WEST OF ENGLAND SUB -REGION REVIEW OF SPATIAL … areas 0404.pdf · 2.1 The growth of urban areas...

WEST OF ENGLAND SUB-REGION REVIEW OF SPATIAL STRATEGY TO 2021

INFORMATION REPORT

URBAN AREAS

April 2004

Joint Strategic Planning and Transportation Unit

G:\ADMIN\IT&GIS\ Internet\intelligencewest2\Inforeports temp\URBAN AREAS 0404.doc 2

URBAN AREAS 1. POLICY BACKGROUND AND DEFINITION

1.1 Bath, Bristol, and Weston-super-Mare are the Principal Urban Areas identified in the West of England by the Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (RPG10). For the purposes of this report the PUAs have been defined on the same basis as they were in the Urban Housing Capacity Studies (UHCSs) undertaken in this area in 2000/01 and in subsequent years. That is the area of contiguous development extending from the urban cores. The area designated ‘Bristol’ in fact contains the urbanised southern and eastern parts of South Gloucestershire adjoining Bristol City and containing the major part of that unitary authority’s population, employment and retail floor space. (To distinguish it from Bristol City it is referred to in this report as ‘Bristol PUA’). Weston-super –Mare was defined to exclude the Airfield and the former RAF Locking, these were be regarded as urban extensions in future policy work, bath excludes Batheaston, Bathampton and Bathford.

The smaller urban areas have also featured in these in UHCSs; these are

shown in Figure 1 and listed in Table 2 below. 1.2 RPG sees these PUAs as offering “the greatest potential for

accommodating change and growth in a sustainable way, promoting urban renaissance in environmental, economic and social terms, a good quality of life, access to a wide range of services and good public transport networks.” It does, however recognise that “recent trends of low density development in the urban fringe, leading to a substantial growth in car usage traffic and the loss of environmental assets, need to be reversed.” 1.3 RPG goes on to state that;

• PUAs are a high priority for new investment. • Development should be a positive force for change, facilitating

restructuring and re-generation, particularly of pockets of disadvantage …… and

• Should be located to take advantage of existing infrastructure, including public transport where there is spare capacity or where development can be created

• Communities should provide for mixed-use higher density development.

However, RPG does go onto warn that future requirements for housing employment and other uses is unlikely to be entirely met with the PUAs. Assessing this likely potential will need to be an important element in any review of the sub-regional spatial strategy. Figure 1 Urban Housing Capacity –The Study Areas


1.4 The general principles behind the Government’s Planning Policy Guidance Notes and Planning Policy Statements also emphasise that urban re-generation and the re-use of previously developed land are important supporting objectives for the overall creation of a more sustainable pattern of development. Guidance particularly pin points the role of the planning system in delivering “high quality mixed use developments, such as `urban villages’ usually built on large sites within urban areas and characterised by their compactness and mixture of uses and dwelling types. 1.5 Its more detailed policy guidance in areas such as transport, housing and town centres further emphasise

• forms of development, which encourage public transport use, walking and cycling, and reduce reliance on the private car.

• making the most effective use of land within urban areas by allocating the maximum amount of housing to previously developed sites with good access to facilities, and protecting open space

• the importance of city town and suburban centres in delivering sustainable development and the consequent need to enhance their viability.


1.6 The Locational Strategy of the Joint Replacement Structure Plan (JRSP) pursues this policy stance proposing to concentrate development for jobs, housing and other facilities within, and in accordance with Green Belt policies, immediately adjacent to the main urban areas of Bristol, Bath and Weston-super-Mare. It recognises the importance of developing the transport infrastructure and securing a better balance of housing and employment particularly in the North Fringe of Bristol, where more housing is needed, and at Weston-super-Mare, where more employment is required. As an example of the impact of these policies, the potential gross capacity for new housing in the urban areas, including such smaller towns as Portishead and Norton Radstock, was identified at 31,600 between 2000-11, some 84% of the estimated gross housing required in the whole Structure Plan area for that period. 1.7 More recently there has been a focus on core cities with Government seeing them as key units in its agenda for more prosperous regions across the country. Bristol City has been identified as one of these core cities, the hub of a developing city region covering the four unitary authorities and with a population now approaching nearly one million and generating 24% of the South West GDP (Gross Domestic Product). The core cities sub-mission details some of the developments that have taken place as well as some of those planned, emphasising the changing nature of urban areas as they respond to changing social and economic patterns. The continuing maintenance of the economic and social health of our main urban areas is therefore seen as essential for the wider prosperity of the sub-region. 1.8 This Information Report details how the urban areas have evolved over the last 30 years, setting out the changing policy framework, and more recent attempts to estimate urban housing capacity, as a basis for further consideration of the type of development changes that may evolve over the next 20-30 years. 2. EVOLVING URBAN STRUCTURES 1971-2001 2.1 The growth of urban areas in the JRSP area is testament to the fact that the definition of urban areas, including the RPG’s PUAs, can never be a static one. It will evolve over time as decisions are taken on the location of future development. 2.2 At 2001 the three PUA’s contained some 69.5% of the population in the JRSP area. The areas have have continued to grow outwards as population and households have increased. 1971-91 comparisons show the major expansion of the Greater Bristol and Weston-super-Mare urban areas in contrast to the very limited expansion around Bath, [ Figs 1, 2 and 3 and Table 1]. The largest proportionate growth in area has occurred at Weston-super-Mare, an estimated increase nearing 50%.


