woodspring District DPDs (1964–1994)

8.1.7. From its earliest conception, the SBL was designed to connect Long Ashton to south Bristol. Historic local authority administrative boundaries were in place when the scheme was first conceived in 1964, which included Avon County and Woodspring District. Upon local government reorganisation in 1996, Woodspring District became NSC and Avon County was divided between the newly formed NSC, BCC, B&NES and SGC.

Strategic Policy

8.1.8. The ‘County of Somerset Development Plan First Review’ was consulted upon in 1964 and approved by the SoS in1972. This document provides the first policy iteration of SBL, which is afforded policy status as a section of the ‘Avon Ring Road’, a radial route that was proposed to connect the northern, eastern and western fringes of Bristol. Within the document, SBL is described as “a new road commencing on the County boundary near Highridge Common, crossing the existing Trunk Road A.38 and connecting with the proposed south Bristol Spur Road near Barrow Hospital” (page 30). A safeguarded route alignment for SBL is also provided within the South Western Environs of Bristol Town Map (1972).

8.1.9. The ‘Avon County Structure Plan’ was consulted upon from 1980 and approved in 1985. It had three subsequent alterations, the final of which was approved in 1994. The Structure Plan and all of its subsequent alterations gave planning policy status to SBL through Policy TR.4. The scheme continued to form part of the Avon Ring Road scheme and was named as ‘Avon Ring Road (A.38 to A.370)’ and ‘Avon Ring Road (Carter Road to A.38)’. In line with this, the route alignment was set out on the Proposals Map. The Secretary of State, in the letter approving the First Alteration of the Structure Plan in 1988 underlined the importance the SBL scheme “The Panel endorsed the highways programme and believed that the construction of the [Avon] Ring Road was of crucial importance to the overall strategy of the Plan.”

Local Plans

North Somerset

8.1.10. The ‘Woodspring Rural Areas Local Plan’ was adopted in 1991 and Woodspring Local Plan passed through Consultation Draft (1992) and Deposit Draft Versions (1994) before eventually being superseded by the North Somerset Local Plan in June 2000. The adopted Local Plan and its subsequent draft versions reproduce Avon Structure Plan Policy TR.4 by safeguarding SBL within the Written Statement and the Proposals Map. By the 1993 Consultation Draft Version, describes SBL in the following terms

8.1.11. “Avon Ring Road around the northern, eastern and southern fringes of Bristol will provide an alternative route around, rather than through the centre of Bristol. As part of the Avon Ring Road proposals a route between the A370 (Long Ashton) and the A38, is safeguarded in this Local Plan. Although the Structure Plan states that this link is planned for construction prior to 2001, the exact route is to be the subject of a route investigation leading to further public consultation and a preferred route being adopted.”

8.1.12. During the Woodspring Local Plan Inquiry (Deposit Version 1996), a number of objections were lodged in response to the southern section of the Avon Ring Road, many of which centred on timeframes for delivery. The Inspector, in his 1998 Report into the Deposit Draft, did not recommend any Plan modifications in response to these objections. The following reasons are given:

8.1.13. “the Avon Ring Road from A370 at Ashton Vale to Bishopsworth and the A4 is an ACSP TR.25 proposal programmed for construction to being by 2001. The Avon Transport Plan allocates the scheme to the medium term 1999-2003. It therefore remains a proposal for the local plan period although detailed studies to confirm need, alignment and standards have yet to be carried out. It is not clear whether route studies of the local plan proposals have yet been prioritised or

58

programmed so that the Local Plan may be brought up to date I find no evidence to justify attaching more urgency to this proposal than any other.”

Bristol City

8.1.14. The ‘Bristol City Council Local Plan’ was consulted upon from 1992 until its adoption in 1997. SBL was safeguarded in each draft version as the ‘south Bristol Section of the Avon Ring Road’, through Policy M31. Within the Inspector’s Report (1997), in response to the assertion that the schemes within Policy M31 are ill founded, the Inspector asserts that the

8.1.15. “principle of these road schemes have been established in the Structure Plan [and...] with all the changes that are taking place in local government reorganisation and the status that Bristol City Council will have in it, it will be appropriate, in due course, to reconsider the strategic base for planning in the area, including strategic road schemes [...] it would not be sensible to delay the further consideration or the adoption of the Bristol Local Plan whilst this work was being carried out.”

Local and Strategic Plans (pre-2004)

Strategic policy

8.1.16. The Regional Strategy for the South West (Revocation) Order 2013 came into force on 20th May 2013. This also has the effect of abolishing RPG10 and the JRSP, both of which are dealt with below.

8.1.17. Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (RPG10)

8.1.18. RPG10 for the South West was adopted by the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in September 2001

8.1.19. RPG10 incorporates the Regional Transport Strategy, which provides the framework for local transport plans and development plans, including the implementation of strategic transport infrastructure. Policy TRAN1 seeks to improve accessibility and reduce the need to travel.

8.1.20. Policy SS 2 relates to the Regional Development Strategy and states that local planning authorities in their development plans, and other agencies and developers in their plans, policies and programmes, should consider the needs of the whole of their area and the best opportunities to promote more sustainable patterns of development.

8.1.21. Policy SS 3 concentrates on Sub-Regional Strategy and sets out a number of objectives for each area. The Northern sub-region should: • Build on the economic strengths of the north of the region and foster economic growth in the

area to improve its performance in relation to the European Union (EU) average; • Make adequate provision to meet future development requirements at the PUAs, including the

identification of major strategic employment sites; • Develop and improve sustainable urban and inter-urban transport networks; • Give priority to measures for economic and social restructuring in parts of Bristol and the

Forest of Dean, and improve transport and economic linkages between the economically successful and less successful parts of the sub-region; and

• Conserve and enhance important environmental assets.

8.1.22. Policy SS8 deals with the Bristol Area, apportioning a balanced provision of additional housing, employment, social and recreational facilities to its urban area or as planned urban extensions. The policy seeks to direct “investment in programmes for economic, physical and social regeneration, with an emphasis on encouraging development in the more disadvantaged areas, including south Bristol.”

Joint Replacement Structure Plan

8.1.23. Following dissolution of Avon County Council, NSC and BCC gained powers of authority over highway matters in their respective districts. The local authorities for the former Avon District

59

Area produced a Joint Replacement Structure Plan (JRSP) for the area, together with an assessment of route options for the SBL through GBSTS and the JRTP. The content of these documents are discussed in detail in ES Chapter XXX and Planning Policy Context, Options Appraisal and Major Scheme Business Case sections above

8.1.24. The JRSP was published for consultation (Deposit Version) in June 1998 and it was adopted in September 2002. Paragraph 2.74 of the adopted Structure Plan notes:

8.1.25. “The construction of a road between the A38 and the A370, primarily to improve access to Bristol International Airport (BIA), may also benefit south Bristol by helping to relieve traffic congestion, providing better access to existing industrial estates in Ashton Vale, and in the longer term allowing the release of further potential employment sites in the area. The benefits of increased accessibility will need to be weighed against possible environmental impacts. Since Policy 11 was agreed for adoption in 2000, studies have been undertaken which have considered route options further west than that originally proposed. The final alignment of such a link road is to be determined, if necessary following a public inquiry.”

8.1.26. Adopted Policy 47 relates to priorities given to transport programmes and in planning new developments, to improving alternative modes of travel to the car. Objectives are to be achieved through a partnership approach between local authorities, transport providers, commercial employers and the general public.

