contact purdown.org
The following are planning policy documents to which the planners will refer when making their decisions. Ultimately, planners will be held accountable if their decisions diverge from from the balance of policy.
Friends of Purdown are opposing the above application on the grounds it:
Additionally, we maintain there has been Inadequate Planning Consultation for such a complex and contentious issue, and are pressing for more time and wider consultation.
*** this document is in progress (26/1/06) ***
This planning application covers areas of NE5 and Ne6. These are city wide and Wildlife Corridor classifications respectively.
LP:Chapter3:NE5(IV) - "Development which would harm the substantive nature conservation value of sites of citywide importance will not be permitted, except where the significance of the site for nature conservation is outweighed by the importance of the development." The key point here is that 97% sports classes can be provided onsite. Guideliness for new schools clearly state that sporting provision does not have to be onsite. This development is not 'necessary' but 'desired' by the LEA and Fairfield school
LP:Chapter3:NE6(I and II)
LP:Chapter10:L1 and L6
in particular, L6 states that Purdown
LP:3.1.7, 3.3.1, 3.3.4, 3.3.6,
LP:Chapter 10.4.20:"There are also many district and neighbourhood parks within the city which are very important to the local residents in the more urbanised parts of the city. The city council will protect such open spaces, and wherever possible seek to enhance and improve the range of facilities in the city’s parks and open spaces as appropriate to their size, catchment area and character."
The following sites are highlighted as priorities:–
...
(ii) Purdown/Stoke Park and
(iii) Frome Valley/Oldbury Court Estate:
To support therestoration of the historic landscapes
(RPG10:4.13)"While developed land within urban areas should be re-used, this process of urban regeneration must not be at the expense of adversely affecting necessary open spaces such as parks, playing fields, allotments, green wedges and river corridors, which contribute significantly to both biodiversity and quality of life within our towns and cities."
(RPG10:EN3)"Local authorities and other agencies in their plans, policies and proposals should:
• afford the highest level of protection to historic and archaeological areas, sites and monuments of international, national and regional importance;
(RPG10:6.13)"Access to existing and new leisure, recreation and cultural facilities and the rights of way network will require continued improvement ... However, activities need to be directed to sustainable locations and in ways that respect the agricultural, biodiversity, landscape and heritage value of the countryside." => Muller Road, not Purdown! (see next page
PPG17: 17. Local Authorities should:
i. avoid any erosion of recreational function and maintain or enhance the character of open spaces;
ii. ensure that open spaces do not suffer from increased overlooking, traffic flows or other encroachment; (e.g 5 meter high fence)
iii. protect and enhance those parts of the rights of way network that might benefit open space; and
v. consider the impact of any development on biodiversity and nature conservation.
PPG17: 20. In identifying where to locate new areas of open space, sports and recreational facilities, local authorities should:
ii. locate more intensive recreational uses in sites where they can contribute to town centre vitality and viability; (clear case for Muller Road development)
iii. avoid any significant loss of amenity to residents, neighbouring uses or biodiversity;
key point is that this planning application should have included a detailed comparison of the benefits of the alternative site, and a rationale for the selection of this site. The reason they have not is because it is a vastly superior proposal on virtually every count.
PROOF! (e.g. planning obligation, see below para 33 PPG17)
This proposal is at the expense of rejuventation of the Muller Road Recreational Ground. This is not a trade off between playing fields and open space, it is the acceptance of an inferior option for sporting provision.
Local, Regional and National Planning Guidelines:PPG17: Local authorities will be justified in seeking planning obligations where the quantity or quality of provision is inadequate or under threat, or where new development increases local needs. It is essential that local authorities have undertaken detailed assessments of needs and audits of existing facilities, and set appropriate local standards in order to justify planning obligations. Further advice to authorities on seeking planning obligations for open space, sports and recreational facilities is contained in the good practice guide associated with this guidance (see endnote 4).
=> Redland School needs? Other schools?
TBD (25/1/06)
More than 2,000 local residents, six residents associations, environmental groups, heritage groups, an MP, and many councilors across Bristol, including the leader of the cabinet and the head of the Dept. for Transport and Leisure have fought against this proposal for 18 months.
Access to the land and parking would be through fairfield school.
LEA report -> Muller Road is less contentious -> more community support. Less facilities -> more welcome.
PPG17: 24. In planning for new open spaces and in assessing planning applications for development, local authorities should seek opportunities to improve the local open space network, to create public open space from vacant land, and to incorporate open space within new development on previously-used land. They should also consider whether use can be made of land which is otherwise unsuitable for development, or procure public use of privately owned areas of land or sports facilities.
i.e. no procure private use of publically owned land
Muller Road rec. would be better for other schools, e.g. Redland.
"23. "...Planning obligations (see paragraph 33 below) should be used where appropriate to seek increased provision of open spaces and local sports and recreational facilities, and the enhancement of existing facilities. Where local facilities will attract people from a wider catchment, especially in urban areas, planning permission should not be granted unless they are located where they will be well served by public transport.
Audits of provision should encompass: ...
All primary and secondary schools and other educational institutions.
Redland School? Other schools? No audit has been carried out.
lp 2.3.8 - no litter
effect of access road?