Figure 1 Growth of Bath Urban Area 1971-2001

Figure 2 Growth of Bristol Principal Urban Area 1971-2001

Figure 3 Growth of Weston Super Mare Urban Area 1971-2001


Table 1 Increase in Extent of Principal Urban Areas 1971 to 2001 (hectares) 1971 urban

area 2001 Urban area

Increase (ha) % increase

Bristol 11856 13091 1235 10.4% Bath 2251 2310 59 2.6 % WSM 1278 1898 620 48.6% 2.3 Population estimates for 1991-2001 show the differential growth that has taken place between and indeed within the PUAs (Table 2). The Bristol PUA has seen virtually no increase in population (+ 2,350). However, this overall figure conceals a recorded 4% decline in the population within the Bristol City boundaries at the 2001 Census and an increase of nearly 15% within the urbanised southern and eastern fringes of South Gloucestershire. However, an unaccounted loss in the Bristol population of around 17,000 at 2001 requires further investigation and the final picture may be one of a larger population increase across the Bristol PUA. Table 2 Population Change Urban Areas 1991-2001


URBAN AREAS

1991 GLA Population Estimates

2001 Census population All people

Change 1991-2001 %

Norton Radstock 20,286 21,325 1,039 5.1 Keynsham 15,588 15,533 -55 -0.4 BATH 84,694 83,992 -702 -0.8 BCC Bristol PUA 397,017 380,615 -16,402 -4.1 South Glos[ pt Bristol PUA] 128,131 146,886 18,755 14.6 BRISTOL PUA [total] 525,148 527,501 2,353 0.4 Thornbury (includes Tytherington) 13,582 13,647 65 0.5 Yate 32,366 34,418 2,052 6.3 Portishead 14,895 17,130 2,235 15.0 Clevedon 22,011 21,957 -54 -0.2 Nailsea 17,173 16,546 -627 -3.6 WESTON-SUPER-MARE 67,667 71,758 4,091 6.0 Source: Population Census Note: GLA-estimates prepared by the is Greater London Assembly Research Unit 2.4 Elsewhere the figures confirm the major developments at Weston-super-Mare and the lack of development at Bath. The patterns in the smaller urban areas reflect development over the decade, or in the majority of cases the lack of it. 2.5 The expansion of towns and cities through urbanisation and in particular significant new suburban development has taken place over the last century. However, over the last 20- 30 years predominantly residential uses have been accompanied by a mix of other uses, in a particular employment, on the edge of major towns and cities. These have been strongly linked to the growth of major roads and motorways to produce what has been termed ” edge of city urban spaces” in a recent publication which provides a useful analysis of urban change and is quoted in this section. (1) 2.6 The significant feature of such developments has been low overall development densities and dispersed often segregated uses, ill served by public transport as a result of development patterns. They were in part driven (1) Re-shaping the City - Christine Lambert and Ian Smith in Urban transformation and urban governance ed. Martin Boddy [ Policy Press University of Bristol]


by changes in the planning culture in the 1980s which facilitated more market driven development processes and are in complete contrast to the denser forms of development, compact urban areas and reductions in reliance on cars that are currently being promoted in national and local planning policies. In the case of the Bristol North Fringe these changes have been very important in providing new jobs in the main urban area and arguably have facilitated the restructuring of the local economy as it has moved away from declining manufacturing sectors and towards growing service sectors. 2.7 Set out below is a brief description of the more recent changes in urban structure, as referred to in para. 2.2 and shown in figs. 1,2and 3, with particular emphasis on the infrastructure which has influenced those changes. Bristol PUA 2.8 Major expansion has taken place:

• To the northwest, with the smaller settlements of Stoke Gifford and Patchway growing to become an integral part of the wider urban area, and the completion in the 1990s of a major development of 7,000 dwellings to form the new community at Bradley Stoke, population now around18,000. Since 1981 substantial associated mixed employment growth adjacent to the motorway system has also occurred amounting to nearly 30,000 jobs in the Bristol North Fringe, the vast part in the 1990s, an estimated 82% increase. Total jobs are now around 63,000 and JRSP policies seek a wider mix of land uses and a restriction on new employment sites

• At Cribbs Causeway, adjacent to M5 junction17, where there has been

continuos development over the last 20 years or so of a retail park and stores; a 53,000 sq.m. regional shopping centre was opened in 1998 after planning permission was granted on appeal

• On the east side of Bristol on the fringe of the older Kingswood urban

area; the areas around Oldland and Longwell Green, Cadbury Heath saw significant growth

• The north east of the conurbation with some 2500 dwellings completed

since 1997 to form the new community of Emersons Green on the south west side of the Avon Ring road, with some newer employment close to the M4 on the north east side of the Avon Ring Road.

2.9 Over the 30 plus years since 1971 these developments have been supported by a significant amount of infrastructure investment and this has added to the accessibility of the whole area and made it such an attractive area for growth. At the start of the 1970’s the motorway system was still in its emerging infancy, without both an M5 Avon crossing and the final piece of the


M32 link to Bristol City Centre. The motorway was not only completed through Somerset and to the South West, providing a new link from Weston-super-Mare to the Greater Bristol area, but a new 5.2 km. Severn M4 motorway crossing was opened in 1996 some 14 years after the original study was initiated. The latter provides significantly improved all weather access to South Wales and forms part of the European Strategic Route Network 2.10 This motorway system not only provides excellent links to markets in the Midlands, South East, Wales and Southwest, but also has become an important intra urban motorway box around the Bristol Urban Area. In the eyes of the Highways Agency in particular, this has reduced its effectiveness as an inter-urban motorway linking the South West to the Midlands and the South East. Nevertheless, It has invariably had a two pronged effect in extending the accessibility of jobs in the area to people living outside and conversely in widening the choice of housing outside the area to those currently living and working within in it, lengthening journeys and resulting in less sustainable travel patterns. 2.11 The development of non motorway roads in the Bristol urban area through this period has focussed on the Avon Ring Road, A4174, linking the A4 at Keynsham to the M32 at Hambrook and the A38 at Filton. Whilst sections in south-east Bristol were constructed from the late 1970s onwards the final link in South Gloucestershire was not completed until 2002, again emphasising the long term nature of these schemes. A further section linking South Bristol through to the A 38 and A370 was not progressed although the route has remained safeguarded in local plans. The Avon Ring Road has, however, been the other key link in the evolving structure of the area, opening up the North Fringe to development by providing an important orbital traffic artery serving these developing areas. 2.12 There has also been major investment in rail facilities in this North Bristol area. A major new station at Parkway adjacent to Stoke Gifford opened in 1972 providing faster services to London, and another one at Abbey Wood opened in the mid 1990s specifically provided for traffic resulting from the re-location of the MoD Procurement Agency . An increased number of services, particularly to London and South Wales and more recently to Birmingham and the South West have also formed part of this developing inter urban rail infrastructure serving the area. Weston-super-Mare 2.13 Weston-super-Mare is the other PUA, which has experienced extensive growth over the past 30 years, but mainly residential.

• The earlier developments at Worle have continued northwards towards the hamlet of Ebdon, which now forms the northern boundary of the built up area, and south towards the Weston-super-Mare loop of the Bristol – Exeter railway.