8.1.27. The Regional Strategy for the South West (Revocation) Order 2013 revoked the ‘Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire Joint Replacement Structure Plan 2011’ (RSP) (adopted in September 2002) and its evidence base is afforded limited weight in planning decisions.

Local Plans

NSC

8.1.28. The North Somerset Local Plan was adopted in June 2000, which superseded the Woodspring Rural Areas Local Plan. Adopted Policy Proposal T/9 safeguards the Avon Ring Road (A370 – A38) within its Written Statement and its accompanying Proposals Maps and Inset Maps.

8.1.29. The North Somerset Replacement Local Plan was published for consultation in September 2002 and was adopted in 2007. The First Deposit Draft consulted upon a number of route options presented in the ‘A38 to A380 Link Road Study’ (JMP), with the technical justification provided by the draft GBSTS. The Study recommended that an additional alternative option to the adopted SBL alignment was taken forward. The Council received a number of consultation responses to the Deposit Draft which strongly supported the development of the A370-A38 Link Road (Ring Road)., including from Barrow Gurney and Long Ashton Parish Council and from Ashton Park Limited which objected to the omission of the A370-A38 Link Road (Ring Road).

8.1.30. The Inspector’s Final Report (April 2006) recommended: • “Modify T/9 ii) to include the rider that the alignment is yet to be decided and delete the

preferred route on the Proposals Map, pending the GBSTS [...] and that paragraph 9.112 and the Proposals Map should be modified further to avoid any suggestion that the orange [alternative] route is the preferred one. Either all the options under consideration should be safeguarded or none. Some suggested the former approach, but in view of the outcome in PPG12, I recommend that none are safeguarded at this stage. Once the outcome of the GBTSTS is clear, the text and Map should be modified to reflect it [...]

• Decision: Reject proposed amendment, rewording as: “A38/A370 Two routes are safeguarded between these major roads, a link to the east of Barrow Gurney (the A38-A370 Link Road known as the ‘orange route’) and the south Bristol Ring Road (known as the ‘red’ route). Phase 1 of the Ring Road is a link from the A370 to the A38; Phase 2 continues from the A38 into Bristol; both phases are safeguarded by the Local Plan. Justification: As both routes have now been agreed by the Council for LTP purposes, both should be safeguarded.”

8.1.31. Adopted Local Plan Policy T/9 (Highway Schemes) safeguards SBL as follows:

60

• “A38/A370 Two routes are safeguarded between these major roads, a link to the east of Barrow Gurney (the A38-A370 Link Road, known as the ‘orange route’) and the south Bristol Ring Road (known as the ‘red’ route). Phase 1 of the Ring Road is a link from the A370 to the A38; Phase 2 continues from the A38 into Bristol; both phases are safeguarded by the Local Plan. The lack of a modern road link between the A38 and A370 has led to increasing traffic problems on the B3130 through Barrow Gurney. As well as relieving the village, the new roads will improve access to Bristol International Airport, reinforcing its status as a regional facility and major local employer.”

BCC

8.1.32. As noted above, the Bristol City Council Local Plan was consulted upon from 1992 until adopted in 1997. Within the Inspector’s Report into the Proposed Modifications (1997), the Inspector appears to recommend deletion of the southern section of the Avon Ring Road from policy M31:

8.1.33. “Changes have been proposed to the deposit version of Policy M31 to reflect [...] the deletion of item (vi) Avon Ring Road (A4 – A370) following the County Council’s decision to recind safeguarding for improvement works [...] I agree that these proposed changes provide greater clarity to the Plan and should be implemented” (paragraph 5.272).

8.1.34. Within the Proposed Modifications (1997), reference to the south Bristol section of the Avon Ring Road remains within Policy M20 (the adopted version of policy M31) by reason on the “Inspector’s recommendation and updated text.” These changes are carried forward within the adopted Local Plan (1997) where the southern section of the Avon Ring Road is included within Policy M20 and broad extent within Figure 5.6. The Proposals Map shows the scheme alignment as a “new highway scheme (Policy M20).”

Regional and Local Planning Policy

8.1.35. As set out within the Planning Context section above, the 2004 Act changed the plan making system in England and Wales, replacing the previous system of Structure and Local Plans with Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) and Local Development Frameworks (LDF).

Draft South West Regional Spatial Strategy

8.1.36. The Draft RSS for the South West covering the period 2006 to 2026 was submitted to Government by the South West Regional Assembly in April 2006 and was consulted upon between June and August 2006. An Examination in Public was held between April and July 2007, following which the Secretary of State published Proposed Changes to the Draft RSS in July 2008, which were consulted on until 24 October 2008.

8.1.37. The draft RSS was issued with a Revocation Order which came into force on 20th May 2013 with immediate effect.

8.1.38. The RSS recognised road traffic as a major source of local air pollutants and carbon dioxide. Policy RE9 ‘Air Quality’ required the impacts of development proposals on air quality to be taken into account by applicants and local authorities in the determination of planning applications, particularly in areas of existing and proposed AQMAs. In respect of climate change, RSS Policy SD2 set targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions

8.1.39. Policy HMA1 sought to develop a focused programme of regeneration initiatives at south Bristol to broaden the housing stock, improve the quality and diversity of retail, employment and service provision and improve accessibility. In respect of transport outcomes, the Policy sought “to improve access for all to and from south Bristol and to provide for orbital movement, supporting regeneration and employment growth”.

8.1.40. The Regional Strategy for the South West (Revocation) Order 2013 revoked the draft RSS for the South West and its subsequent alterations and its evidence base is still afforded limited weight in planning decisions.

61

Appendix C: Report on Common Land Exchange – Summary Introduction

8.1.41. On 5 February 2013 North Somerset Council's Executive resolved to delegate to the Director of Development and Environment, Head of Legal Services and the Executive Member for Strategic Planning, Highways and Transportation, Concessionary Fares, Car Parks, and Economic Development the authority to confirm the preferred option for exchange land at Highridge Common for that which is required for the South Bristol Link (SBL), taking into account the results of the planned public consultation.

8.1.42. This report is an abridged version of a report prepared by Burges Salmon (June 2013) which sets out the process undertaken to identify, and identifies a preferred option for suitable land to be offered in exchange for that part of Highridge Common (B/CL/3) which is required for the SBL.

8.1.43. Details of Highridge common, the commoners and their rights

Highridge Common (the Common)

8.1.44. The Common is registered under number B/CL/3 with Bristol City Council as the Commons Registration Authority for the area.

8.1.45. The Common is approximately 8.9ha in area and contains two "horns" at the north and east where the land narrows significantly. The Tithe map from 1840, see Figure 8.1 below, shows the same general extent of the Common as now, with small areas of enclosure around the boundaries that correspond to the adjacent fields and the older adjacent houses that can be seen today.

Figure 8.1 Registered Common Land Plan

62

8.1.46. Land use within the locality is primarily residential and commercial in the suburban areas of Highridge and Bishopsworth, with areas of open space within the suburban developments and agricultural or related uses to the west of the Common.

8.1.47. The Common falls from about 83m AOD at its southernmost corner beside Highridge Road to about 64m AOD beside Highridge Green where this meets Sandburrows Road, before rising slightly again towards the northern corner. The slope is generally north-north-west, falling towards the local valley of the Malago, but there is a slight break in the slope within the Common, such that the eastern part of the triangle has some visual separation from the northern part. The rounded crest of the ridge is just beyond the western boundary of the Common, with the land beyond falling north-west towards the valley of Colliter’s Brook.

