Achieving Positive Planning through the use of Planning ......British Retail Consortium Bruges Tozer...

Achieving Positive Planning throughthe use of Planning Obligations

S u p p l e m e nt a r y P l a n n i n g D o c u m e nt N u m b e r 4

Adopted October 2005

Supporting Documents

Supplementary Planning Document No. 4

If you would like this information in a different format, for example Braille, audio tape, large print or

computer disc, or community languages, please contact the Strategic & Citywide Policy Team on:

0117 903 6724.

Supporting Documents to SPD4

1


Achieving Positive Planning through theuse of Planning Obligations

Introduction

The purpose of these supporting documents is toprovide additional information necessary to ensurethat the SPD complies with the regulations set outin the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act2004. The douments comprise the followinginformation and schedules:

• Statement of Consultation, including

• Schedule of Comments and Responses(Appendix A)

• Schedule of Other Amendments (Appendix B)

• Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix C)

The Sustainability Appraisal is attached asAppendix C. It was previously contained in thebody of the Draft SPD, however it is moreappropriately located in this document, in order toenable the SPD to deal solely with setting out theCouncil’s approach to Planning Obligations.

Statement of Consultation

This Statement of Consultation has been preparedin order to comply with the Town and CountryPlanning Regulations 2004. It takes the form of thefollowing text and the schedules contained inAppendices A and B.

The Draft SPD was made available for publicconsultation between 10 January 2005 and 18February 2005, a period of six weeks.

Consultation was undertaken via the followingmethods:

• via the City Council Local Plan CurrentConsultations website

• advertising the Draft SPD in the BristolEvening Post

• making copies of the Draft SPD available inthe City Council Planning Services ReceptionArea

• offering a consultation event to be held atthe City Council offices

• direct mailing to some 180 localorganisations, community groups, interestedindividuals, planning consultants,developers, public organisations etc, invitingcomment

A list of the organisations directly mailed iscontained below.

Alder King

Ami Goff

Andrew Wotton Associates

Arup

Atis Real Weatheralls

Atkins Consultants Ltd

Avon & Somerset Constabulary

Avon & Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership Trust

Avon Ambulance Service NHS Trust

Avon Fire Authority

Avon Local Council Association

Avon Wildlife Trust

Avon, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire StrategicHealth Authority

Avonmouth Community Council

Axa Sunlife

Bath & North East Somerset Council

Barratt Homes

Barton Willmore Town Planning Partnership

Black Development Agency

Bovis Homes South West Region

Bristol & West

Bristol Alliance

Bristol Area SERA Group


Bristol Chamber of Commerce and Initiative

Bristol City Football Club

Bristol Citywide Forum

Bristol Civic Society

Bristol Community Sport

Bristol Community Transport

Bristol Cultural Development Partnership

Bristol Cyrenians

Bristol Diocesan Registrar

Bristol Early Years Childcare Partnership

Bristol East Side Traders

Bristol Environment Trust

Bristol Friends of the Earth

Bristol International Airport

Bristol Meeting Room Trust

Bristol NHS Primary Care Trusts

Bristol Older Peoples Forum

Bristol Port Company

Bristol Property Agents Association

Bristol Racial Equality Council

Bristol Rovers Football Club

Bristol Rugby Club

Bristol Society of Architects

Angus Meek Partnership

Bristol South & West Primary Care Trust

Bristol Tourism & Conference Bureau

Bristol TUC

Bristol Urban Villages Initiative

Bristol Visual and Environment Group

Bristol Water

British Retail Consortium

Bruges Tozer Partnership

BT Group Plc

Business in the Community

Business West

CABE

Castlemore Securities Ltd

CB Richard Ellis

Charitable Trusts

Chesterton Plc

City of Bristol College

Civic Society

Clarke Willmott

Clerical Medical

Clifton and Hotwells Improvement Society

Colin Buchanan & Partners

Community Action

Community at Heart

Community Safety

Connexions

CPRE

CPRE North Somerset District

Crest Nicholson (South West) Ltd

Crosby Homes

CSJ Planning Consultants Ltd

CSV Avon Training

Culture South West

David Maggs

David Ralph

David Wilson Estates

2


DPDS

Edmund Brooks

Edward Ware Urban Renewal Ltd

English Heritage SW

English Nature

English Partnerships

Entec UK Ltd

Environment Agency

Faculty of the Built Environment, UWE

Federation of Small Businesses

First Group

Forest of Avon

FPD Savills

Further and Higher Education

Future West

Geoff Williams

GeoStandards Ltd

GL Hearn

GOSW

GVA Grimley

Hartcliffe and Withywood Community Partnership

Hartnell Taylor Cook

Healthy Places

Highways Agency

CB Hillier Parker

Hotwells and Cliftonwood Community Association(HCCA)

House Builders Federation

Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd

Job Centre Plus

John Page Architects

Jonathan Charlesworth

JSPTU

JT Group

King Sturge

KingsOak South West

Knightstone Housing Association

LA21 Land Use Group

Lawrence Weston Drugs and Alcohol Project

Learning & Skills Council

Lennon Planning Ltd

Linden Homes Western Ltd

M W D Architects

Madu Ellis

Nadia Saba

NCP

Network Rail

New Deal for Communities

Newland Homes

North Bristol NHS Trust

North Somerset Council

Peter Evans Partnership

Phillip M Hale

Rail Passengers Committee

Redcliffe Futures Group

Redland and Cotham Amenity Society

Richard Ellis Planning Consultancy

Richard Pedlar Architects

Robert Turley Associates

RPS Group Plc

3


RTPI (South West)

Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd

Sarah Minns

Shelter

Shirehampton Community Action Forum

Somer Housing Group

South Gloucestershire Council

South West Regional Development Agency

South West Regional Assembly

Sovereign Housing Association

Sport England South West

St Pauls Unlimited

St. Pauls Youth Promotion Ltd

Strategic Rail Authority

Stride Treglowan Town Planning

Sustainability South West

Sustrans

Tetlow King Planning

The Architecture Centre

The Broadmead Board Ltd

The Care Forum

The Countryside Agency

The Guinness Trust

The House Builders Federation

The Housing Corporation

The University of Bristol

Thursby Associates

Transport 2000

Turley Associates

UNITE Group Plc

United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust

University of the West of England

Urban Splash (South West)

UWE Estates Department

VOSCUR

Welham and Hanna Chartered Architects

Wessex Water

Westbury-onTrym Society

Westbury Homes (Holdings) Ltd

Whicheloe Macfarlane

White Young Green Planning

The public consultation resulted in 56 commentsbeing received. These are set out in detail inAppendix A along with the Council’s response tothe comments and any amendments to the SPDarising from the comments.

The opportunity has also been taken to include anumber of other amendments in the SPD. Theseare set out in Appendix B and are included toenable improved clarity, to update references togovernment guidance to include Circular 05/2005(Planning Obligations), or where updated figureshave been provided in relation to the formula usedto calculate education contributions.

4

Avon Fire Service

Government Office forthe South West

Request inclusion of the provision of fire hydrantsthrough the planning obligation process.