• In the last 10 years development has extended east towards St Georges and West Wick and Junction 21 of the M5 and south of the railway as part of the Locking Castle development which at the time of its allocation in the early 1980’s had an estimated capacity of 6,200 dwellings. Limited employment growth has accompanied these developments, estimated at around 7500 jobs between 1981-2001, a 31% increase, although many of these will have been in supporting services and retailing. This is seen as a weakness of the Weston-super-Mare economy, increasing the propensity to travel outside the area. Current JRSP policies now put emphasis on increased local employment and significant improvement to public transport links to support new housing .

2.14 The development of the road infrastructure has again supported this growth. The M5 motorway was eventually opened in the 1970’s and now forms the eastern boundary of development and provides relatively easy communication to Bristol, the North Fringe and beyond as well as south to Taunton. The completion in the mid 1990’s of the Primary Distributor Road linking the M5 at the A370 junction to Weston-super-Mare and running parallel to some of the main development areas has aided this movement. The investment in rail infrastructure has however been more limited. The loop line to Weston-super-Mare was singled in the late 1970’s and is now a major barrier to improved frequency of services. A new station was opened at Worle in 1990 but without the frequency of services it has had limited success in attracting custom. Bath 2.15 In contrast to Weston-super-Mare and the wider Bristol urban area, the City of Bath has seen little outward expansion over the past 30 years – a facet of planning policies to protect the historic heritage of the city and to preserve its unique setting through the use of Green Belt policies. This has meant little land, allocated at the urban fringes for development. As a consequence small pockets of development have taken place within and on the edge of Bath. The biggest of these have been the growth of the University of Bath at its Claverton Down site on the east of the city and some 350 dwelling at Odd Down on the southern edge of the city. Despite this limited physical growth employment is estimated to have increased by some 6,600 between 1981-2001 (15%). The northeast side of the city has seen the biggest investment in road infrastructure with the Government’s building of the Batheaston by-pass linking the A4 from the east with the A46 towards the M4. This does not however, directly serve any significant development, or directly improve accessibility to Bath City Centre. However, investment in transport infrastructure has seen the establishment of Park and Ride sites at Lansdown, Odd Down, Newbridge and at Claverton Down where operational periods are more limited.


Other Urban Areas 2.16 Whilst current RPG and Joint Replacement Structure Plan policies focus development in and immediately adjacent to the main urban areas this was not the focus in the 1970s and 1980s when there was a more diverse and dispersed pattern of urban growth. Before the establishment in 1974 of the now deceased Avon County Council, Somerset and Gloucestershire County Councils also focused significant development on such smaller towns at Clevedon, Nailsea and Portishead in North Somerset, Keynsham and the Radstock/Paulton area in B&NES and in Thornbury and Yate in South Gloucestershire, Yate was in effect a new town. The facilities of all these centres improved and expanded to meet the additional population but apart from Yate there was little significant expansion of employment. Under current policies there is no significant provision for further expansion in these towns apart from at Portishead as part of a major brownfield development for the former docks and power station sites. 3. PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL REGENERATION IN THE OLDER URBAN AREAS 3.1 However, this evolving structure focussed on the fringes of our urban areas has been accompanied by major changes taking place at the core. Many of the employment and transport uses established during the rapid industrialisation in the 19th and early 20th centuries were in decline as the older manufacturing sector declined, uses in the traditional central area of large towns and cities closed down or relocated to meet new space and access needs, public utilities were restructured, and Britain moved to an office based service economy and distribution systems became road based, centred around the motorway network. The infrastructure and housing stock which supported this manufacturing economy was also in need of modernisation in many areas. These changes were reflected locally with docks, railway yards, warehouses, and older industrial sites falling into disrepair in Bristol and on a smaller scale in Bath. In Weston-super-Mare the decline of the British seaside holiday left the whole tourism industry and its infrastructure struggling to adapt to a changed market. 3.2 This restructuring of the pattern of economic and social activities has ultimately led to opportunities to change individual land uses in the urban areas and, on a larger scale, significant geographic sectors of cities. However whilst some private, and public investment, was already being attracted into the most desirable and attractive areas, for example the Bristol Docklands, and whilst there were other programmes focussed on the older urban areas, for example improvement programmes targeted at significant parts of the inner area housing stock, it has needed a major shift in public policies to give the major urban areas the policy focus they now have.


3.3 These policies were not simply aimed at the physical changes. Increased personal mobility, the decentralisation of population, the marginalisation of social rented housing, and the loss of traditional sources of employment and a low skills and educational base has resulted in increasing concentrations of deprivation amongst the populations of some of the bigger cities and towns, not all of which was focussed on the older areas. 3.4 From the 1980s onwards there was a significant shift in thinking on the future of major urban areas. However, it was the 1990s that brought wider policy changes aimed at restricting some urban edge development. There was a gradual realisation that out- of- town development and in particular major shopping centres and business parks were in danger of undermining the city centre cores of the main urban areas, and the urban areas themselves, as much needed development investment was sucked out to the edge. 3.5 The 1996 Planning Policy Guidance Note PPG6: Town Centres provided new guidance on promoting mixed-use development in town centres, and identifying sites for that development to take place, as a key component in maintaining urban vitality whilst limiting future provision of out of centre that regional shopping centres with over 50,000 sq.m gross floor space. 3.6 In 1998 Planning for the Communities of the Future re-enforced this emphasis on the urban areas by initiating a sequential approach to development with a general first preference to building on previously developed sites, especially in urban areas and increasing the proportion of homes to be built on brownfield land from 50%-60% over 10 years. However, it also recognised that this was not simply an issue about recycling previously developed land and that attracting people back into towns and cities and persuading others from leaving meant tackling “the range of problems in housing, crime, education, and transport” . The emphasis was on creating new urban villages on large brownfield sites which would provide jobs, shops, public transport, health and schooling. 3.7 PPG3: Housing published in March 2000 re-emphasised the clear priority to the re-use of previously developed land and vacant buildings within urban areas for housing in preference to the development of greenfield sites and requested that all planning authorities undertake urban housing capacity studies. Overarching aims were to create a wider housing opportunities and a better mix of housing types and locations and consequently the creation of more mixed communities. Allied to this land use approach was an increasing emphasis on social and economic regeneration promoted through a variety of urban programmes. Bristol 3.8 This urban focus has been reflected in a number of important ways altering the structure of towns and cities. Urban Development Corporations (UDCs) were the principal flagship of urban policy in the 1980s the intention was to introduce a faster and more commercially sensitive approach to urban