8.1.48. The higher south-western part has expansive views over the southern suburbs of Bristol to the hills beyond, in which the landmarks of Clifton Suspension Bridge and Bristol University can be seen. The views from the eastern part are less expansive and partly curtailed by the surrounding housing area, but the feel is still open. The lower northern part is narrower and contained by houses to the east and the houses and hedges along the ridge line to the west. There are also more trees and scrub in this area, which create a series of small and partly contained visual units. These visual differences are accentuated at some times of the year by the maintenance regime for the Common, which has the southern and eastern areas as regularly mown amenity grassland, whilst the central area is not mown until summer to encourage wildlife and biodiversity in line with the SNCI status. The small divided areas at the northern end and alongside the roads are also mown as amenity grassland.

8.1.49. Highridge Common is a locally designated Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) (also part of the Dundry Strategic nature Area (SNA) it comprises a large, generally flat area of, mainly damp, unimproved neutral grassland with some patches of unimproved calcareous grassland. To the north-west of the site there are wetter areas which support good populations of sedges and rushes.

8.1.50. The road surface of Highridge Green is designated as being within the Common for some 875m, as is the road surface of Highridge Road to the east of the junction of King Georges Road. This represents 1.2ha, just over 13%, of the registered common.

8.1.51. Highridge Green is for the most part not kerbed along its west side and follows the undulations of the Common, giving the appearance of being a route within the Common. The Common is also crossed by property accesses in several places, of which the tracks across the main part of the Common to Highridge Cottage and Grove House are the most prominent.

Rights exercised over the Common

8.1.52. Information provided by the Bristol City Council Local Land Charges team shows that there are five Commoners’ rights over the Common. These include rights of pasture, rights of estovers, and right of turbary. There is however no record or evidence of Commoner’s exercising these rights in recent times. Notwithstanding, their rights of common will be preserved in the exchange land.

Use of the Common by the public

8.1.53. This land is also included as public access land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW) and is principally used as an area of general recreation by the public.

8.1.54. 2.2. Legal requirement for exchange land

8.1.55. Land which is a common and is to be acquired under a CPO is subject to a special parliamentary procedure unless the relevant Secretary of State (in this case the Secretary of State for EFRA) provides a certificate in accordance with section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (the ALA 1981).

8.1.56. Before granting a section 19 certificate the Secretary of State must be satisfied that:- (a) "there has been or will be given in exchange for such land, other land, not being less in area

and being equally advantageous to the persons, if any, entitled to rights of common or other rights, and to the public, and that the land given in exchange has been or will be vested in

63

the person in whom the land purchased was vested, and subject to the like rights, trusts and incidents as attached to the land purchased; or

(aa) that the land is being purchased in order to secure its preservation or improve its management; or

(b) that the land does not exceed 250 square yards (209 square metres) in extent or is required for the widening or drainage of an existing highway or partly for the widening and partly for the drainage of such a Highway and that the giving in exchange of other land is unnecessary, whether in the interests of the persons, if any, entitled to rights of common or other rights or in the interest of the public…"

8.1.57. The application will be made by North Somerset Council by letter to DEFRA. The application should be made at the same time as the CPO for the SBL is submitted to DfT for confirmation.

8.1.58. Although the section 19 process is separate from the CPO process, it is usual for these to be considered together and where the CPO is confirmed for the s.19 certificate to be issued.

Exchange land considerations

8.1.59. The merits of the exchange land will depend on the category of land it is replacing. Guidance is set out in Circular 06/2004 (the Circular). Paragraph 25 of Appendix L to the Circular states the requirements for identification of suitable Exchange Land as being: • no less in area than the order land; and • equally advantageous to any persons entitled to rights of Common or to other rights, and to

the public

8.1.60. Paragraph 25 of Appendix L to the Circular goes on to say that in determining whether the offer land meets the criteria above the Secretary of State may have regard to the relative size and proximity of the exchange land when compared with the land identified for compulsory purchase.

8.1.61. The CPO should provide that the land being offered in exchange will be subject to the same rights as the land being compulsorily acquired. In this case the CPO will provide for the commoners existing rights to apply to the exchange land. The exchange land will also be placed into the same ownership as the existing common land. The Council has agreed with Bristol City Council that following acquisition of the land required for SBL by the Council the exchange land will be transferred to Bristol City Council.

64

Option for exchange land

8.1.62. The extent of the registered Common that would be affected by SBL measures approximately 0.7ha. This covers the part of the Common, which is principally a triangular area bounded by Highridge Road to the south-east and with Highridge Green running to the north-west along or close to the north-east side of the Common. The western boundary is defined by the curtilages of the adjacent houses at Highridge Farm, Highridge Cottage and Grove House including their associated gardens or business units, along with some small enclosed fields.

8.1.63. In considering potential exchange land the Council has had regard to the following: i. Capable of direct connection to the existing Common and/or existing highways or rights of

way; ii. Capable of creating a comparable visual character; iii. Preferably pasture, to provide scope for creating comparable botanical interest; iv. Not having existing general public access, whether by right or usage, other than along public

rights of way; v. Providing sufficient area; vi. Capable of being used by the Commoners in a way which is consistent with their rights; and vii. Capable of being used by the public in a way which is consistent with their rights and current

custom of using the land.

8.1.64. Various options for exchange land were considered but many were not suitable as they were considered to be either too remote from the main body of the common, creating adverse impacts or security concerns on adjoining residential area, risking of extensive loss of hedges or trees or already used as public open space or a combination of these. Of the different options considered, two areas of suitable replacement were identified and consulted on in February 2013 (see Figure 8.2 below). A total of 77 people responded to the consultation. Of these 51% expressed a clear preference for Option 1, 21% for Option 2 with 28% either having no preference or didn’t express an opinion.

Figure 8.2 March 2013 consultation report

Conclusion

8.1.65. Following review of the comments and outcomes from the public engagement exercise, Option 1 was selected as the preferred option. Option 1 is described below.

65

8.1.66. Option 1 – Area approx 24,700m2 (3.5 x area lost)

8.1.67. Option 1 land consists of pasture with hedgerow and hedgerow trees to the perimeters of the two fields. Hedgerow to field I would need removal in whole or part to provide connectivity (though this would in greater part be required anyway to provide for the construction of the SBL). The land is flat and contiguous with the common land at the eastern end, starting to fall gently to the north west as the valley starts to form. The pasture is species rich un-improved grassland but with areas of semi-improved grassland on the western side suitable for biodiversity enhancement and/or to receive translocated sward from the common. It is considered that the area meets or is capable of meeting the tests set out in 5.6 above.

8.1.68. This option has been developed following refinement of the SBL alignment. The refined alignment moves the road away from the cottage. This allows an appropriate access on the west side through the small field and leading to an appropriate size and shape of exchange parcel.

Exchange land maintenance/management plan

8.1.69. An exchange land management plan will need to be produced to formally set out the existing condition of the exchange land, the management aims in respect of future use and landscape and ecological quality and the maintenance actions and regimes necessary to achieve those aims.

8.1.70. It is expected that the plan will be required by way of planning condition.

66

67

Appendix D: Green Belt Assessment

South Bristol Link Green Belt Assessment Bristol City Council and North Somerset Council June 2013

Atkins Error! No document variable supplied.

Notice This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for Bristol City Council and North Somerset Council’s information and use in relation to the South Bristol Link.

Atkins (Environmental Planning) assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with this document and/or its contents.

This document has 19 pages including the cover.