The SPD may be premature due to the impendingproduction of a revised Circular covering planningobligations and the introduction of a GoodPractice Guide both of which are due forpublication in 2005.

It is not considered necessary to include theprovision of fire hydrants in the PlanningObligations SPD.

However, should the Fire Authority wish tocomment on planning applications and requestthe inclusion of hydrants in particulardevelopment proposals, the Council wouldconsider these comments accordingly and wouldaim to secure the provision of hydrants throughconditions.

The SPD was carefully drafted to reflect emergingguidance in the Draft Revised Circular on PlanningObligations and the Draft Good Practice Guide.The final Revised Circular (05/2005) issued on 18July 2005 is broadly consistent with the DraftRevised Circular and therefore it is considered thatthe approach taken in respect of the SPD reflectsthe guidance given in Circular 05/2005 - PlanningObligations. There is no set timetable for theproduction of the Good Practice Guide, and anydelay in the production of this SPD would impactupon the delivery of the Local DevelopmentScheme. Also, if the SPD were held in abeyanceuntil such time as the Good Practice Guide wasproduced it would reduce the Council’s ability tonegotiate planning obligations effectively and inthe transparent way proposed.

No change

No change

Supplementary Planning Document Number 4Appendix A - Schedule of Comments and Responses

Respondent(s) Comment Council Response Recommended Amendments

1

General Comments

House BuildersFederation

Bristol Trades UnionCouncil

Turley Associates onbehalf of the BristolAlliance

Curious timing of the SPD given that a DraftRevised Circular on Planning Obligations iscurrently out to consultation. It is unclear as towhy the Council has not waited until the revisedcircular is published before issuing the SPD forconsultation.

Welcomes the production of the SPD and supportsthe full application of all obligations in all cases.

A number of the obligations proposed do not haveany threshold as a trigger for the obligation. This isvery concerning and will result in almost everyplanning permission in Bristol being the subject ofa planning obligation, which often take months toresolve and sign. A threshold of at least 2,500 sqm or 25 dwellings should apply to all obligations

The SPD was carefully drafted to reflect emergingguidance in the Draft Revised Circular on PlanningObligations and the Draft Good Practice Guide.The final Revised Circular (05/2005) issued on 18July 2005 is broadly consistent with the DraftRevised Circular and therefore it is considered thatthe approach taken in respect of the SPD reflectsthe guidance given in Circular 05/2005 - PlanningObligations. There is no set timetable for theproduction of the Good Practice Guide, and anydelay in the production of this SPD would impactupon the delivery of the Local DevelopmentScheme. Also, if the SPD were held in abeyanceuntil such time as the Good Practice Guide wasproduced it would reduce the Council’s ability tonegotiate planning obligations effectively and inthe transparent way proposed.

Support welcomed. It should be noted that the fullapplication of all obligations in all cases may notalways be appropriate, for example if there areexceptional costs associated with thedevelopment, e.g. remediation works.Consequently, the Council aims to achieve anegotiated package of planning obligations takinginto account individual site characteristics.

A planning obligation may be necessary fordevelopments of various types and sizes. Forexample, a small development such as a mobilephone mast may require landscape screening, or asmall warehousing unit may require an improvedhighway access necessitating HighwayInfrastructure Works. As a consequence, overallminimum thresholds are considered overlyrestrictive.

No change

No change

No change



2

Wessex Water Whilst we support the principle that newdevelopment should contribute towards the fiveaims identified in the Community Strategy webelieve that water and sewerage companiesshould be exempt from these planningobligations. This is on the basis that we provideessential services for servicing existing customersand new development, we do not expect existingcustomers to subsidize costs attributable to newdevelopment, and we do not profit from thedevelopment of our sites.

Wessex Water therefore seeks confirmation ofexemption from general planning obligations.With regard to landscaping we accept that theremay be a requirement for screening etc, howeverwe would accept this to be within the confines ofour land, or by agreement with a privatelandowner, and therefore not subject to adoptionby the Council. We also accept that there will be arequirement for obligations in respect of highwayworks where there is a requirement to improve

It is not the case that the Council intends forvirtually all planning permissions to be the subjectof a planning obligation. As present approximately1% of permissions granted are subject to aplanning obligation and it is considered unlikelythat this figure will change greatly in the future.

It is not agreed that a threshold of at least 2,500sq m or 25 dwellings should apply to allobligations, as those thresholds in place areconsistent with adopted policy. In additionapplying a blanket threshold would not allowindividual circumstances to be taken into account.

Comments noted. Whilst it is likely thatdevelopments such as treatment plants /sewerage works would not be subject to a numberof obligation types, the Council would encouragethe use of Local Labour etc, and it is possible thatlandscaping and highway access obligations maybe required.

There are many public service providers thatundertake development, to which planningobligations may apply, for example new schools,health centres etc. Consequently it is notconsidered appropriate to exempt any individualorganization from planning obligations.

No change



3

LA21 Land Use Group


White Young GreenPlanning

existing, or construct new, highway infrastructurein order to access the development site in a safeand appropriate manner.

The Sustainable Land Use aspect of this proposedSPD seems to be moving purposefully in the rightdirection and deserves urgent implementation

References to Policy IN1 should be deleted fromthe SPD in order for it to conform to PPS 12

Question whether any significant weight can beplaced on Draft Policy IN1 of the ProposedAlterations to the Bristol Local Plan, particularly asthe council has decide not to proceed with it inthis form and the fact that it attracted 28objections.

Support welcomed

Policy IN1 is not the specific policy hook for thisSPD. The status and validity of the SPD is notadversely affected by the SPD drawing to thereader’s attention, the Council’s intention topromote an inclusive Planning Obligations Policy.Reference is made to Policy IN1 but it is clearlystated that this is for “… information andcontextual purposes…”. It is also referred to in theTravel Plans section of Part Two.

Policy IN1 is not the specific policy hook for thisSPD. The status and validity of the SPD is notadversely affected by the SPD drawing to thereader’s attention, the Council’s intention topromote an inclusive Planning Obligations Policy.Reference is made to Policy IN1 but it is clearlystated that this is for “… information andcontextual purposes…”. It is also referred to in theTravel Plans section of Part Two.

Weight is not attached to Policy IN1 but to theadopted policies listed in the SPD, and PPG 13 inrespect of Travel Plans

No change

No change

No change



4

Part One - Status of the SPD

LA21 Land Use Group

St. Pauls Unlimited

It should be stated that the SPD must conformwith Bristol’s “Statement of CommunityInvolvement (SCI)”

Greater emphasis should be given to theopportunities for local communities to influencethe type of obligations sought from development

This SPD is intended to be adopted in advance ofthe adoption of the council’s Statement ofCommuminity Involvement. It is considered thatthe consultation undertaken for this SPD has beenin the spirit of the 2004 Act and therefore can beconsidered to conform with the Statement ofCommunity Involvement requirements.

This is covered in the final paragraph of LocalPolicy Context, however, it is agreed that theparagraph could be reworded to add greateremphasis to community input to planningobligations.