regeneration levering-in private sector investment. The Bristol UDC, covering some 360 hectares, was designated in 1989, and closed in 1995. It covered an area from Temple Meads to St. Philips Marsh, traditionally the city’s industrial backyard, and extended into the Upper Avon valley, an area of derelict industrial land. UDCs in general were criticised for their focus on property led regeneration to the exclusion of the social dimension. The Bristol one was not welcomed by the local authorities, a problem when the ability to establish good partnership arrangements was later seen as a significant determinant of a UDC’s success. Nevertheless, it built a Spine Road across its development area, negotiated housing developments in the upper Avon Valley, and laid the foundation stone for what was later to become the Temple Quay commercial development, providing 87,000 sq.m of office accommodation on full completion. 3.9 This development is outside the traditional central core. Many of the moves to Temple Quay represented a re-location of existing organisations from the older City Centre. However alongside this re-structuring there has been a major diversification of uses in the older City Centre area with vacated office accommodation being utilised for hotels, restaurants, clubs and bars and importantly for a growing amount of residential accommodation. Some 71,800 sq. m gross of offices is estimated to have transferred to other uses between 1996- 2001, in effect resulting in a 17,200 sq.m. net loss of office floor space. However, many of the changed uses will have provided a new range of employment particularly in the leisure sector, as well as increasing the attractions of the City Centre. As a result it is probable that overall employment levels in the area have remained steady and may have increased slightly. 3.10 Other restructuring is taking place in and around the Central area providing a mix of housing and commercial uses in such areas as Redcliffe North, and in the final stage of the Harbourside development now about to begin. Earlier advice from DTZ Pieda Consulting, however, stated that demand for residential accommodation was driven by the ability to secure additional value over office developments and that such factors as contaminated sites or unrealistic requirements for affordable housing could affect development prospects. In the Bristol Central area in particular consultants advice pointed to a market limit of some 200-300 dwellings a year for the type of accommodation these type of sites are likely to generate. Major sites in the older and outer suburbs are also being redeveloped in the main for housing as such activities as schools, further and higher educational institutions, and hospitals are restructured. In addition to these more significant sites the urban policy emphasis has led to a significant increase in housing completions on smaller brownfield infill sites with capacities between 1 to 30 dwellings. 3.11 The need to safeguard the core of the urban area, expand its attractions, and stem possible decline arising from competition from the out of town Cribbs Causeway Regional Shopping Centre, and other regional centres, led to a 2002 approval for a significant extension to the City Centre


Broadmead shopping centre. Some 97,000 sq.m gross of new retail floorspace is proposed, which allowing for demolitions, would lead to an additional 40,500 sq.m net of additional durable shopping floorspace. The mix of uses are expected to meet the rising demand for shopping space in the wider Bristol area. 3.12 As a general rule, and apart from the redevelopment for offices in the Central Area, older industrial sites in the central and inner areas and the other older areas of the wider Bristol area, such as Kingswood, have transferred to , or been proposed for, housing and other uses and have not been recycled for new distribution and light manufacturing/ industrial service uses. Re-locations have generally taken place to Greenfield sites on the urban edge e.g.Emerald Park Emersons Green, and Avonmouth, where space requirements can be met, road access is considerably better, and where in some instances land values may be lower. The land at Avonmouth currently represents the vast bulk of Bristol’s employment land available for development. 3.13 The Hartcliffe area of South Bristol, dominated by social rented housing, is one of the few examples of a major regeneration project outside of the central/inner areas involving the City Council and South West Regional Development Agency, focussed on the three major sites of the former Wills Factory (Imperial Park), Hengrove Park and the Hartcliffe Secondary School Campus. Emerging proposals, include several hundred new dwellings, a new leisure centre, a new remodelled secondary school, with additional jobs being focussed on and adjacent to Imperial Park with a mixture of non food retail, commercial, leisure and industrial development. Within the Urban Framework area a total of up to 3000 jobs are expected to be created. Earlier developments in the late 1990s at Hengrove Park saw leisure developments with a new multi-screen cinema, a hotel and restaurant being built. Bath 3.14 In Bath the scale of recent restructuring in the urban area has been on a far smaller scale than in Bristol, primarily because

• it is a much smaller city, • there is much greater emphasis on preserving its historical heritage

and unique setting, • the scale of defunct older industrial land and buildings is much less

and • the major known opportunities have yet to be realised

3.15 The Western Riverside Regeneration Area is currently the major site

proposed for housing and employment in Bath. Within an area of some 39 ha there are proposals for up to 1,500 dwellings up to 2016, 900 of which are already assumed to be built by 2011, a significant amount of commercial floorspace, limited retail and leisure uses and community facilities. Redevelopment partners include the Council, its Master Developer Partner and the South West Regional Development Agency. It is anticipated that the provision of a major new business area at Western Riverside will result in inward investment and may also lead to some office relocations from the City


Centre and possibly the type of restructuring seen in Bristol City Centre although as yet there is no official start date for this redevelopment project.

3.16 Other known locations where redevelopment is anticipated are the

18.7 ha MoD site at Foxhill, and smaller industrial sites and the St. Martins hospital site, all anticipated to yield a mix of development. 3.17 There has been understandable concern about the continuing loss of jobs from the Ministry of Defence and the industrial sector in particular and the consequent need to retain employment sites. However, national job statistics indicated no real overall job loss up to 2001 largely because of an increase in such areas distribution, hotels and restaurants, public administration and some areas of manufacturing. In effect the employment profile of the city is changing with the rapid expansion of such major areas as higher education. 3.18 Like Bristol plans have been approved, subject to completion of a planning agreement, for the redevelopment of the Southgate Shopping Centre covering around 5 ha. This will double retail floor space, provide a new public transport interchange, incorporating the bus station and the approach to the rail station, 90 dwellings, leisure uses, car parking, and a small amount of offices. The Bath Spa project adjacent to Southgate is also expected to provide some 200 to 300 jobs and make an important contribution to the local economy when it opens. Weston-super-Mare 3.19 Weston-super-Mare is the smallest of the PUAs and one perhaps most affected by the major developments on its urban edge close to the M5 motorway. These have been large in relation to the existing urban area. There is an ageing tourist infrastructure of old hotels and leisure facilities and regeneration activity has largely been focussed on these although with limited results to date, with some hotels being converted, in whole or part, for housing. The regeneration issues are those associated with the decline of a traditional seaside resort. 3.20 However, an important seafront development project has been approved for the Tropicana site to provide new leisure facilities, including a multi-screen cinema and indoor leisure pool. Proposals are also being formulated for the redevelopment of Knightstone Island on behalf of the Redrow Group. The proposals include the restoration and conversion of existing listed buildings in a mix of residential and commercial uses. 3.21 A wider regeneration theme has been promoted in ‘ A New Vision For Weston’ , an initiative from North Somerset Council, the South West Regional Development Agency, and English Partnerships and published in September 2002. Over 20 years this outline strategy aims to produce a rejuvenated waterfront and town centre, and employment led re-generation of the Locking area outside of the current defined built up area with additional housing on the Locking site, and on the edge sites of Weston Airfield, also outside of the currently defined urban area.