Document history Job number: 5103087 Document ref:

Revision Purpose description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date

Rev 1.0 Draft VE VE LC LC 03/06/13

Rev 2.0 Final CN AJ LC AJ 20/06/13

Client signoff Client Bristol City Council and North Somerset Council

Project South Bristol Link

Document title South Bristol Link Green Belt Assessment

Job no. 5103087

Copy no.

Document reference

Appendix D – Green Belt Assessment

Atkins Error! No document variable supplied.

Table of contents 1. Introduction 5

2. Planning Policy Framework 6

3. Assessment under Green Belt Policy 9

4. Very Special Circumstances and Need for the Scheme 15

5. Conclusion 18

Atkins Error! No document variable supplied.

Atkins Error! No document variable supplied.

1. Introduction 1.1.1. The proposed development comprises the construction of a section of highway 4.5 kilometers in

length from the A370 Long Ashton bypass within North Somerset to the Cater Road roundabout within the Hartcliffe area of South Bristol. This incorporates the minor realignment of sections of existing highway at Highridge Green, King Georges Road and Whitchurch Lane. Once buses have reached the Hartcliffe Roundabout, services will follow existing roads via Hengrove Way to Imperial Park and onwards to Whitchurch Lane and Hengrove Park.

1.1.2. A new single carriageway road will connect the A370 Long Ashton bypass to the A38 through open agricultural land before passing through Colliter’s Brook valley and onwards across Highridge Common. This section of the proposed development will be located within the Green Belt, the remainder of the route from King Georges Road to Hengrove Park being located outside of Green Belt land, within the urban area.

1.1.3. This assessment considers the proposed development in terms of its location partly within the Green Belt and shows that the proposal is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt and as such is acceptable in this regard. Even if it were to be concluded that the proposed development was somehow inappropriate, there are several powerful factors which comprise very special circumstances such as to clearly outweigh any harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness or any other harm. In the event that it is concluded that the proposed development is not inappropriate, these factors in any event reinforce the case for the grant of planning permission.

Atkins Error! No document variable supplied.

2. Planning Policy Framework 2.1.1. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be

determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the development plan comprises the saved policies of the Bristol City Local Plan (1997), the Bristol City Core Strategy (2011), the saved policies of the North Somerset Replacement Local Plan (2007) and the North Somerset Core Strategy (2012).

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

2.1.2. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 27 March 2012. The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied and is a material consideration in the determination of an application for planning permission.

2.1.3. The NPPF includes 12 core land use planning principles. The principle relating to development within the Green Belt requires that development should:

“...take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of

our main urban areas, protecting Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character

and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it...”

2.1.4. Bullet point 3 of the core land use planning principles requires that development should:

“proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes,

business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs.

Every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing, business and

other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth.

Plans should take account of market signals, such as land prices and housing affordability,

and set out a clear strategy for allocating sufficient land which is suitable for development in

their area, taking account of the needs of the residential and business communities.”

Section 9 of the NPPF deals specifically with protecting Green Belt land and confirms that the

Government attaches great importance to Green Belts.

2.1.5. Paragraphs 79 to 92 of the NPPF deal with protecting Green Belt land. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl and to safeguard the countryside by keeping land permanently open. The NPPF at paragraph 80 confirms that the Green Belt serves five purposes:

to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;

to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

2.1.6. The guidance within the NPPF (paragraph 87) goes on to outline that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in ‘very special circumstances’. Paragraph 88 recommends that when considering planning applications, Local Planning Authorities should ensure that “substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.”

2.1.7. Certain forms of development are however deemed not to be inappropriate in the Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. Amongst these forms of development are ‘local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location.’

Atkins Error! No document variable supplied.

2.1.8. The proposed development is local transport infrastructure as it is not a trunk road or motorway and is designed to improve the local area of south Bristol and bring benefits to the local area in terms of traffic improvements and economic benefits. It is therefore not inappropriate development in the Green Belt provided that the NPPF’s tests in relation to openness, requirement for a Green Belt location and not conflicting with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt are met.

Regional and Strategic Planning Policy

2.1.9. A Statutory Instrument (2013 SI 2013/934) has been laid before parliament to formally revoke the Regional Strategy for the South West and any saved Structure Plan policies. This came into force on the 20th May 2013; and from this date forwards the both the South West RSS and the Joint Replacement Structure Plan will no longer form part of the Development Plan.

2.1.10. The consideration of both documents’ evidence bases however, are still a material consideration which should be taken into account, although it is for the decision maker to decide on the appropriate weight.

Local Planning Policy

2.1.11. In support of the national policy guidance laid out in the NPPF, North Somerset Council and Bristol City Council both set out Green Belt policies in their respective adopted Core Strategies as described below.

2.1.12. A safeguarded alignment for the SBL is shown in the adopted Core Strategies for both Bristol City Council and North Somerset Council. The safeguarded SBL alignment has been formally assessed as part of the Local Plan and Core Strategy processes for each local authority, and tested at inquiry by independent planning inspectors appointed to consider the soundness of the plans, policies and programmes that form part of the LDF.

Bristol City Council

2.1.13. Planning policy for Bristol City Council (BCC) is set out within a suite of documents contained within the Bristol Local Plan (formally referred to as the Local Development Framework).

2.1.14. Under Direction from the Secretary of State (September 2007), certain policies from within the Local Plan were saved and could be used until the LDF was in a position to replace those policies.

2.1.15. Following the adoption of the Core Strategy (21st June 2011), some of the policies of the 1997 Adopted Bristol Local Plan that were previously ‘saved’ have now fallen away. Others have been incorporated into the Core Strategy and some remain saved pending the production of further Development Plan Documents.

Bristol City Council Core Strategy, June 2011

2.1.16. The Core Strategy sets out the overall approach for planning development in Bristol (up to 2026 and beyond). Policy BCS6 relates to Green Belt and states that countryside and other open land around the existing built-up areas of the city will be safeguarded by maintaining the current extent of the Green Belt and land within the Green Belt will be protected from inappropriate development as set out in national planning policy.

2.1.17. The general alignment of the SBL and the extent of the Green Belt are both identified within the Core Strategy Key Diagram. This diagram identifies the alignment of the SBL is to run from just to the west of Bishopsworth all the way to the A370, which lies in the Green Belt.

2.1.18. Policy BCS10 ‘Transport and Access Improvements’ defines the proposed development as one of a number of ‘transport infrastructure improvements’ and provides for the safeguarding of routes for transport infrastructure.

Atkins Error! No document variable supplied.

North Somerset Council

2.1.19. The North Somerset Council (NSC) Local Plan is made up of a number of documents. Together these set out policies and proposals which guide future development in the district.

North Somerset Core Strategy, April 2012

2.1.20. The principal strategic planning document for North Somerset is the Core Strategy, containing strategic policies to guide development to 2026 was adopted in April 2012.

2.1.21. Policy CS6 deals with North Somerset’s Green Belt and ensures that the Bristol – Bath Green Belt boundaries will remain unchanged during the plan period.

2.1.22. Although formally adopted, the Core Strategy was subject to a legal challenge by Bristol University pursuant to which judgment was delivered on the 14

th February 2013 with an

addendum dated 7th March 2013. The challenge related to Policy CS13 (scale of new housing)

which was found to be unlawful by reason of the Core Strategy Inspector’s failure to give 'adequate or intelligible reasons for his conclusion that the figure made sufficient allowance for latent demand i.e. demand unrelated to the creation of new jobs'. This matter is remitted back to the Planning Inspectorate for re-examination.