No change

Delete existing final paragraphof Local Policy Context andreplace with the following:

“The Council believes that it isimportant that the views of localcommunities and theiraspirations are given a high levelof priority when consideringplanning obligations”. Thenegotiation of planningobligations package willtherefore need to acknowledgesuch views and aspirations.Where appropriate this may beinformed by existing policy ledaspirations or may be developedthrough communityengagement.

Where Neighbourhood orCommunity Plans come forwardand are adopted as SPD by theCouncil, they will be given a highpriority, as key policy documents,



5

Part One - Consultation

Part One - Local Policy Context

Redcliffe Futures Group Greater emphasis should be given to theopportunities for local communities to influencethe type of obligations sought from development.

This is covered in the final paragraph of LocalPolicy Context, however, it is agreed that theparagraph could be reworded to add greateremphasis to community input to planningobligations.

in informing the Council’sposition in relation toobligations required fromdevelopment proposals withinthe areas covered by those plans.In addition it is consideredreasonable to reflect less formalexpressions of neighbourhoodconcern and aspirations, forexample NeighbourhoodRenewal Area Action Plans ininforming planning obligationnegotiations.”

Delete existing final paragraphof Local Policy Context andreplace with the following:“The Council believes that it isimportant that the views of localcommunities and theiraspirations are given a high levelof priority when consideringplanning obligations. Thenegotiation of planningobligations package willtherefore need to acknowledgesuch views and aspirations.Where appropriate this may beinformed by existing policy ledaspirations or may be developedthrough communityengagement.

Where Neighbourhood orCommunity Plans come forwardand are adopted as SPD by the



6

LA21 Land Use Group


The case for linking Land Use Obligations to moresustainable travel and reduced deprivation inBristol’s estates should be more apparent in SPD4.

It would assist if examples of exceptions to on siteprovision of facilities required through obligationscould be included within the text, although it isacknowledged that these would be on a case-by-case basis.

Comment noted. However, the SPD does identifythe link between planning obligations and theCommunity Strategy and states that obligationsare set within the context of the delivery of thefive aims of the Community Strategy.

Comment noted. However, Part Two of the SPDdoes already identify obligation types wherecontributions to off site provision will generally berequired, and as each application needs to beassessed on a case-by-case basis it is not practicalto list exceptions.

Council, they will be given a highpriority, as key policy documents,in informing the Council’sposition in relation toobligations required fromdevelopment proposals withinthe areas covered by those plans.In addition it is consideredreasonable to reflect less formalexpressions of neighbourhoodconcern and aspirations, forexample NeighbourhoodRenewal Area Action Plans ininforming planning obligationnegotiations.”

No change

No change



7

Part One - Approach to location of provision through Obligations

Network Rail


Pooled contributions from developers could assistin funding rail infrastructure, facilities or services.

The governments draft circular on planningobligations suggests that where the combinedimpact of a number of developments creates aneed for infrastructure, contributions could bepooled to allow the infrastructure to be secured ina fair and equitable way. We would support suchan approach in the SPD

The Council should take into account exceptionallevels of quality and sustainable components in adevelopment as both can have significant up frontcosts. Relief from planning obligations should begiven in order to achieve exceptional quality orsustainability. Specific instances could be listed inthe document such as solar energy panels, whichare expensive to install and cannot be requiredthrough planning regulations.

Comments accepted and it is agreed that pooledcontributions could be used for a number ofschemes, not just rail infrastructure.

It is considered that this is adequately covered inthe SPD, which states on page three “The Councilconsiders that developers may reasonably beexpected to pay for, or contribute to the cost ofinfrastructure, which would not have beennecessary but for their development. Negotiationover the level of contributions will take account ofthe economics of the development, any abnormalcosts and other planning objectives that mayaffect the viability of the proposal. However, theCouncil also considers that costs incurred indelivering a sustainable, high quality developmentare to be expected, and should not reduce theability of the site to contribute towards relevantplanning objectives.” In addition, it is alsoconsidered that sustainable constructioninitiatives may enhance economic viability.

Insert new paragraph at end ofCity Council approach to locationof provision through Obligations,as follows:

“On occasion, a number ofdevelopments are proposed inclose proximity to each other,the cumulative effect of whichwill result in the requirement fornew infrastructure. In thesecases the Council may poolcontributions from each of thedevelopments in order to fundthe necessary infrastructure inan equitable way.”

No change



8

Wessex Water



We should be interested to know what would becovered by Pollution control obligations.

The Council should incur any Monitoring costs, asthey should be covered in the planning applicationfee. The 15% Monitoring Fee is onerous upon thedeveloper

.The Monitoring Fee of 15% of the PlanningApplication Fee is excessive and should be cappedat £1,000 per development.

As significant areas of the City are covered by anAir Quality Management Area (AQMA), it isintended that those developments thatsignificantly increase car borne trips would berequired to contribute towards the Council’s costsin undertaking air quality monitoring andmitigation measures in their vicinity.

This is incorrect. The planning application fee doesnot take into account whether planningobligations will be required and therefore it isreasonable to assume that it does not cover theCouncil’s costs in monitoring any obligations. Thedecision to charge a Monitoring Fee of 15% wastaken by the Director of the Department ofEnvironment, Transport and leisure, and theassociated Executive Member in October 2002 andit has been operating successfully since that date.

The 15% Monitoring Fee is not consideredexcessive as generally the larger developmentscontain a greater number of obligations andrequire a more significant amount of monitoring

The decision to charge a Monitoring Fee of 15%was taken by the Director of the Department ofEnvironment, Transport and leisure, and theassociated Executive Member in October 2002 andit has been operating successfully since that date.

No change

No change

No change



9

Part One - Type of Obligations

Part One - Drafting of Agreements

Network Rail


We note that the SPD requires the developer tomeet the costs of drafting the planning agreementand contribute towards monitoring theobligations. There is no objection to thisrequirement in principle. However, the draftcircular advises that the level of such contributionsshould be specified in advance and should only belevied where it can be demonstrated that thecontributions make a significant contribution tothe speed and efficiency with which negotiationsare completed.

The SPD makes no mention to the use of standardagreements / undertakings as encouraged withinthe Draft Revised Circular on Planning Obligations.

Comment noted.

The Council has standard wording andterminology, which should allow for speedycompletion of agreements. However, it is notpossible to specify the Council’s Legal costs ofcompleting the agreement in advance, as issuesmay arise which require a greater legal input thaninitially envisaged.

The Monitoring Fee is specified as 15% of thePlanning Application Fee and relates to theCouncil’s costs incurred in Monitoring theobligations, i.e. after the completion of theagreement. The decision to charge a MonitoringFee of 15% was taken by the Director of theDepartment of Environment, Transport and leisure,and the associated Executive Member in October2002 and it has been operating successfully sincethat date.

Comment accepted.

No change

Insert new paragraph asfollows:“The Council’s LegalServices Team has standardwording to cover FinancialContributions, HighwayInfrastructure Works, AffordableHousing Provision and theMonitoring Fee, which shouldenable standard Agreements tobe concluded quickly in manycases.



