Bathampton Meadow Scheme does not satisfy criteria for development of Green Belt

It is our opinion, supported by expert advice, that there is no case to recommend this Planning Application for approval. Following our review, we are confident that the recommendation will collapse under a legal challenge. The principal reasons for arriving at this conclusion are summarised below.

Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 2, amended by PPG 13, 3.17-3.20, Park and Ride

Paragraph 3.17 demands that 5 criteria must be met in order to develop a Park and Ride site within existing Green Belt. The pre-meeting briefing paper concludes that of these 5 criteria, 4 are met; the fifth is perceived to be satisfied by identifying ‘very special circumstances’ (paragraph 3.20). Our own review objectively concludes that of the 5 criteria, only one is met, as summarised below:

Criteria 1: A thorough assessment of potential sites has been carried out, including non-Green Belt sites, having regard to sustainable development objectives and the need to be flexible about size and layout.  Four areas are listed as potential sites; Lambridge (already rejected due to flooding issues), London Road West (also green belt and within flood zone and Cotswold AONB therefore immediately rejected), Bathford Bridge (similarly green belt and immediately rejected due to flood and Cotswold AONB issues) and the proposed site, Mill Lane. Of the four proposed sites, only one is stated to be viable and the remaining three have no potential and effectively there was no consideration of alternative sites.

The statistics for the direction of travel to the proposed eastern park and ride are significantly different from those used in the report and consultation stages, with an admission in the DCC briefing report (p. 53) that 46% would now come from North on the A46. Of the 43% that is estimated would come from south or east, no allowance is taken for those that would be better served using the A420 rather than the A4 through Box. With these statistics more than a half of traffic would be coming from further north and consequently the whole assumption of an eastern park and ride needing to be near the A46/London Road is misconceived. Consequently the Applicant has not considered suitable alternative sites outside the four listed in the report. A thorough assessment of potential sites has therefore not been undertaken.

Note also that the sites listed in the DCC briefing report are not the same sites that were originally listed by the Applicant for consideration. For example, a site at Charmy Down appeared in the original ‘site assessment’ review and yet the report states was only raised by the Parish Councils and objectors (p47). Charmy Down is large enough to accommodate the peak capacity required (the proposed site is not), could be expanded further in the future (the proposed site cannot), and laying to the north of the A4/A46 junction intercepts more traffic than the proposed site to the south. The required criteria have not been met.

Criteria 2: The Assessment establishes that the proposed Green Belt is the most sustainable option.  There is no evidence that this is the case and furthermore, the briefing paper states that this is not the case, without considering other sites that could be more sustainable, and save a significant number of miles per annum. The briefing paper states that the proposed site is the most sustainable with the exception of the London Rd west site. Queries raised with respect to site assessment under Criteria 1 similarly apply. The required criteria have not been met.

Criteria 3: The scheme would not seriously compromise the purposes of including land in the Green Belt.  The briefing paper acknowledges that the proposal contravenes 3 of 5 stated Green Belt purposes (preventing merging towns, preventing encroachment on countryside and preservation of the setting of historic towns and buildings). The paper goes on to conclude that these effects do not amount to the proposal compromising the purpose of Green Belt. This is not correct; it is a given fact that the proposal clearly compromises stated purposes of Green Belt. The required criteria are not met.

Criteria 4: The proposal is contained in the Local Transport Plan.  This proposal is not contained in the Local Transport Plan, as acknowledged by the Applicant. The required criteria is not met.

Criteria 5: Proposed new buildings are for essential facilities associated with the park and ride only.  From what is stated in the report it is likely that this criteria has been met.

Exception to PPG 2, ‘Very Special Circumstances’