2.1.23. The Core Strategy remains an adopted development plan document and most policies are unaffected. However, given the conclusion in respect of Policy CS13, the Judge indicated that if the housing requirement was amended then it could have a knock on effect on other policies. “It is possible that an alternative housing requirement figure for North Somerset excluding an urban extension may necessitate the release of land in the Green Belt or otherwise affect spatial or area policies of the Core Strategy.” As a consequence, some other policies have been remitted back to the Planning Inspectorate for re-examination, including policy CS6 ‘Green Belt’.

2.1.24. The Judgment is clear that while it is only CS13 which was found to be unlawful, because the re-examination of the total housing figure may result in consequential alterations for other policies, then these policies are also remitted. However, the Judgment concluded that the policies can still be accorded appropriate weight in any decision making and housing can be brought forward through the development control process.

2.1.25. Therefore policy CS6 currently only has the status of an emerging policy (albeit with significant weight) and is consequently a material planning consideration but not part of the adopted development plan. Until such time that the policy is adopted the Local Plan Green Belt policy RD/3 forms part of the development Plan and should be considered. Policy RD/3 ‘Development in the Green Belt’ deals with development in the Green Belt and restricts such development unless it is for certain purposes, which include:

“The carrying out of engineering or other operations or for changes in the use of land which

maintain openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt;”

As in para above refer to transport policy in NSC local plan – this is an adopted policy.

Atkins Error! No document variable supplied.

3. Assessment under Green Belt Policy 3.1.1. The general alignment of the proposed development is safeguarded in the North Somerset Core

Strategy (2012) and the Bristol City Council Core Strategy (June 2011); as such the proposed development would not be treated as a departure from the Development Plan. In terms of its proposed location partly within the Green Belt the NPPF (2012) states at paragraph 90 that local transport infrastructure is not inappropriate development if it can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location, preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

3.1.2. The following section provides an assessment of whether the proposed development complies with the above requirements and therefore can be considered as appropriate development within the Green Belt. Firstly the assessment looks at the potential conflicts of the scheme with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt, then looks at the impact on the openness of the Green Belt and finally confirms the requirement of the proposed development to be located within the Green Belt.

Assessment of Performance of the Scheme against the Five Green Belt Purposes

3.1.3. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy, as defined in the NPPF, is to prevent urban sprawl and to safeguard the countryside by keeping land permanently open. The NPPF at paragraph 80 confirms that the Green Belt serves five purposes, as detailed in the Planning Policy Framework section above. To determine whether the proposed SBL conflicts with the five purposes of the Green Belt a clear understanding of the quality and effectiveness of the existing Green Belt in meeting the five aims of NPPF Green Belt policy is required.

Assessment of the Quality of Green Belt South West of Bristol

3.1.4. A review of the quality of the Green Belt has been undertaken by North Somerset Council as part of their LDF, the findings being presented in the ‘North Somerset Green Belt Assessment (NSGBA), South West Bristol’ published in May 2011. This document was produced for the purpose of appraising the Green Belt in the context of an urban extension. The NSGBA defines the purpose of the assessment as the identification of the areas of the existing Green Belt which contributes most to meeting the five purposes of the Green Belt. General descriptions of the Green Belt south west of Bristol under each of the five Green Belt tests are included in paragraph 5 of the NSGBA and state:

3.1.5. To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas – ‘For the purposes of this study the large built-up area is deemed to be the developed area of Bristol (and sites which visually form part of the urban area such as the David Lloyd Tennis centre and Park and Ride). Parcels of land which are contiguous with this and which restrict the further expansion of Bristol are likely to contribute highly to this purpose.’

3.1.6. To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another – ‘For the purposes of this study the settlements in question are Long Ashton and Bristol.’

3.1.7. To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment – ‘Encroachment into the countryside may come from both built development and pressure from urban fringe activities including outdoor recreation. It may be evident in areas adjacent to the existing built up area, or detached from it. Encroachment may be ad hoc, or small in scale, but cumulatively it can threaten the character and integrity of the countryside. Some sporadic development and encroachment from urban uses has taken place in the past within the Study Area. In assessing the parcels of land those areas of countryside under greatest threat of encroachment will be rated as of greater importance.’

Atkins Error! No document variable supplied.

3.1.8. To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns – ‘In assessing this purpose consideration will be given to the special setting and historic characteristics of Bristol and Long Ashton. Regard will be had to the historic and landscape setting, prominent views to and from the settlement and the gateways and approaches. The setting includes the Ashton Court Estate, important geographical and natural features, as well as landmark buildings, such as Dundry and Long Ashton churches.’

3.1.9. To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land – ‘This may only be relevant in so far as if Green Belt is to be released in the long term then its release could be phased to ensure that land within the urban area is developed first. This purpose would therefore be relevant once such a long term plan was made. It is considered that all areas within the study area have a similar value for this purpose.’

3.1.10. Taking each of the criteria in turn the purposes of the Green Belt, as set out in NPPF and Local Plan Policy, can be assessed against the quality of the Green Belt Land (as described by the NSGBA and within the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA), which forms part of the EIA) and the likely impact of the proposed development.

To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas

3.1.11. The introduction of the proposed development, looping around the south east of Bristol from the A370 to the A38 is entirely within the Green Belt. The most sensitive part of the Green Belt is deemed to be that closest to the edge of any main conurbation. This is clearly where pressure for contiguous development is at its greatest. South west Bristol has clear pressures on the Green Belt from Ashton Vale, created by the A370 access, around to Highridge and Bedminster Down where the A38 brings traffic into Bristol from Bristol Airport.

3.1.12. The introduction of the proposed development is designed to relieve pressure on these areas by assisting the free flow of traffic. This will also enable economic development to occur further from the edge of the City outside the Green Belt, to continue to grow in existing areas of regeneration, such as the Skills Academy, the shops at Imperial Park and leisure centre at Hengrove Park and improve access to the City Centre. This will help to remove pressure to develop the Green Belt for economic growth.

3.1.13. The scale and nature of the development does not require significant land take nor does it create vertical elements visible from distance. The extent of lighting has been minimised and any motion sensitive lighting has been designed so as not to be triggered by single movements or wildlife activity.

3.1.14. There will be no conflict with this purpose.

To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another

3.1.15. The main settlement in the area of the proposed development outside the urban area of Bristol is Long Ashton. No direct link is being created to this settlement so it will remain as a standalone village with close economic links to Bristol. The west to east introduction of the proposed Link road maintains the openness of the Green Belt around Long Ashton and does not add to the westward sprawl of the City. It is noted the area is highly visible due to its relatively flat topography but the Green Belt clearly maintains the gap between Long Ashton and Bristol. The introduction of the link road has little visual impact on the existing gap between Long Ashton and Bristol due to the linear form of link and the proposed landscaping which will ensure that the proposed development is well screened along this section through the reinforcement of existing vegetation along the A370, providing nature woodland belts, native tree and shrub belts, native hedgerows and native trees on embankments.

3.1.16. There will be no conflict with this purpose.

To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment

3.1.17. The NPPF and PPG2 do not contain a definition of encroachment. However paragraph 3.5 of PPG2 did provide examples of essential facilities for outdoor sports and recreation which needed

Atkins Error! No document variable supplied.

not to conflict with Green Belt purposes and preserve openness, these were ‘small changing rooms or unobtrusive spectator accommodation for outdoor sport...’ This indicates that an assessment as to whether there is encroachment should involve a judgement as to its effects on the change of use of the land. These accords with some of the definitions of encroachment in the Oxford English Dictionary, for example ‘to intrude beyond natural or conventional limits’. Furthermore, by including local transport schemes under paragraph 90 of the NPPF (see paragraph 2.7 of this assessment) it must have been contemplated that in principle some such schemes must be capable of not involving conflict with Green Belt purposes.