10

Will Fancy It is not understood how financial contributionscan remain unspent and be handed back to thedeveloper.

It is good practice for financial contributionssecured by the Council to have a time limit bywhen they must be spent, as this reinforces therelationship between the development and themeasure that the financial contribution is due tofund. There are two circumstances where moniesmay be returned to the developer:

1. Where the Council has not delivered themeasure within the timescale, and

2. Where the measure has been implementedand the cost of implementation has beenless than the value of the financialcontribution.

The first instance has not occurred in Bristol, asthe Council has mechanisms in place to ensurethat measures are delivered within the timescale.When the second instance occurs, the balance isreturned to the developer, e.g. if a contribution of£30,000 is received but the measure only costs£27,300 to implement, then £2,700 would bereturned to the developer.

Further information can beobtained from the PrincipalConveyancing Officer in theCouncil’s Legal Services Team on(0117) 922 2308, or the PlanningObligations Project Manager.”

No change.



11

Part One - Financial Contributions

Bristol Trades UnionCouncil-


Bristol and South WestSocialist Environment &Resources Association


Formerly requested a statement about howobligations are monitored and to what extent theCouncil has failed to spend (and had to return)financial contributions.

All developments should reflect a 50% AffordableHousing target.

The proportion of affordable housing should beincreased.

Welcome the provision of on-site affordablehousing and object to developers being able tomake a contribution to the provision of off-siteaffordable housing.

Planning obligations are monitored by theCouncil’s Planning Obligations Project Manager toensure that both the Council and the Developercomply with their obligations. Twice yearly reportsare presented to the Council’s DevelopmentControl Committees to keep members updated asto the current situation with regard to PlanningObligations.

The issue of failure to spend contributions has notoccurred in Bristol, as the Council has mechanismsin place to ensure that measures are deliveredwithin the timescale.

The SPD must reflect current adopted policy, i.e.that affordable housing obligations apply toresidential developments in excess of 25 units andthat between 10 and 30% percent will be sought.

The SPD must reflect current adopted policy, i.e.that affordable housing obligations apply toresidential developments in excess of 25 units andthat between 10 and 30% percent will be sought

Support welcomed.

The only circumstances where a contribution tothe provision of off-site affordable housing isacceptable are as follows:

• Where the type of affordable housingrequired could not practically be providedon-site, or

No change.

No Change

No change

No change



12

Part One - Monitoring of Obligations

Part Two - Section (i) Affordable Housing

Bristol and South WestSocialist Environment &Resources Association


Object to developers being able to make acontribution to the provision of off-site affordablehousing. The following sentence should bedeleted:

Page 6 (Trigger for Obligation; lines 4 to 7)

“The requirement will be for on-site provision,however, in exceptional circumstances and at theCouncil’s discretion, commuted sums for off-siteprovision may be acceptable.”

It is helpful that the text includes a list of housingtypes that will not be the subject of affordablehousing obligations. However, reference should bemade to Key Worker housing.

• Where in the interests of ensuring a mixedand balanced community a contribution tooff-site provision is considered preferable.

The decision to accept a contribution to theprovision of off-site affordable housing is at thediscretion of the Council.

The only circumstances where a contribution tothe provision of off-site affordable housing isacceptable are as follows:

• Where the type of affordable housing required could not practically be provided on-site, or

• Where in the interests of ensuring a mixed and balanced community a contribution to off-site provision is considered preferable.

The decision to accept a contribution to theprovision of off-site affordable housing is at thediscretion of the Council.

Support Welcomed. With regard to Key Workerhousing the comment is noted. However, KeyWorker housing is not considered to be exemptfrom affordable housing obligations unless itcomprises solely non-self containedaccommodation.

No change

In Trigger for Obligation, addnon-self contained residentialaccommodation, eg, halls ofresidence and cluster flats, to thetypes of residentialaccommodation not subject toAffordable Housing Obligations.



13




The trigger for affordable housing should excludesheltered housing (not just very shelteredhousing) and key worker housing.

The percentage of affordable housing requiredshould be stated as up to 25% of units dependingon the economics of provision.

Circular 1/97 indicates that the Council should notset out precise costs in advance. The SPD includesprecise costs taken from DfES and standardformulae to apply to developments. The formulaeshould be deleted.

Sheltered Housing falls under Class C3 in the UseClasses Order and is therefore considered as openmarket housing. Consequently it is considered thatSheltered Housing should be subject to AffordableHousing Obligations.

With regard to Key Worker housing the commentis noted. However, Key Worker housing is notconsidered to be exempt from affordable housingobligations unless it comprises solely non-selfcontained accommodation.

PAN12 (Affordable Housing) sets the percentage ofaffordable housing required as being between 10%and 30%. This SPD is required to be consistent withPAN12.

The SPD clearly states that the obligation will onlyapply if the implementation of a proposeddevelopment will result in the generation ofadditional pupil numbers in excess of that whichlocal schools can accommodate. Therefore theformulae will only apply where there is ajustification for additional educational facilities.The DfES figures provide a robust cost per pupil ofthe provision of new facilities and are therefore anappropriate mechanism to use in order tocalculate an education contribution that equitablyrelates the level of the contribution to the numberof excess pupils generated by the development.Furthermore, Circular 05/2005 – PlanningObligations, which supercedes Circular 1/97, andthe Draft Good Practice Guide encourage the useof formulae, and their publication in planningdocuments, in order to speed up negotiations,ensure predictability and provide transparency.

In Trigger for Obligation, addnon-self contained residentialaccommodation, eg, halls ofresidence and cluster flats, to thetypes of residentialaccommodation not subject toAffordable Housing Obligations.

No change

No change



14

Part Two - Section (ii) Educational Facilities




Education contributions should not apply to studioflats or two bedroom dwellings.

Object to the Council using NPFA standards. TheCouncil should wait until “The Parks and GreenSpaces Strategy” is adopted and then set a localstandard.

As the Council has yet to complete its Parks andGreen Spaces Strategy, it is unreasonable toinclude a trigger for Recreational Facilitiesobligations, until the strategy has been published.The requirement for financial contributions on 10houses or more or on sites of greater than 0.1ha insize seems purely arbitrary at this stage.

Comments accepted in relation to studio flats,however it is considered that two bedroomdwellings should not be exempt from EducationContributions as it is a reasonable assumptionthat two bedroom dwellings are seen as familydwellings.

Whilst it would be preferable to have a localstandard in place, it is considered that until this isthe case the NPFA figures provide a robustcalculation as to the amount of recreationalfacility required. It is therefore considered to be anappropriate mechanism to use in order tocalculate a recreational facilities contribution. TheCouncil’s Local Development Scheme sets out atimetable for the delivery of the “Parks and GreenSpaces Strategy”, which requires adoption of theStrategy by April 2007.