3.22 Advice from DTZ Pieda for an earlier urban housing capacity study did, however, express doubts as to whether residential demand, now focussed on sites close to the M5 on the fringes of the urban area, could be translated into demand within the inner and central areas unless the economic base of the town could be strengthened and unless the perception of a poor central/inner area housing market could be overcome. A start has been made with Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) funding for central area projects. DTZ also felt that significant interest in the development of the central areas was unlikely until more certainty existed over transport improvements and the future of the Locking and Weston Airfield areas. In the medium to longer term the stimulation of employment at either of these two fringe locations could act as a catalyst in stimulating mixed use town centre development if undertaken as part of a wider strategy and designed to tackle housing, social and community issues. The Vision document acknowledges the need to balance development at Locking with the need to invest in the town centre; the phasing of any edge development will therefore be critical in determining the impact on the waterfront and town centre. Transport 3.23 Transport improvements in the older central and inner areas of the main urban areas have in the main focussed on improving accessibility to the city centres and managing traffic to improve the environment for pedestrians and to release road space for prioritising public transport. These improvements have been seen as key in sustaining and strengthening existing commercial and retailing uses and in enabling development opportunities to be realised If the older parts of the urban areas are to continue to compete with edge of urban area development. 3.24 In Bristol since 1996

• a Park & Ride site at Avonmouth has complemented existing sites at Brislington and Long Ashton; a further site is being considered at Bedminster Down on the South West of the city; there continues to remain a gap in provision on the important corridor to the North Fringe but the proposed de-trunking of the M32 may offer opportunity to address this if it can be linked to new transport interchange sites

• A bus showcase route has been established on the A38 corridor through the City Centre from South to North Bristol linking into similar improvements being planned by South Gloucestershire on the same corridor

• Within the City Centre itself a whole series of traffic management measures have been introduced to discourage non essential traffic

• Some upgrading of passenger interchange facilities has taken place at Bristol Temple Meads Station whilst proposals have been approved for the redevelopment of the Bristol Bus and Coach Station.

Reliance was being placed on the development of a Light Rapid Transit system to produce a step change in accessibility to and within the Bristol Central Area, linking initially to the Bristol North Fringe. However, this project


is now unlikely to proceed and new schemes will be needed if transport investment is to support the restructuring of already congested urban areas. 3.25 In Bath the emphasis has been on implementing key strategic measures aimed at reducing City Centre traffic in Bath and creating improvements for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. Four park and ride sites currently exist around the City the most recent one at Odd Down opening in 1996. Finance is being generated for a new Lambridge Park and Ride site on the east side of Bath City Centre. The Deposit Draft Local Plan also safeguards a line for a rapid transit facility linking the Newbridge area with Bath City Centre and serving the proposed Western Riverside redevelopment. There is continuing concern on the impact of A46/A36 traffic flows through the City and the de-trunking of both of these roads. A Government backed study of Bristol/Bath to South Coast Routes has now been published and has recommended proposals for a new A46/A36 link which might take more traffic out of Bath. Further consideration will now be given to these proposals. 3.26 In Weston-super-Mare transport improvements focussed on the central/inner areas have been more limited although The Primary Distributor Road has improved access to the centre/seafront areas.. A new ‘bus focus’ has also been established but the main concern are schemes that would contribute to the wider objective of reducing car based out commuting including the re- doubling of the rail line between Weston-super–Mare and Worle; currently there appears to be little Strategic Rail Authority priority to funding such a scheme 3.27 Attempts to improve accessibility between the centre of the three main urban areas by improving heavy rail links has been difficult to achieve under a fragmented rail system where significant investment remains scarce. The view of the SRA appears to be that bus based commuting should be considered as an alternative but this ignores the very real problems of creating dedicated road space either on congested central/inner area road system or indeed on the road systems outside the PUAs. Social Regeneration 3.28 From the late 1990’s onwards there has been increased recognition that urban regeneration was not simply about physical regeneration. The Urban Task Force, chaired by Lord Rogers, published its report in 1999 and emphasised the long term nature of any urban renaissance stating that there was no single quick solution” for many years of disinvestments and relative decline”. It looked to Government to make a landmark statement on the future of towns and cities. 3.29 The Government response was its Urban White Paper, Our Towns and Cities: the future, published in November 2000, the first urban white paper for 23 years. It acknowledged that urban policies and urban renaissance were ‘not just about bricks and mortar, but about improving peoples prosperity and


quality of life’. A range of government policies were to be brought together and focused on the multi-faceted problems that face a large number of the inner areas of towns and cities and which were making urban areas less attractive places to live and were contributing the decline of those areas and to the drift of population to the edge of urban areas. Policies were to be co-ordinated at national, regional and local level and a new urban policy unit was to be established. The Regional Development Agencies were to have extra resources to stimulate economic growth and more flexibility on how to use them. 3.30 The urban white paper recognised that improving the quality of life was of key importance and that improvements were needed in key services- education, health care, policing, housing and transport as well as culture, leisure and sport. Additional spending was promised for public services. There were to be new financial incentives for investing in property in poorer areas; 12 new urban regeneration companies were to be established to improve the housing and planning environment in designated areas; changes were promised to the Compulsory Purchase Order system to provide local authorities with new CPO regeneration powers much closer to those previously vested in development corporations. 3.31 The Index of Multiple Deprivation, Figure 4, incorporates six indices covering income, employment, health deprivation and disability, education skills and training, housing, and geographical access to services. It clearly identifies the urban focus of the most deprived wards in the JRSP area and the consequent focus of many of the regeneration initiatives. Most of these wards fall within Bristol and are concentrated in:

• the inner area around Lawrence Hill and Ashley, to the east of the Bristol Central Area, extending north eastwards to the wards of Lockleaze, Eastville, Hillfields

• in the south starting beyond the inner area at Knowle and fanning outwards to wards on the southern edge of the city

• the housing estates on the north west edge In Weston-super- Mare, Ellenborough and the South Wards are highlighted and Twerton in Bath. 3.32 Government funded initiatives since the late 1990s have been largely focussed in these areas and mainly targeted at Bristol. For example in 1998 Bristol was selected as a pathfinder in the first round of the Government’s New Deal for Communities initiative and ‘Community at Heart’ was established in area covering Barton Hill, Lawrence Hill, Redfield and the Dings and some £50 million has been committed over 10 years. Bristol was the only authority in the West of England area, and in the RPG Northern sub region, identified as one of the most deprived 88 local authority districts in the country for the purposes of the Governments later Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy aimed at tackling multiple deprivation in the most deprived neighbourhoods. Copnsequently a number of areas have since benefited since 2001/02 from funding from the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund including south west Bristol,


Lawrence Hill, Ashley and Easton in the the inner wards and parts of Hillfields, Lockeaze, Southmead and Kingsweston on the edges of the city. Figure 4 Index of Multiple Deprivation

3.33 Earlier Single Regeneration Budget funding has also been targeted at Bristol together with projects in South West Bath, Central Weston-super-Mare and the smaller urban area of Radstock. Objective 2 money from the European Union has also been use for projects in Bristol. The financial incentives highlighted in the Urban White Paper and announced in November 2002 have been focused on 2000 Enterprise Areas . Wards covered in the West of England area are

• Bristol –the inner wards of Ashley, Easton, and Lawrence Hill; the outer wards of Lockleaze, Southmead, and Kingsweston in the north-west of the city and Whitchurch Park, Bishopsworth, and Hartcliffe in the south together with the middle wards of Filwood and Knowle in the south.

• Weston-Super-Mare in North Somerset in the South and Ellenburgh wards.

3.34 There is therefore a clear overlap in the focus of many of these social and economic regeneration initiatives with the emphasis on broad range of measures contributing to incremental renewal, sometimes demolishing poor quality hard to let housing, and replacing it with a better mix as well as improving a whole range of local services. Major physical redevelopments


involving have been confined to extensive areas of derelict or vacant land and buildings, for example the Bristol Docklands, proposals for Western Riverside in Bath, or in the case of South Bristol proposals to redevelop surplus open space. 4. FUTURE RESTRUCTURING OF URBAN AREAS 4.1 Planning policies and formal Government intervention have therefore interacted with the market to change the structure of the urban areas in the West of England over time as described above. The key task is to assess

• the likely pattern of the restructuring of the urban areas over the next 20 years,

• its impact on those urban areas particularly in regenerating them and providing communities where people will choose to live,

• how much this restructuring can contribute to the development needs of the wider sub regional area, and

• how much it might be shaped and influenced by planning policies and the interventions of other agencies to produce positive outcomes within given timeframes rather than relying solely on the actions of the market.

4.2 The pressure to achieve targets for total housing numbers or to maximise the proportions of housing provided by previously developed land and buildings should not outweigh all other planning objectives. New housing may help to reduce social exclusion and stress, support local services, enhance the vitality of urban areas, reduce the need to travel and encourage the use of travel modes other than the car. It may also make a positive contribution to renewing the built fabric, removing dereliction or otherwise improving the local environment. 4.3 However, new housing is one of only a multitude of land uses which will be needed to create and sustain urban areas. There is a need to maintain and expand the employment and retail base of these areas as change takes place in the commercial sector. Provision also needs to be made for leisure uses and open spaces, as well as educational and health facilities. The need for improved movement also needs to be provided for if the effectiveness of urban areas is not to be damaged by increasing congestion. 4.4 Urban housing capacity studies have been undertaken in the JRSP area as a means of responding to housing needs and as a tool of urban renewal, identifying both places where people will want to live, and those areas which are required for other uses. Sites have been identified in these studies as suitable for housing on the basis of balanced judgements about their suitability and feasibility, not simply to maximise the assessment of urban housing capacity. Qualitative issues have been important considerations. These include: • social impacts (e.g. the availability of local services and impacts on the

local community); • economic impacts (e.g. the demand for competing land uses);


• environmental impacts (e.g. the need to retain urban open spaces or significant buildings); and

• impacts on local infrastructure (e.g. known limitations in the capacity of utilities or adequacy of local roads and public transport facilities).

4.5 Finally whilst the term housing “capacity” is generally used, the results of these studies may be better described as housing “potential”. They are not an absolute maximum limit. Processes of urban change, which create new opportunities for housing, are dynamic and views on “capacity” or “potential” will change. The studies can only identify what seems desirable and feasible at the present for implementation over the next 10 or 15 years.

Current Urban Housing Capacity Studies 4.6 The 2001 Urban Housing Capacity Study, with an April 2000 base date, showed a potential of 31600 dwellings in all the identified urban areas between 2000-2011, approximately 84% of the gross additional housing still required in the JRSP area at that time. This subsequently formed the basis of revised structure plan policies. The urban areas by Unitary Authority were: • Bath and North East Somerset

Bath PUA; Keynsham; Norton Radstock • Bristol City

Bristol PUA (part) • North Somerset

Weston-super-Mare PUA; Clevedon; Nailsea; Portishead • South Gloucestershire

Bristol PUA (part); Thornbury; Yate/Chipping Sodbury These studies were updated by the four Unitary Authorities in 2002 and an analysis of the results provides an insight both into the nature of this urban potential and allows an initial assessment of future potential. 4.7 At April 2002 there was an estimated potential for some 29400 dwellings up to 2011 on sites and in buildings in all the urban areas, an average supply of around 3260 a year. Around 24300 of this (83%) was to be found in the three PUAs, with three quarters of the remainder in the other towns of North Somerset primarily in the regeneration area at Portishead centred on the former power station and docks . Of the PUA’s 2002-11 identified dwelling potential, 18300 (62%) lay in the Bristol PUA (of which 6800 was in South Gloucestershire), 3900 (13%) in Weston-super-Mare and 2100 (7%) in Bath. These totals are equivalent to 5.5 years, 1.1 years, and 0.6 years supply respectively at the average annual dwelling requirement rate for the whole structure plan area, 7.2 years in total.


