How we identify potential sites for development
4.33 Through the selection of location or site options that can help to meet the overall need for housing, employment development and supporting infrastructure we must ensure that the Plan’s spatial priorities are achieved. The key principles or factors outlined in the ‘Spatial Strategy Principles’ section have shaped the choice of settlements and location options. Specifically, relative sustainable transport connectivity to employment opportunities and a range of key services and facilities was the starting point for identifying settlement and then location options. Consideration of the performance or impacts of these locations against the other spatial strategy principles, as well as a broader range of sustainability criteria has been undertaken and has influenced the selection of location options. The assessment of options (or ‘reasonable alternatives’) is outlined in supporting documents, importantly including the Sustainability Appraisal (SA)and the Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) and the Area of Search Assessments.
Map of potential sites
4.34 Through the HELAA, a broad range of opportunities or sites across Bath and North East Somerset have been considered; in terms of their suitability, availability and achievability. The sites considered encompass those that have been submitted as potential development opportunities by landowners, developers and other stakeholders, supplemented by sites identified by the Council where land in sustainable locations (primarily adjoining the main settlements) has not been submitted. The map below illustrates the range of HELAA sites considered across the District.
Figure 12: HELAA sites across B&NES
4.35 Those HELAA sites, or groupings of HELAA sites, that are assessed as being suitable, available and achievable that are located at the settlements identified as being options for the focus of strategic development have been considered against the spatial strategy principles and sustainability criteria referenced above and through the Sustainability Appraisal. This means that the broad range of HELAA sites has effectively been narrowed down to the potential options for strategic development illustrated on the map below. Those HELAA sites that lie elsewhere in the district, perform poorly against the spatial strategy principles or are otherwise constrained have not been identified as options. It should be noted that only locations or opportunities for strategic development (rather than smaller, more local sites) are shown on this map. In the villages, within the rural sub-area, site options are not identified at this stage. Rather the options document focusses on identifying villages within which potential site opportunities for Local Plan-led development will be considered through close working with local communities (this is further explained in Chapter 8: Rural areas).
Figure 13: Map showing locations of strategic site options
The housing capacity of potential sites
4.36 The location options illustrated on the map are also listed in the table below. They are listed by sub-area and in order of their estimated housing development capacity, starting with the largest. The order in the table does not indicate a level of preference. Further information on the sustainability effects and climate impact of each of these location options is set out in the Sustainability Appraisal and Climate Impact Assessment which are available separately on the Council’s website. The Climate Impact Assessment outlines the comparative or relative likely carbon impact of the location options and is helpful in also identifying measures that could be undertaken to mitigate or reduce carbon impact. The performance of locations in terms of sustainability and climate impact also gives a useful indication as to how well they align with the Doughnut Economics Model. It should also be noted that the table below does not include brownfield sites within Bath, smaller ‘non-strategic’ sites that could be allocated in the Midsomer Norton area (see Chapter 7: Somer Valley) or sites that could be allocated at the most sustainable villages (see Chapter 8: Rural areas). These sites, alongside the location options below, would also contribute to meeting the need for new homes.
| Location option | Housing capacity (approx) |
|---|---|
| North Keynsham | 1,500 |
| Hicks Gate | 1,000 |
| South Saltford | 800 |
| East Radstock | 500 to 1,000 |
| North Radstock | 400 to 1,000 |
| East of Whitchurch Village | 500 |
| West and east of A37, Whitchurch | 500 |
| West Saltford | 500 |
| Farrington Gurney (north) | 500 |
| Farrington Gurney (south) | 500 |
| West Keynsham | 100 to 300 |
| Peasedown St John | 200 |
| East of Whitchurch Village | 150 |
| West of A37, Whitchurch | 150 |
| Central Keynsham | 40 to 100 |
4.37 A further option for strategic development in an area to the West of Bath has also been considered. As set out in the Bath chapter (Chapter 5: Bath and its environs) it is considered, at this stage that this option is unlikely to be included in the Draft Local Plan as assessment shows that development would be very likely to cause substantial harm to the World Heritage Site.
| Location option | Housing capacity |
|---|---|
| West of Bath | 500 to 1,000 |
4.38 The location options summarised in the table above are explored in greater detail in the place-based chapters that follow. Each of the options could play a role in helping to meet the identified overall housing and employment development requirements. We are seeking your comments on each of these location options and whether you consider they represent a good opportunity to address our need for housing and/or employment opportunities.
4.39 The location options listed and assessed (alongside other sites referenced in paragraph 4.31 above) will together comprise a District-wide approach or strategy in meeting development needs. The District-wide strategy will be set out in the Draft Local Plan published later in the year.
4.40 In order to inform the selection and preparation of the most appropriate spatial strategy the sustainability of different combinations of locations or strategy approaches across the District is tested through the Sustainability Appraisal.
4.41 The testing of different strategy approaches through the Sustainability Appraisal enables the likely sustainability effects and advantages and disadvantages of different approaches to be identified.
Different strategy approaches we are testing
4.42 The testing of different strategy approaches through the Sustainability Appraisal enables the likely sustainability effects and advantages and disadvantages of different approaches to be identified. We are testing four strategy approaches:
- Two approaches based around accommodating the standard method derived housing need (outlined in Chapter 3: Key requirements within B&NES):
- The first one with a higher reliance on Green Belt release to accommodate development (if justified by ‘exceptional circumstances’)
- The second one with a lower reliance on Green Belt release
- A third approach is tested that could potentially accommodate a higher level of growth (should this be necessary), requiring significant Green Belt release
- The fourth tested approach excludes any Green Belt release, and therefore accommodates a lower level of growth
We are seeking comments on:
- the individual location options (see questions in the place-based chapters, 5, 6, 7 and 8)
- the B&NES-wide spatial strategy which should be pursued in the Draft Local Plan
- the related role of the different sub-areas
Discussion questions
Question 1: The role of sub-areas
What role should different sub-areas play in accommodating new development and supporting infrastructure?
Question 2: Approach to distributing development to meet housing need
What approach to distributing development across B&NES should we follow?