Furthermore, Circular 05/2005 – PlanningObligations, which supercedes Circular 1/97, andthe Draft Good Practice Guide encourage the useof formulae, and their publication in planningdocuments, in order to speed up negotiations,ensure predictability and provide transparency

The trigger is based on Adopted Policy L2 whichrequires residential proposals of 10 or more unitsto provide formal / informal play space. It isconsidered that this, in addition to Adopted PolicyNE12 provides a robust basis from which to secureRecreational Facilities, and that the threshold of 10units is reasonable and cannot be consideredarbitrary.

Add “studio flats” to the lastparagraph of Trigger forObligation

No change.

No change.



15

Part Two - Section (iii) Recreational Facilities


Wessex Water


The trigger for recreational facilities should be atleast 25 units, and space provided in a schemeshould be deducted.

We believe that the intention is for the trigger forthis obligation to only apply to residentialdevelopment. However, the statement as writtencould imply that the obligation applies to alldevelopment greater than 0.1ha in size.

Maintenance payments should only be soughtwhen provision of a facility is principally of benefitto the development itself rather than the widerpublic. This distinction should be drawn in anynegotiation for commuted maintenancepayments.

The trigger is based on Adopted Policy L2 whichrequires residential proposals of 10 or more unitsto provide formal / informal play space. It isconsidered that this, in addition to Adopted PolicyNE12 provides a robust basis from which to secureRecreational Facilities, and that the threshold of 10units is reasonable.

Comments accepted in relation to deduction forspace provided on site.

Recreational obligations will apply to residentialdevelopment only, however, comments accepted.

The Recreational Facilities formula solely takes intoaccount the additional persons generated by thedevelopment and apportions a financialcontribution accordingly. The purpose of thiscontribution is to ensure that the additional usageoccurring as a result of the development does notresult in further deterioration of the facility.Therefore the contribution will enable the Councilto spend capital to bring the recreational facility toa standard that will enable it to cope with theadditional usage, and to maintain it to thatstandard for a period of time.

No change in relation to thetrigger.

Insert a new sentence in Triggerfor Obligation, to read “Wherethe Council accept that aproportion of the requiredfacilities can, and will, beprovided on site, a pro ratareduction will be made incalculating the level of thecontribution”

Amend first sentence in Triggerfor Obligation to read as follows:

“Recreational Obligations willapply to residentialdevelopments on sites of greaterthan 0.1 ha in size or containing10 or more dwellings.”

No change



16




Maintenance period of 15 years is akin to inperpetuity and therefore contrary to Circular 1/97.The 15 year figure should be deleted and replacedwith 5 years.

Circular 1/97 indicates that the Council should notset out precise costs in advance. The SPD includesprecise costs and standard formulae to apply todevelopments. The formulae should be deleted.

On site landscaping should be dealt with bycondition in line with government advice. There isno need to repeat and replicate these powers andchecks through a Planning Agreement.

Consequently it is considered that both the capitaland maintenance element of the contribution areprincipally of benefit to the development itself.

Comment noted. The City Council’s currentpractice is to seek 15 years maintenance. This isconsistent with practice in South Gloucestershireand North Somerset and is not considered to beakin to in perpetuity.

Circular 05/2005 – Planning Obligations, whichsupercedes Circular 1/97and the Draft GoodPractice Guide encourage the use of formulae andtheir publication in planning documents, in orderto speed up negotiations, ensure predictability andprovide transparency.

This section of the SPD deals with LandscapeSchemes where the scheme is to be transferredinto the ownership of the Council, and a paymentto cover it’s maintenance is payable by thedeveloper. Consequently a Planning Agreement isrequired to enable the land transfer andmaintenance payment to take place.

No change

No change

No change



17

Part Two - Section (iv) Landscape Schemes



Highways Agency

This does not supplement an adopted policy andshould be deleted from the SPD.

It would be helpful if the text could refer toexceptions cases, for example, where an officedevelopment is located close to a railway stationand local bus services.

Support the approach set out in respect ofHighway Infrastructure Works.

The requirements for Travel Plan Initiatives areclearly set out in National Policy Guidance in theform of PPG13. Therefore the Council is justified inseeking Travel Plan obligations and will seek to doso where appropriate. As the purpose of the SPD isto amalgamate the Council’s approach to PlanningObligations and provide all the relevant detail inone document, as recommended in Circular05/2005 – Planning Obligations, it is consideredappropriate to include the Travel Plan InitiativesSection.

As set out in the SPD, the section relating to Parkand Ride Facilities is included for the sake ofcompleteness and is reproduced from the AdoptedLocal Plan. The Local Plan clearly states that“Contributions will only be sought from thoseparts of Central Bristol which can be efficientlyserved by Park and Ride” and Policy M15 sets outfactors that will be taken into consideration inapplying the formula.

Support welcomed.

No change

No change

No change



18

Part Two - Section (v) Travel Plan initiatives

Part Two - Section (vi) Park and Ride Facilities

Part Two - Section (vii) Highway Infrastructure Works


Where new trees have replaced existing trees orwhere traffic signals have been upgraded as partof Highway Infrastructure Works, this should betaken into account in calculating the maintenancepayment due.

Comments accepted. In Traffic Signals CommutedMaintenance Payment, includenew sentence at the end of thefirst paragraph, to read “Whereexisting traffic signals are to beupgraded the CommutedMaintenance Payment will notapply”

In Street Trees CommutedMaintenance Payment amendthe text of the opening sentenceto read “If the HighwayInfrastructure Works include theprovision of new trees, acommuted maintenancepayment will be required wherethe Works results in a netincrease in the number of streettrees. The payment will be forthe number of trees over andabove those that were in placeprior to the implementation ofthe development. The paymentwill be payable upon the issue ofa Certificate of Adoption for thetrees.”



19


Network Rail

Any measure should satisfy the policy tests set outin Circular 1/97 and this should be made explicitlyclear in the text.

We welcome the SPD’s recognition thatobligations may be required for public transportimprovements. However, there is no expansion onthis issue within Part 2. Developments near publictransport hubs can often increase passengernumbers significantly. Should improved railfacilities be required as a result of thedevelopment, Network Rail would look todevelopers to fund such improvements.

The tests contained in Circular 05/2005 – PlanningObligations, which supercedes Circular 1/97, areset out in Part One (National Policy Context) andare referred to in the Site Specific Measuressection. However, it is considered that there ismerit in the comment and that the section isamended accordingly.

Support welcomed. The issue of improvements torail facilities would currently be dealt with underSite Specific Measures. However, it is agreed thatthere is merit in referring to rail facilities withinthis section.

In Trigger for Obligation, includenew text after the first sentence,to read “The obligation mustsatisfy the policy tests set out inCircular 05/2005 – PlanningObligations and particularreference made to the test which…” and delete the followingexisting text “However Circular05/2005 …”

In Definition, amend secondbullet point to read as follows:

• Funding of improvedpublic transport facilities wherea development generatingsignificant levels of trips isproposed on or near a bus route/ railway station. Theimprovements could includeimprovements to the bus stop /railway station, the streetenvironment within which thebus stop / railway station islocated, or hardware / softwareto enable real time informationto be provided on ShowcasePublic Transport Routes.