Table 3 Urban Housing Potential 2002-2011

Unitary Authority / Area Potential dwelling Numbers 2002-2011 % of total

BATH AND NORTH EAST SOMERSET Bath PUA 2065 7 Keynsham / Norton-Radstock 383 1 BRISTOL CITY Bristol PUA (part) 11587 39 NORTH SOMERSET Weston-Super-Mare PUA 3925 13 Clevedon/Nailsea/Portishead 4405 15 SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE Bristol PUA (part) 6750 23 Thornbury/Yate/Chipping Sodbury 266 1

TOTAL 29381 100 Source: Unitary Authorities Urban Housing Capacity Studies 4.8 The source of this supply provides some important pointers to potential beyond the 2011 end of the current structure plan period , paragraphs 4.9 to 4.21 makes an initial assessment of these. For all the urban areas the biggest sources in descending order are: • Vacant, previously developed land or buildings 35% • Vacant land not previously developed 22% • Redevelopment of other uses incl. car parks 19%

excl. housing (of which 1% is car parks) • Intensification in existing areas (small sites) 13% • Redevelopment of existing housing 5% • Conversion of commercial buildings 2% • Other (sub division of existing housing, 4% flats over shops, empty homes) 4.9 Vacant previously developed land or buildings are the sites that have fallen out of use and currently form the largest source category containing some of the biggest sites which have made, or will make, a significant contribution to housing supply e.g. areas on the fringes of the Bristol Central Area such as Cannons Marsh at Harbourside, and Temple Quay North (500), Western Riverside Bath (1500), Filton Aerodrome Northfield (2200), Portishead Power Station and Docks (c.3500). In the main they consist of former industrial and transport land. The scale of these sites and the pace at


which they can be brought forward for development will mean that many will continue to provide housing post 2011but then the stock as currently identified will be exhausted. 4.9 Such large vacant sites are largely the results of past major industrial restructuring and have resulted from a delay in redeveloping existing urban uses which have fallen into decline and subsequently ceased. Such restructuring will undoubtedly continue to occur and similar sized sites may become available in the future but the timing, location and subsequent mix of redevelopment are very difficult to predict with any certainty and therefore very difficult to factor into an estimate of future urban housing potential. The lead in time for such developments also tends to be significant, not least because of the often fragmented pattern of land ownerships and the costs of site reclamation. Some of the current sites will have been vacant, or in a state of growing disuse for perhaps some 20 –30 years. 4.10 Future housing contributions from this source might come from a further review of vacant sites which had been previously been designated for other uses. However, if significant potential from such a source is to be repeated in the future there would, in effect, be a need to identify current existing uses, which are in a state of decline perhaps with falling floorspace occupancies and/or a scattering of unused land and buildings, and which occupy a wider area than a plot or even street frontage. Areas of search might include transitional areas in towns and cities where traditional land uses were declining, perhaps on the fringes of town/city centres, for example around railway stations where much of the old industrial and commercial economy was built and buildings are unsuited to modern day usage, and major land holders where industrial or public utility restructuring might be anticipated. In effect these could be the urban villages of the next decade. 4.11 Vacant land not previously developed formed an estimated 22% of urban housing capacity (nearly 6400 dwellings) . However, this figure is largely accounted for by the way the urban areas have grown and were subsequently defined in the UHCSs. Growth did not simply spread gradually from the inner urban edge towards the motorways; development, much of it employment, took place adjoining the motorway network at an earlier stage, effectively forming and defining the new urban area boundary. The vacant never previously developed land, i.e. greenfield sites, were the result of local plan allocations for housing adjoining the existing urban area, and within this outer boundary. Development of these sites has been gradual and is estimated to continue up to 2011. This process explains the differential importance of this source between for example Weston-Super-Mare, where it made up 59% of potential and Bristol PUA and Bath where it formed 18% and 17% respectively. 4.12 What this in effect means is that such large greenfield potential cannot be assumed to make a contribution to future estimates of potential housing within existing urban areas beyond 2011, the end of the current plan period. On the basis of the 2002-2011 composition of supply within the PUAs this


would effectively reduce that supply by 24% i.e an average of c. 650 dwellings a year on 2002-2011 rates. Whilst some smaller areas of redundant undeveloped land may be identified, PPG3 is quite clear that “developing more housing in urban areas should not mean building on urban green spaces”. Significant new Greenfield additions will for the next plan period only really arise as urban extensions. 4.13 The current UHCSs also identified housing potential from the redevelopment of existing uses, where it was known or felt that the use was going to cease at some stage, or where existing users simply wished to restructure and/or redevelop surplus land and buildings whilst continuing to function on the site. This source of land amounted to 19% of the total potential for additional urban housing up to 2011, an average of 630 a year. Some examples include hospital sites, Government buildings such as the Bath MOD sites, further and higher education sites and schools. However, the potential envisaged to arise from car parks was small, outside of those where they formed a temporary use prior to redevelopment. In city/town centres car parks, both surface and multi-storey car parks were seen as important in maintaining the commercial, retail and tourist functions; on higher value sites it would be possible to envisage redevelopment for other uses incorporating car parking. 4.14 Many redevelopment sites were however, small and medium sized sites such as garages, hotels, builders yards, many of which will arise outside of any structured pattern, and which currently form an important part of normal brownfield windfall development. For example in Bristol City in 2002/03 it is estimated that about 60% of total large and small site dwelling completions came from sites with a capacity of 30 dwellings and under and over 50% of these were on infill sites of 10 and less dwellings (see para. 4.21 below). 4.15 This whole category is therefore perhaps the most difficult to assess and double counting of future vacant site capacity needs to be avoided. The smaller sites are likely to be very dependent on the economics of the housing market at any point in time. Identification of sources also relies on an understanding of the processes of urban change and an awareness of likely changes in social, economic and physical infrastructure within the urban areas as some activities are replaced by others. Such changes will take place as a result of economic change, including major business reorganisations, the effects of competition, changing social structures leading to redundant community buildings, greater mobility and access to facilities, and the rationalisation of services provided by central and local government in areas such as health, education and defence. Some of these changes will be under the direct control of local government whilst others can only be influenced more indirectly. 4.16 The planning framework, with its current emphasis on utilising previously developed land in urban areas and restricting Greenfield developments, and planning standards such as density and parking standards, will influence the market and consequently the current amount of housing arising from such