3.1.18. In Allen v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2012] EWHC 671 (Admin) concerned an appeal against an Inspector’s dismissal of an appeal against the non-determination of an application for planning permission to station a mobile home as holiday accommodation in the Green Belt. The High Court concluded in this case that the exercise of making the comparison between the extent of encroachment present and the extent of encroachment proposed was in principle no different than the requirement to maintain openness.

3.1.19. In Summers Poultry Products Ltd v the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Stratford-on-Avon District Council [2009] EWHC 533 (Admin) the High Court considered that loss of openness can take a number of forms leading to encroachment and that the effect of development as encroachment on the countryside may be in the form of loss of openness or intrusion; and that this was quintessentially a matter of planning judgement for the decision-maker.

3.1.20. Therefore, in practice the test in considering whether there is encroachment is likely to be similar to that of openness (which is discussed below) but also include a judgement as to intrusiveness; which is a matter of planning judgement in the circumstances of each case.

3.1.21. In this case the proposed development has been carefully and sensitively developed in terms of its detailed design and location. The section between the A370 and the railway has a number of embankments on which the proposed development is sited, these embankments have been designed to be as moderate in size as possible and slope up gently from the surrounding land. At Colliter’s Brook retaining walls have been designed to separate the brook and the proposed development on higher ground level. The remainder of the section of the proposed development within the Green Belt is mostly close to the level of the surrounding land. The bridges which form part of the proposed development include embankments to raise the land up on the approaches to the bridges. In terms of lighting, this has been designed to be as minimal as possible, within the section located in the Green Belt there are lights proposed at the A370 roundabout, Brookgate Junction, the railway under bridge and the A38 roundabout and bus stops immediately to the north of this roundabout. All of the columns have been designed to be slim-line and are 12 metres tall, with the exception of the ones at the railway under bridge which are 8 metres in height. The width of the proposed development has also been kept to a minimum, with the section between the A370 and the railway, the link to the Long Ashton park and ride and the A38 to Highridge Common being a single 2-way carriageway with shared foot/cycleway. The section between the railway and the A38 roundabout would have a single 2-way carriageway with a bus lane in each direction and a shared foot/cycleway. The proposed development has been designed to be as sensitive as possible and with as minimal land take as possible to ensure that it does not encroach on the Green Belt. In addition to the detailed design of the engineering works, the proposed development would not affect the sense of openness (as it would follow existing track ways where possible and uses the natural topography of the land), as to cause encroachment.

3.1.22. Landscaping has been included as an integral part of the design of the scheme to ensure that the proposals are not intrusive in terms of the Green Belt countryside. The landscape proposals seek to maintain and enhance existing screening whilst blending into the wider landscape character through the provision of woodland belts, native tree and shrub belts, native hedgerow, groups of trees, species rich embankments, grassland and attenuation ponds. The proposed development has been sensitively developed to blend into the local landscape and as a result the scheme would not cause intrusiveness in this Green Belt setting causing encroachment.

3.1.23. The proposed development has been carefully and sensitively designed as described above so that although there will be additional development within the Green Belt it is considered that the proposed development has been appropriately designed and mitigated to ensure that effects will

Atkins Error! No document variable supplied.

not be intrusive and will maintain openness and therefore it will not conflict with the purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns

3.1.24. The proposed development runs to the west of Bristol in this area the setting of the city is important. The NSGBA, South West Bristol, May 2011 provides an assessment of the existing setting of Bristol and Long Ashton. This document was produced for the purpose of appraising the Green Belt in the context of an urban extension; however the appraisals in terms of the setting and character of historic towns are useful. The proposed development would be within parcels 2, 5, 11 and 16 described within the LDF Green Belt Assessment. Parcel 2 (Ashton Vale Triangle) is visible in the landscape and overlooked from areas of higher ground; it forms part of the borrowed landscape for Ashton Court. Parcel 5 (Yanley Landfill site) currently detracts from the rural setting of the surrounding city, however when restored it could be an important asset to the setting of the city and Long Ashton. Parcel 11(Castle Farm / Hanging Hill Wood) is agricultural land and parts of the area have important views towards significant landmarks in the city centre. Parcel 16 (South of A38 / adjacent to Bristol boundary) is predominantly agricultural use and dense scrub and forms part of the gateway to the city.

3.1.25. The NSGBA identifies the areas that the proposed development will be located within as providing a rural setting provided to Bristol and Long Ashton. The proposed development has been sensitively developed to blend into the local landscape using the natural topography of the land to ensure it will be unobtrusive and not impact on the setting of the city or key views and therefore would not conflict with this purpose.

To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land

3.1.26. The proposed development is based on urban regeneration, creating links to the Skills Academy, the shops at Imperial Park, leisure centre at Hengrove Park, industrial estates within Bristol (such as Brook Gate and Ashton Vale), as well as the City Centre. The strategic route opens up south Bristol to sustainable modes of transport (bus, bicycle and walking) relieving pressure on the Green Belt. There would be no conflict with this purpose.

Conclusion 3.2. The above analysis tests the proposed development against the five purposes of the Green Belt

and finds that the proposal does not conflict with the fundamental purposes of the Green Belt. Any minor issues have been resolved by sensitive design of the scheme and careful attention to its final detailed alignment. The analysis concludes that the proposed development is not inappropriate in terms of the five purposes.

Openness of the Green Belt

3.2.1. Green Belt policy requires that local transport infrastructure must comply with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt as discussed above, but must also preserve the openness of the Green Belt. Impact on the openness of the Green Belt can be affected by the prominence of the development, views of the development and the impact of the development on the setting of the countryside.

3.2.2. The proposed development has been sensitively designed to ensure that it preserves the openness of the Green Belt. For example, the detailed alignment of the road has been subject to thorough assessment and the chosen route makes use of the natural topography of the land in order to ensure that the proposed development is as unobtrusive as possible. The section between the A370 and the railway has a number of embankments on which the proposed development is sited, these embankments have been designed to be as moderate in size as possible and slope up gently from the surrounding land. At Colliter’s Brook retaining walls have been designed to separate the brook and the proposed development on higher ground level. The remainder of the section of the proposed development within the Green Belt is mostly close to the level of the surrounding land. The bridges which form part of the proposed development include embankments to raise the land up on the approaches to the bridges. In terms of lighting, this has been designed to be as minimal as possible, within the section located in the Green Belt there are lights proposed at the A370 roundabout, Brookgate Junction, the railway under bridge and the A38 roundabout and bus stops immediately to the north of this roundabout. All of the columns

Atkins Error! No document variable supplied.

have been designed to be slim-line and are 12 metres tall, with the exception of the ones at the railway under bridge which are 8 metres in height. The width of the proposed development has also been kept to a minimum, with the width of the roadway kept to between 3.05 metres and 3.65 metres with a shared foot / cycleway running parallel, where bus lanes are present they will be 3m either side of the main carriageway. The proposed development has been designed to be as sensitive as possible and with as minimal land take as possible to ensure that it does not impact on the openness of the Green Belt. In addition to the detailed design of the engineering works, the proposed development would not affect the sense of openness as it would follow existing track ways where possible and uses the natural topography of the land.