20

Part Two - Section (viii) Site Specific Measures



If a developer contributes to an Area of PublicRealm at the Council’s request, it should not beexpected to pay maintenance payments, as theArea of Public Realm will not be “principally ofbenefit to the development itself rather than tothe wider public” The demand for maintenancepayments should be deleted.

It is noted that the requirement is for thedeveloper to design and construct the area ofpublic realm. This is not always the most practicalsolution, particularly where the area of publicrealm covers part of a much larger area where acomprehensive urban design approach is required,eg, Brunel Mile. The SPD should be amended toinclude reference to financial contributionstowards the enhancement of the public realm

Comment noted. It is considered that there areoccasions where the comment would be valid, andconsequently the issue of maintenance paymentswill be considered on a site-by-site basis to assesswhether a requirement for a maintenancepayment is appropriate.

Comment accepted

Delete the final sentence in thefirst paragraph of Arrangementsfor fulfilling Obligation, andreplace with the following:

“Upon transfer a commutedmaintenance payment may berequired where it is consideredappropriate, i.e. when there issignificant benefit to thedevelopment in the area ofpublic realm beingimplemented.”

Include a further paragraph atthe end of the Arrangements forfulfilling Obligation section toread:

“In exceptional circumstanceswhere it can be demonstratedthat it would be neither practicalor appropriate for the developerto provide the area of publicrealm, a financial contributionwill be required to enable theCouncil to construct andmaintain the relevant area ofpublic realm for a period of 15years.

The level of the financialcontribution will vary on a site-by-site basis depending upon thematerials to be used and thecosts of implementing the areaof public realm.”



21

Part Two - Section (x) Areas of Public Realm




The maintenance rates referred to under “Basis ofCalculation” should be stated.

The SPD refers to other draft SPD’s which have notyet been published for public consultation

The thresholds for the requirement of Public Artare completely new policy, and not contained inthe Adopted Local Plan. The public art sectionshould be deleted.

The areas of public realm could be constructedusing a number of differing techniques andmaterials depending upon the characteristics ofthe area. Consequently the maintenance rates mayvary accordingly and it is not possible to list alleventualities in the SPD. In addition, maintenancerates may change as maintenance contracts comeup for renewal.

The SPD provides developers with two options asfar as maintenance payments are concerned. Thefirst of these allows for the maintenance rates inplace at the time of the agreement to be includedin the agreement, and index linked, thereforegiving a reasonable level of certainty as to theamount of the maintenance payment.

Comment accepted.

The Draft Economic Contributions SPD wasavailable for public consultation between 21February 2005 and 4 April 2005.

The SPD clearly states tht public art will be “ encouraged “ and not sought or required. Thepurpose of including the thresholds is to givedevelopers an indication as to the type and scaleof developments that would be encouraged toincorporate public art.

No change

No change

No change



22

Part Two – Section (ix) Economic Contributions from New Development

Part Two – Section (xi) Public Art


Will Fancy


Objects to the Bristol standard of provision of35m2 per 1000 population. States that the Councilshould apply the International Federation ofLibrary Associations standard of 42m2 per 1000population.

Objects to the Bristol standard of provision of35m2 per 1000 population. States that the Councilshould apply the International Federation ofLibrary Associations standard of 42m2 per 1000population.

Circular 1/97 indicates that the Council should notset out precise costs in advance. The SPD includesprecise costs and standard formulae to apply todevelopments. The formulae should be deleted.

Government guidance encourages the use of localstandards in order to reflect local circumstances.The Council’s Library Services Team have set astandard of 35m2 per 1000 population as it isconsidered that this reflects local need.Consequently, any deviation from this in the SPDwould not be consistent with the local standard.

Government guidance encourages the use of localstandards in order to reflect local circumstances.The Council’s Library Services Team have set astandard of 35m2 per 1000 population as it isconsidered that this reflects local need.Consequently, any deviation from this in the SPDwould not be consistent with the local standard.

The Council currently fails to meet a number ofPublic Library Standards and the provision ofadditional residential development will placefurther pressure on the Council’s Library Services.The formulae, as set out, solely takes into accountthe additional persons generated by thedevelopment and apportions a financialcontribution accordingly. The purpose of thiscontribution is not to improve an already deficientservice but to make sure that the additional usageoccurring as a result of the development does notresult in further deterioration of the service.Therefore the obligation is directly related to theimpact of the development.

No change

No change

No change



23

Part Two – Section (xiii) Library Facilities


LA21 Land Use Group

The trigger for payments towards library provisionshould be much higher and only apply to schemesof at least 200 units.

The matrix identifies 3, 6, 7 and 10 in the appraisalof Travel Plan Initiatives, which is welcome.However, the absence of 5, which identifiesmixed-use requirements, suggests that the linkbetween mono-functional development and highlevel of car commuting is not recognized

Furthermore, Circular 05/2005 – PlanningObligations, which supercedes Circular 1/97 andthe Draft Good Practice Guide encourage the useof formulae, and their publication in planningdocuments, in order to speed up negotiations,ensure predictability and provide transparency.

The threshold of 40 units is consistent with PolicyH6 in the Adopted Local Plan, which deals withCommunity Benefit from ResidentialDevelopment.

Indicator 5 states “Does the policy provide moreand a wider range of accessible employmentopportunities via mixed use developments,employment land allocations or better educationand training opportunities.” The requirement ofthe provision of Travel Plan Initiatives throughPlanning Obligations clearly does not provide themeasures set out in Indicator 5 and therefore thisindicator was not identified as one to which TravelPlan Initiatives applied.

No change

No change



24

Sustainability Appraisal

Status of the SPD

National Policy Context

In the bullet point list of policies the SPD will supplement, add the following:

• CC7 – City Centre Pedestrian Links• CC8 – City Centre Streets for People

Rewrite opening paragraph and up to the end of the first bullet point of the secondparagraph to read as follows:

The legislative framework for planning obligations is set out in Section 106 of theTown & Country Act 1990, as amended by Section 12 of the 1991 Planning andCompensation Act. Further guidance is contained in PPG1 (General Policy andPrinciples) and detailed advice into the use of planning obligations is set out in Officeof the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) Circular 05/2005 (Planning Obligations). Thiswas issued on 18 July 2005 and supersedes Circular 1/97, the previous planningobligations circular.

Circular 05/2005 sets out the following tests that must be satisfied in order forobligations to be required:

1. the obligation must be necessary to make the proposed developmentacceptable in planning terms;

Rewrite final paragraph to read as follows:

The 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act does not formerly address planningobligations but leaves open the option to update Section 106 through secondarylegislation. Circular 05/2005 advises that Local Planning Authorities should includehigh level planning obligation policies in their Local Development Frameworks, withthe detail being set out in a Supplementary Planning Document. It is considered thatthe approach being taken in respect of SPD4 is consistent with the advice given inCircular 05/2005.

