Woodbine Gardens, Bannerdown Road, Batheaston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 8EG.

Our Response

The application is for ‘permission in principle’.

“The scope of permission in principle is limited to location, land use and amount of development. Issues relevant to these ‘in principle’ matters should be considered at the permission in principle stage. Other matters should be considered at the technical details consent stage. In addition, local authorities cannot list the information they require for applications for permission in principle in the same way they can for applications for planning permission.” (Reference ID: 58-012-20180615) (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/permission-in-principle) [accessed 9 July 2024].

The proposal site is located within the indicative setting of the World Heritage Site, the Bristol and Bath Green Belt, and the Cotswold National Landscape.

The site of the proposed dwelling is to the rear of the dwelling known as Woodbine Gardens on the western side of Bannerdown Road (the highway). Woodbine Gardens appears to date, in part, from the nineteenth century and has a relatively large residential curtilage.

The grain of built development to the west of the highway, is chiefly defined by a planned development of detached properties of the twentieth century (High Bannerdown). Green spaces also form the character in the vicinity of the proposal site. Woodbine Gardens is set towards the highway as are a cluster of a few buildings in its immediate vicinity.

The High Bannerdown development is not in the green belt and the proposal site is outside of the housing development boundary of Batheaston. With regard to the latter, it appears that policies RA1 and RA2 of the B&NES Council Core Strategy and Placemaking Plan incorporating the Local Plan Partial Update: Volume 1 – District-wide Strategy and Polices (Vol. 1) are not material to the determination of the application.

The proposed location of the dwelling does not respond to the historic grain and plot patterns of buildings in the National Landscape and Green Belt, that are outside of the village, and the housing development boundary. The proposed tandem development is contrary to policies D2 and D7 of Vol. 1.

Policy CP8 (Vol. 1) states that “The openness of the Green Belt will be protected from inappropriate development in accordance with national planning policy”.

The character of the landscape to the immediate north-east of the village is principally defined by open green spaces/field and a few buildings that are mainly lining the highway. In this context, the scheme appears contrary to policy NE2A (Vol. 1).

“The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence” (para. 142, the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2023) (NPPF).

“Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances” (para. 152, NPPF).

The NPPF directs Local Planning Authorities to regard the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt as inappropriate, subject to a number of exceptions (para. 154, NPPF). As the proposal site is outside the housing development boundary it can be regarded as not being in the village and therefore (e) of para. 154 is not applicable. As for (g), the officer will need to consider whether or not tandem development that is not in keeping with the grain of development outside of the village, will not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing.

In summary, there are concerns that development of this nature would be contrary to both national and local policy.