3.2.3. The Landscape, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LTVIA) 1 submitted as part of the Environmental Statement accompanying this application for planning permission provides an assessment of the visual impact of the proposal and its impact on the rural Green Belt setting.

3.2.4. The LTVIA assesses the proposal in five sections, as follows:

Section 1 – A370 to railway line;

Section 2 – Railway line to A38;

Section 3 – A38 to Highridge Common;

Section 4 – Highridge common to King Georges Avenue; and

Section 5 – King Georges Avenue to Hengrove Way.

3.2.5. Sections 1 to 3 are located in the Green Belt and are therefore commented on below.

3.2.6. In terms of the prominence of the proposed development and setting of the countryside, the LTVIA provides an assessment for each section in turn.

3.2.7. Section 1 has vegetation cover limited to hedgerow bounded fields with scattered trees. The existing screening is minimal and therefore allows local and long distance views of this section. To mitigate potential impacts the proposed landscape scheme for this section includes reinforcing the existing verge along the A370, providing native woodland belts, native tree and shrub planting, native hedgerows, groups of small trees on embankments and seeded verges.

3.2.8. Section 2 has a high level of woodland and hedgerow screening along the proposed route, so any views would be from close to the proposed development and therefore the development would not have the potential to cause impacts on visual amenity except in the area directly next to the proposal. To mitigate and potential impacts the proposed landscape scheme for this section includes the planting of native woodland belts to reinforce existing woodland, native tree and shrub belts, small groups of native trees with large embankments in the cutting just south of Hanging Hill Wood.

3.2.9. Section 3 has vegetation cover limited to hedgerow bounded fields with scattered trees, therefore screening is minimal and the proposed development could impact long distance views. To mitigate potential impacts the proposed landscape scheme for this section includes reinforcing the existing verge between Castle Farm and the new roundabout, native tree and shrub belt and tree lined native hedgerows. Just before the scheme enters Highridge Common a ‘Gateway’ is proposed involving the creation of a semi-formal arrangement of trees and mounding with appropriate signage.

3.2.10. The proposed landscaping would assist in screening the proposed development from near and far viewpoints. It has been carefully designed so ensure that the landscaping is appropriate to the identified need which changes along the proposed development’s route and therefore would be moderate and sympathetic to the particular part of the route.

Conclusion

3.2.11. The detailed design of the proposed development in terms of its built form and location along with the proposed mitigation in the form of additional sympathetic landscaping have been developed to blend into the local landscape and would therefore not negatively impact in terms of prominence and setting of the Green Belt countryside or views of the Green Belt. The effect on

1 South Bristol Link, Environmental Statement, March 2013. Landscape, Townscape and Visual Assessment chapter

Atkins Error! No document variable supplied.

openness of the proposed development is limited, the proposed development has been sensitively designed, the lighting is minimal, limited in extent and controlled, the planting provides mitigation and so any harm to the Green Belt has a minimal effect and the impact on openness is not material and therefore it is acceptable in this regard.

Requirement for a Green Belt Location

3.2.12. Green Belt policy requires that local transport infrastructure must comply with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt and preserve the openness of the Green Belt as discussed above, but must also demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location.

3.2.13. The proposed development would be located within Green Belt from the A370 to Highridge Common. The requirement for a link connecting to south Bristol is justified by the economic benefits of the proposal which arise from linking the A370 and its connections to the major road network to the north of Bristol with south Bristol. The effect of the link will be to facilitate regeneration and reduce congestion in south Bristol and to improve accessibility to the city centre and strategic transport links.

3.2.14. The detailed alignment and format of the proposed development has been subject to a rigorous options appraisal process, commencing in 1992 with the Avon Ring Road Options Report (MVA, 1992) and has included options appraisal in 2008 and public consultation in 2009 and 2010. The ‘South Bristol Link, Options Appraisal Summary Report’ (Atkins, November 2012) details the full options appraisal process that has led to the chosen scheme and its alignment partly within the Green Belt. The options appraisal process culminated in the preparation of the Major Scheme Business Case (MSBC) which identified local objectives, confirmed the scheme options and appraised the scheme against DfT guidance. Two options appraisal workshops were undertaken in 2009 to identify and appraise options against a set of agreed objectives which were to:

facilitate regeneration and growth in south Bristol;

reduce congestion in south Bristol and adjacent areas of north Somerset; and

improve accessibility from south Bristol to the City Centre and strategic transport links.

3.2.15. This options appraisal process led to an alignment being taken forward to the MSBC and then an amended scheme taken to the Best and Final Bid (BAFB) stage. The options appraisal process has identified and formally tested a large number of alignments and the one selected is considered the most appropriate with the least environmental impact in comparison with the alternatives.

3.2.16. The options appraisal process provides justification for the requirement for the development in the Green Belt in order to achieve the objectives set. The need for the scheme in terms of economic benefit is fully described in section 4 of this assessment.

Conclusion

3.2.17. As discussed above, Green Belt policy contained within the NPPF (2012) under paragraph 90 confirms that local transport infrastructure is not inappropriate development in the Green belt provided it demonstrates a requirement for a Green Belt location preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

3.2.18. The assessment above confirms that the proposed development complies with the criteria for appropriate development in the Green Belt and should be regarded as appropriate development.

Atkins Error! No document variable supplied.

4. Very Special Circumstances and Need for the Scheme

4.1.1. Even if it was concluded that the scheme was inappropriate development, there are several powerful factors which comprise very special circumstances which would clearly outweigh any harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm. On the basis that the proposed development does indeed constitute appropriate development, these factors add strong support to the case for the development. This section of the assessment looks at the transport, regeneration and economic benefits of the proposals.

4.1.2. The proposed development is one of a package of transport schemes that together will create a rapid transport network across the city, linking employment, housing and leisure areas. The scheme will reduce congestion on surrounding roads and will improve accessibility from residential areas to employment areas in south Bristol and the city centre and to the strategic transport network, including Bristol airport.

4.1.3. The need for the proposed development is also justified by the strong economic benefits of the scheme. Appeal decisions support the granting of planning permission for road schemes which demonstrate strong economic benefits.

4.1.4. The economic benefits of the proposed development have been assessed in the ‘South Bristol Link Transport Economic Report’ (Atkins, May 2013), the ‘South Bristol Link Economic Benefits Study’ (Atkins, June 2013) and the ‘GVA Impacts of Major Transport Schemes Study Report’ (Atkins, November 2012). The main findings of these reports are outlined below.

4.1.5. Transport has been identified as a major barrier to economic growth in south Bristol and much of the West of England sub-region. Effective operation of the strategic transport network and investment in transport infrastructure are considered critical to the competitiveness of the economy. The majority of businesses surveyed in the south Bristol area in October 2012 said that congestion in the area affected their operation. Local property agents also confirmed that congestion was a major factor negatively affecting inward investment in south Bristol.

4.1.6. Economic growth will increase travel demand through increases in the numbers of people living and working in south Bristol and the surrounding areas. Failure to deliver significant transport improvements will constrain future travel choices, reducing the scope for public transport to accommodate the needs of people and businesses in the area. Failure to take action will continue to fuel car-dependency and traffic growth, resulting in increased traffic delays. In addition to significantly adding to business costs through increased journey times and allowances for worsening journey reliability, this has the potential to significantly constrain new development, both in terms of reduced investor confidence and constraints in the planning system. This in turn could constrain future job creation and economic growth.