Omitted in error

To take into account ODPM Circular05/2005 (Planning Obligations)

Supplementary Planning Document Number 4Appendix B - Schedule of Other Amendments

Section Amendment Reason for Amendments

1

Priorities Rewrite opening paragraph to read as follows:

Obligations will be negotiated on a site-by-site basis and the priority given to thediffering types of obligation will be at the discretion of the Local Planning Authority.The justification behind the priorities given will be set out in the Planning Officer’sreport. It will be the result of a balanced judgment, arrived at by taking intoconsideration a range of policy issues, site characteristics, government guidance andcomments received during the development process. Key issues to be considered areas follows:

• Adopted Local Plan Policy

• Adopted Local Development Framework Documents

• Circular 05/2005 (Planning Obligations)

• PPS3 (Housing) and Circular 6/98 (Affordable Housing)

• Financial viability of the proposed scheme

• The availability and quality of the surrounding infrastructure and facilities

• Individual site characteristics

This approach will ensure that Circular 05/2005 is applied consistently and thatobligations are related to the site from which they are sought.

It is not considered appropriate for citywide priorities relating to differentdevelopment types to be set out in a priority order, as circumstances will differ acrossthe city and each development proposal will have its own characteristics, which maymake adhering to a citywide prioritised list of obligations inappropriate. However,where obligations are required in order for a development to be acceptable in purelyland use terms, i.e. obligations relating to the siting of the development, these willbe given priority over other obligations.

In final paragraph on Page 4, replace 1/97 with 05/2005.

Increased clarity and to take intoaccount ODPM Circular 05/2005(Planning Obligations)



2

Affordable Housing

Educational Facilities

Recreational Facilities

In Policy Background, replace 1/97 with 05/2005 (Para B12)

In Policy Background, replace 1/97 (Para 4-1261) with 05/2005 (Para B15)

New figures have been provided by DfES (in February 2005) for the costs of providing additional school places.

These are as follows:

Nursery and Primary School £9,136

Secondary School £14,346

The figures are Bristol specific as they include a location factor.

The amendment is to include the new figures in the Basis of Calculation and theworked example.


In the first paragraph of the Second Column, amend as follows:

Replace

The cost per m2 for the provision and maintenance of outdoor recreational space inBristol has been calculated at £2,367.18 based on the actual costs of the provision offacilities within the city.

With

The cost of the provision and maintenance of 24m2 of outdoor recreational space inBristol has been calculated at £2,367.18 based on the actual costs of the provision offacilities within the city.



To incorporate the most up to datefigures available.


Error in the original wording.



3

Landscape Schemes

Park and Ride Facilities

Highway Infrastructure Works

Site Specific Measures

Areas of Public Realm

Community Forest Initiative

Library Facilities

Sustainability Appraisal

In Policy Background, replace 1/97 (Para 4-1263) with 05/2005 (Paras B15 and B19)



In Traffic Signals Commuted Maintenance Payments, replace 1/97 (Para 4-1263) with05/2005 (Para B19)

In Street Trees Commuted Maintenance Payments, replace 1/97 (Para 4-1263) with05/2005 (Para B19)

In Policy Background, replace 1/97 (Para 4-1260 and 4-1261) with 05/2005 (ParasB12 – B16)

In Trigger for Obligation, replace 1/97 with 05/2005

In Policy Background, replace 1/97 (Para 4-1261) with 05/2005 (Paras B15, B16 andB19)

In Policy Background, replace 1/97 with 05/2005 (Para B15)


In Other Relevant Plans and Documents add the following:

• Circular 05/2005 Planning Obligations, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005)











4

APPENDIX C

1

SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL

Background

SPD4 supports the Bristol Local Plan (AdoptedDecember 1997) by providing supplementaryguidance and setting out in greater detail, theCouncil’s approach to Planning Obligations.

Objective of SPD

The objectives of the SPD are as follows:

• To clarify the Council’s position regarding thebasis on which planning obligations will besought.

• To provide guidance and information todevelopers, their agents, stakeholders andBristol residents.

• To add additional weight to the relevantpolicies and ensure consistent interpretation,whilst allowing for the individualcircumstances of each proposal to be takeninto account.

Existing Sustainability Appraisal

A sustainability appraisal (SA) of the Bristol LocalPlan was prepared in accordance with best practiceat the time (The Bristol Local Plan SustainabilityAppraisal, 2000). This identified 10 sustainabilitycriteria against which each local plan policy wasassessed and these criteria are set out below:

• Does the policy result in an improvement inthe quantity, range and quality of thehousing stock or community facilities;

• Does the policy enhance the appearance ofurban and rural environments or make themcleaner, healthier or safer;

• Does the policy improve the accessibility oftown and neighbourhood centres, schools,health facilities or sport and recreationalfacilities by walking, cycling or publictransport;

• Does the policy encourage sustainableeconomic growth by enhancing regional andlocal industrial, commercial, retail,

warehousing, distribution and freighttransport infrastructure and facilities;

• Does the policy provide more and a widerrange of accessible employmentopportunities via mixed use developments,employment land allocations or bettereducation and training opportunities;

• Does the policy reduce waste and / or therisk of pollution of air, water, sea, land orsoil;

• Does the policy reduce the need to travel and/ or journey lengths;

• Does the policy fit well within Bristol’s urbanform and not increase the risk of flooding orland instability affecting development;

• Does the policy conserve, enhance or restorethe quality, quantity, character, distribution,distinctiveness and diversity ofenvironmental, historical or cultural assets /resources;

• Does the policy encourage appropriate formsof renewable energy, or encourage the use orconsumption of either renewable or non-renewable resources in a more sustainableway.

Approach to Sustainability Appraisal forSPD 4

Recent draft government guidance “SustainabilityAppraisal of Regional Spatial Strategies and LocalDevelopment Frameworks (consultation draft)”indicates that there may be opportunities foravoiding duplication in SA within the planninghierarchy.

It is considered that the SA of the Bristol Local Planprovides the basis for the appraisal of SPD4.Consequently, this appraisal will not repeat workalready undertaken in the appraisal of the BristolLocal Plan. It will concentrate on assessing the SPDagainst the criteria set out in the appraisal of theBristol Local Plan to examine whether it enhancesthe sustainability of the relevant local planpolicies.


Where the SPD introduces issues not covered bypolicies in the Bristol Local Plan, e.g. travel plans;these issues will be individually assessed againstthe 10 criteria in order to provide a completeappraisal picture.

Sustainability Appraisal Matrix

The matrix (located at the end of the SA) containsan appraisal of the SPD using the 10 sustainabilitycriteria (as set out in the Existing SustainabilityCriteria section). The key to the symbols used inthe matrix is detailed below:

• Likelihood of significant beneficial effect

•• Likelihood of additional beneficial effect overand above that achieved by the Local PlanPolicy

? Uncertain or unpredictable effect

Where cells remain blank, the criteria has eithernot been considered to be relevant, or it isconsidered that the criteria will have aninsignificant or neutral effect.

Indicators and Monitoring

Progress towards the sustainability objectives willbe measured using specific indicators contained inthe following documents:

• The Annual Monitoring Report produced tosupport the Council’s Development PlanDocuments, and

• The Council’s Annual Quality of LifeIndicators Report.