4.1.7. South Bristol faces multiple social and economic challenges, including high levels of unemployment, low skills levels and extensive and acute deprivation. This appears to be operating alongside relatively poor business performance, with a high dependence on public sector jobs and low value-added activity in retail and manufacturing. There is significant out-commuting from the area due to lower numbers of jobs than working age residents. There is a major challenge in encouraging new job creation in this area, to both boost economic activity and improve social outcomes for local residents.

4.1.8. South Bristol faces particular challenges in unlocking regeneration and new employment development to improve economic prospects and outcomes for local residents. The area has complex needs but transport issues are a particular challenge in unlocking the potential of the area. The accessibility challenges result in some businesses having limited interest in considering locating in the south of the city. This will become progressively more serious as travel demand increases in the city and traffic conditions deteriorate with increased congestion.

Atkins Error! No document variable supplied.

4.1.9. Currently, none of the key areas on the SBL alignment (Long Ashton, Bishopsworth or Hartcliffe) are currently served by rail services. There are stations at Bedminster and Parson Street but services are not frequent and access to Temple Meads is poor. The area is therefore dependent on bus services to meet the accessibility needs of people living and working in the area. However, increasing congestion in the area will directly impact on the reliability and speed of bus services.

4.1.10. The key challenges, impacts and economic outcomes of the SBL are identified in the table below.

Key Challenges to be Addressed by the SBL

Key Impacts of the SBL Potential Economic Outcomes

Poor public transport access in south Bristol

High car use for many journeys

Acute, widespread congestion, with long delays on primary route network

Poor reliability of freight journeys

Heavy traffic flows through urban area

Improved public transport access from the west

New road to connect to Long Ashton Bypass: significant reduction in journey times to the west (and M5 at Junction 18)

Improved road and public transport access and lower journey times to Bristol Airport

Reduced traffic in sensitive urban areas, opportunity to reallocate existing road space to public transport

Improved depth of labour market (for businesses in south Bristol) and better access to jobs elsewhere (residents in south Bristol)

Improved access to education & training

Significant reductions in business travel and goods movement costs

Unlocked access to new geographic areas for business markets

Improved business competitiveness of south Bristol

Unlock capacity for growth and vital regeneration in south Bristol

Economic Benefits

4.1.11. According to the latest Transport Economic Efficiency calculations (May 2013), the scheme will have a Present Value of Costs (PVC) of approximately £38 million and a Present Value of Benefits (PVB) of approximately £169 million. These figures are based on the latest SBL model, which has a base year of 2012 and includes scheme costs from May 2013.

4.1.12. This results in a Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) of 4.44. This means the scheme will return £4.44 for every £1 spent on it and therefore represents good value for money. The BCR of the scheme improves further (5.89) with the inclusion of reliability and wider impact benefits.

4.1.13. Economic efficiency benefits make up the bulk of the benefits of the scheme; approximately £85 million of consumer user benefits and £89 million of business user benefits. The benefits estimated for both personal and business travel relate to changes in travel time, vehicle operating costs and user charges.

4.1.14. Reliability benefits are expected to total a further £14 million for business users and £16 million for commuters and other users. The importance of improved reliability is significant as it adds to the benefits from reduced journey times and operating costs.

4.1.15. The monetised value of the wider impacts of the scheme is estimated at approximately £25 million. Wider impacts comprise the effects of agglomeration, output effects and Exchequer benefits of increased numbers of people working. The wider impacts of the scheme demonstrate the potential of the South Bristol Link to unlock economic benefits that are significantly greater than those simply assessed through time and cost savings.

4.1.16. Based on the above, the overall net present value of the scheme’s benefits is estimated to be £224 million while the net present value of the costs is estimated to be £38 million. This results in an overall benefit to cost ratio of 5.89 which means the scheme will return £5.89 for every £1 spent on it.

Atkins Error! No document variable supplied.

Employment and GVA impacts

4.1.17. A key benefit of the scheme will be unlocking the economic potential of south Bristol through improved accessibility, which will facilitate expansion of existing activity, improve the attractiveness of sites to potential investors and facilitate development.

4.1.18. It is estimated that the scheme could unlock some 3,300 gross jobs and approximately 3,100 net jobs across south Bristol and the Temple Quarter Enterprise Zone. In turn, this could unlock some £199m of additional GVA by 2030. The scheme will therefore contribute to the West of England LEP’s targets of 95,000 new jobs in the sub-region by 2030 and 3.4% annual growth by 2020.

4.1.19. The economic analysis of the scheme shows there is a strong need for a link road to provide connectivity and economic growth to south Bristol and that the location of the proposed development has been fully assessed resulting in the requirement for the proposed Green Belt location. The urban regeneration of south Bristol provides a strong economic and environmental argument for the proposed development and provides powerful grounds in support of the proposed development.

4.1.20. These economic, regeneration and transport benefits of the scheme, when taken together with, including in particular the absence of harm to Green Belt objectives, provide strong support for the scheme and in the event that it was concluded that the development comprised inappropriate development, would themselves be very special circumstances clearly outweighing any harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness or otherwise.

Atkins Error! No document variable supplied.

5. Conclusion 5.1.1. In conclusion, an alignment for the proposed development is safeguarded in the North Somerset

Core Strategy (April 2012) and the Bristol City Core Strategy (June 2011) and therefore the proposed development would not be treated as a departure from the Development Plan. In terms of Green Belt policy, National Planning Policy confirms that local transport infrastructure, such as the proposed development, is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt provided that the NPPF’s tests in relation to the requirement for a Green Belt location, openness and not conflicting with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt are met.

5.1.2. The above assessment confirms that there is a requirement for the proposed development to be located in the Green Belt in order that a transport link can be formed between the A370 Long Ashton Bypass and Hengrove Park to fulfil the following key objectives:

to facilitate regeneration and growth in south Bristol;

reduce congestion in south Bristol and adjacent areas of north Somerset; and

improve accessibility from south Bristol to the City Centre and strategic transport links.

5.1.3. The assessment also confirms that the proposal does not conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. It has been demonstrated that the proposed scheme would preserve the openness of the Green Belt and would not be considered inappropriate development. It is therefore acceptable in policy terms.

5.1.4. Notwithstanding the conclusion that the proposed development would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, the assessment presents a number of powerful factors which would comprise very special circumstances such as to outweigh any harm from inappropriateness or otherwise but which in any event add support to the development.

5.1.5. In conclusion, the proposed development would not be considered inappropriate development in the Green Belt and as such is acceptable in this regard.

© Atkins Ltd except where stated otherwise. The Atkins logo, ‘Carbon Critical Design’ and the strapline ‘Plan Design Enable’ are trademarks of Atkins Ltd.

Atkins Ltd The Hub 500 Park Avenue Aztec West Almondsbury Bristol BS32 4RZ

Contact: Laura Cowie Email: laura.cowie@atkinsglobal.com Direct Telephone: 01454 663202 Mobile: 07803 260129 Fax: 01454 663333

68

© Atkins Ltd except where stated otherwise. The Atkins logo, ‘Carbon Critical Design’ and the strapline ‘Plan Design Enable’ are trademarks of Atkins Ltd.

Atkins Ltd The Hub 500 Park Avenue Aztec West Almondsbury Bristol BS32 4RZ

Contact: Laura Cowie Email: laura.cowie@atkinsglobal.com Direct Telephone: 01454 663202 Mobile: 07803 260129 Fax: 01454 663333