The Council has undertaken an Annual Quality ofLife Report for a number of years, andconsequently a large volume of baselineinformation is available. It is anticipated that theAnnual Monitoring Report will utilise thisinformation and introduce new indicators, wherenecessary, to ensure appropriate mechanisms arein place to monitor the Local DevelopmentFramework, which will eventually replace theBristol Local Plan.

In addition, the differing types and level ofplanning obligation secured through the

development process are monitored on a regularbasis, and this monitoring will enable the Councilto assess the effectiveness of the SPD and whetherits implementation is achieving the aims of therelevant sustainability criteria.

As this SPD is being produced under transitionalarrangements to support policies in the saved localplan it is not considered appropriate to base the SAon a new survey of baseline information.

Other Relevant Plans and Documents

The following plans and documents have beenexamined to ensure that the SPD conforms to theadvice, guidance and policies contained withinthem:

• Bristol Local Plan (Adopted 1997), Bristol CityCouncil

• Bristol Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal,Bristol City Council (2000)

• Circular 1/97 Planning Obligations,Department of Environment (1997)

• Draft Revised Circular on PlanningObligations, Office of the Deputy PrimeMinister (2004)

• Circular 05/2005 Planning Obligations,Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005)

• PPS12 Local Development Frameworks,Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2004)

Future Appraisal

As the Council progresses with the production ofcore policies and other documents forming part ofthe Local Development Framework, it is intendedthat this SPD will be updated and amended to takeinto account emerging policy.

The Council is currently in the process ofidentifying a revised set of sustainability criteriaagainst which future planning policy documentswill be appraised. It is intended that when this SPDis updated it will be reappraised against therevised sustainability criteria, rather than those setout in this SA.

2

APPENDIX C

Conclusion

The SA matrix demonstrates that SPD4 is likely toenhance the sustainability of the relevant localplan policies where formulae are introduced tocalculate the level of obligations sought. This willenable a more consistent approach to theapplication of the policy and result in a greaterlevel of improvement / enhancement to therelevant facilities than would otherwise beachieved.

Where the SPD is merely formalising existingpractice and providing clarity, for example inrelation to Policy M1 and L10, there is unlikely tobe a significant enhancement in the sustainabilityof the policies.

In those cases where the SPD introduces newissues, for example Travel Plans, the SAdemonstrates that it is likely to result insustainability improvements in relation to anumber of the sustainability criteria.

3

TABLE 1MATRIX ASSESSING THE SPD AGAINST THE SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL CRITERIA FOR THE RELEVANT ADOPTED LOCAL PLAN POLICIES

Policy NE12 - Open Space: Creation and Enhancement

Sustainability Criteria Comments

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The introduction of a formula based approach to securing contributions for2000 Appraisal • • • • • off site open space will result in a more consistent approach to the2000 plus SPD Appraisal •• • • • • application of the policy, and should result in greater level of improvement to

existing open space, therefore further enhancing its appearance and making it cleaner and safer.

Policy M1 - Transport Development Control Criteria


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The SPD formalises existing practice and sets out the Council's approach to2000 Appraisal • • • • • securing highway infrastructure works and achievingmeasures to fund2000 plus SPD Appraisal • • • • • schemes to mitigate the impact of the development on a site by sitebasis. It

is not considered that the SPD enhances or diminishes the sustainablility of Policy M1.

Policy M15 - Parking: Commuted Payments


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 As the SPD includes the Bristol Local Plan Parking Commuted2000 Appraisal • • • • Payments policy and formula for the sake of completeness2000 plus SPD Appraisal • • • • only it has no impact on the sustainability of Policy M15.

Policy EC10 - Community Benefit from Economic Development


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The setting out in the SPD of the types of obligation that may be2000 Appraisal • ? ? sought, eg provision of affordable business space, contribution2000 plus SPD Appraisal • • • • towards On-Site local labour initiative, provides clarity and adds to the

information provided in Policy EC10. This should result in more sustainable economic growth through the provision of starter units to enable local small businesses to set up; and widen the range of opportunities near to neighbouring communities through the provision of employment training, therefore enabling local people to access employment and reducing the needto travel long distances.

Policy H6 - Community Benefit from Residential Development


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The introduction of a formula based approach to securing contributions to2000 Appraisal • • • education facilities, childrens play facilities and library improvements will2000 plus SPD Appraisal •• •• • • • result in a more consistent approach to the application of the policy, and

should result in an increased provision of improvements and additions to community facilities. This will reduce the need to travel and will further enhance the appearance of the urban environment.

Policy H9 - Affordable Housing to meet Local Needs


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The adoption in 2001 of Planning Advice Note 12 (Affordable Housing) and2000 Appraisal ? ? ? ? the reference made to it in this SPD adds weight and clarity to Policy H9. It2000 plus SPD Appraisal • provides detailed information regarding the threshold over which Affordable

Housing will be sought, and the proportion of Affordable Housing that will be sought. Consequently, it is considered that the combination of this SPD and PAN 12 will result in an increase in the level of Affordable Housing achieved and therefore an increase in the quantity and quality of the housing stock.

Policy L2 - Open Space: Children's Play / Amenity Space


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The introduction of a formula based approach to securing childrens play2000 Appraisal • • • facilities will result in a more consistent approach to the application of the2000 plus SPD Appraisal •• •• • • • policy, and should result in an increased provision of improvements and

additions to childrens play facilities in appropriate locations. This will reduce the need to travel and will further enhance the appearance of the urban environment.

Policy L10 - Arts and Entertainment: Public Art


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The SPD merely sets thresholds and clarifies the mechanism for dealing with 2000 Appraisal • obligations relating to the provision of public art. Therefore, it is not2000 plus SPD Appraisal • considered that the SPD enhances or diminishes the sustainablility of Policy L10.

TABLE 2MATRIX ASSESSING NEW ISSUES RAISED IN THE SPD AGAINST THE SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL CRITERIA

Travel Plan Initiatives


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The SPD formerly introduces the Council's approach to the Appraisal of Travel Plan • • • • provision of Travel Plans from new development and it is considered that thisInitiatives will enhance sustainability by improving accessibility, introducing measures

to reduce the need to travel and encouraging the consumption of resourcesin a more sustainable way. The use of Travel Plans should also reduce the number of journeys made by private car and therefore contribute to a reduction in the risk of air pollution.

Economic Contributions from New Development


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The Council is issuing a draft SPD titled "Economic Contributions from New Appraisal of Economic • • • Development" in early 2005 and this will be subject to a full SustainabilityContributions from Appraisal. The reference made to the SPD in this document provides a basis New Development from which developers will be encouraged to enter into planning obligations.

Such obligations will enhance sustainability by encouraging local economicgrowth through the provision of start up units and the use of local labour,and by providing training and childcare facilities to enable local people to obtain employment in the vicinity of their communities thus reducing the need to travel.

4


Produced by Strategic and Citywide Policy Designed by Visual Technology

Bristol City Council Job No. 0805-294 BR

Achieving Positive Planning through the use of Planning ......British Retail Consortium Bruges Tozer...

Documents

Transcript of Achieving Positive Planning through the use of Planning ......British Retail Consortium Bruges Tozer...