redevelopment. Against this should be set the need to safeguard land and buildings for other uses in order that an appropriate mix of community, leisure, commercial, employment, transport and public infrastructure facilities can be maintained in the urban areas. 4.17 The redevelopment of existing housing has been estimated to form a relatively small part of future new housing supply up to 2011, about 5%, an average of about 150 dwellings per year, the majority of this in Bristol. However, as demolitions precede new build, this type of development has in the recent past made little or no contribution to net additions to the dwelling stock and has been targeted at very specific problems and mainly focussed on the social rented stock. It has included the redevelopment of some of the high-rise stock in post-war housing estates, low rise stock which has been subject to structural failure, and some limited clearance of older, mixed, privately owned housing. 4.18 The Government has set a 2010 target date to bring all social housing up to its Decent Homes Standard and local authorities have to undertake a stock appraisal as a basis for establishing a course of action to achieve this end. It may well be that these appraisals, where not already undertaken, will identify stock which is simply uneconomic to repair. However, given the shortage of affordable housing there is no good reason to suppose that resources will be devoted to mass clearance of the existing estates of social housing stock unless it becomes unlettable, or it physically deteriorates to a level where it becomes more economical to clear it. If that happened then redevelopment would take place but it is important to emphasise that the net housing gain arising from this would be likely to be small or even negative. For example many of these developments are already 25-30 dwellings per hectare, more where there are flats/maisonettes. Redevelopment of 10 hectares, resulting in 50 dph, would produce a net addition to the dwelling stock of 200-250 dwellings. Similar resources expended on land with no previous housing would double that net gain to 500 dwellings. Clearly unless there are existing problems with the stock it is likely to make more sense to focus building resources on other land if maximising housing supply is the prime aim. 4.19 There is of course also the huge social cost of redeveloping housing which might otherwise be improved, disrupting existing communities The right to buy legislation has also complicated ownership patterns so that the Council or Housing Association is no longer necessarily a landlord of all the stock in a particular area. Furthermore there are strong arguments for not increasing densities and the amount of social rented housing in those fringe parts of the urban areas which are relatively isolated and which lack good access to jobs and other facilities. Such areas normally have low car ownership rates and the scale deprivation could increase 4.20 More likely scenarios in such areas are a pattern of incremental change with smaller scale regeneration projects. These might include

• increasing the tenure mix and type of housing through selective demolition,


• improving existing housing, • redeveloping the neighbourhood shopping centres to improve facilities, • providing new leisure facilities, • redeveloping land where uses have ceased e.g. a surplus school, or

unused open space, • introducing new employment • improving transport links

Such urban policies would address a whole range of social, economic and physical needs and build on existing initiatives in some areas. 4.21 In addition to the changes on medium and larger sites within urban areas there has over decades been a continuing development of smaller sites yielding less than 10 dwellings as part of a general intensification of use in existing housing areas. It was estimated that this intensification will make up about 13% of the total housing yield in the urban areas, yielding an average of around 430 dwellings a year up to 2011. However, this figure begins to look like an underestimate. In Bristol alone in the five years to April 2003 the average per annum from this source was 350 and there is some evidence of increased totals more recently in other areas. Whilst PPG3 with its emphasis on prioritising the utilisation of brownfield sites in urban areas will have supported this trend it is probable that the underlying strength of the housing market also makes this type of development more profitable at certain times, it is also more likely to be a feature of denser parts of urban areas which have good accessibility and local facilities and where the scope for housing would otherwise be limited. 4.22 Restructuring on a more limited scale also takes place within existing buildings-existing housing is sub divided , flats are created over shops. However, this is restructuring on a much smaller scale with an average of under 120 net gains a year envisaged up to 2011. More recent data does point to this figure increasing but the bulk of it is in the urban areas of Bristol and to a lesser extent North Somerset with very limited amounts elsewhere. Again, it mostly occurs in properties with good accessibility to local facilities e.g. city/town centres/inner suburbs and where the future property values can therefore justify the costs of creating new self contained accommodation and where the existing building permits a suitable conversion. 4.23 Empty homes are simply not a problem in the area when compared to the abandoned urban areas of the north west and north east of England. There are few dwellings in such disrepair that they have fallen out of use and could therefore contribute to renewal if brought back into use. Beyond 2011 4.24 The demand for housing and the general utilisation of land and buildings for further housing in all the urban areas post 2011 is difficult to predict and the estimates made to date and presented in Appendix 1 should not be regarded as a definitive statement. Adjusted estimates derived from 2002 UHCSs, and based on post 2011 spillover from site specific categories, but


including an estimate based on the 2002-2011 average for non site specific categories, would suggest around 7500 dwellings being constructed in the three PUAs between 2011-2016, an average of 1500 a year- about 40 % of the current RPG requirement. This contrasts with estimated 73% contribution of the PUAs to the RPG requirement in the 2002-2010 period. 4.25 A further site specific post 2016 carryover of around 3100 was also identified in the 2002 studies, all of it in Bristol. Inclusion of post 2011 sites already identified in the smaller towns boosts this post 2011 total urban housing figure by an insignificant amount c. 400 dwellings, the majority the tail of the Portishead Regeneration project. About 83% of the post 2011 site specific sources, identified at 2002, would be expected to occur in the Bristol PUA, two thirds in Bristol City itself. 4.26 Such estimates have been primarily based on sites and opportunities known about at the 2002 base date but they clearly raise important issues in estimating future urban capacity, particularly the problems in identifying the locations and patterns of such capacity in the longer term. Outside of the Bristol Central/Inner areas, and Filton Northfield, the majority of the existing vacant brownfield land and buildings identified for housing is expected to have been utilised by then as is vacant greenfield land not previously developed. These two sources formed 57% of housing potential in all urban areas between 2002-2011. It is reasonable to assume that greenfield undeveloped land will no longer be a significant source of additional urban housing (see 4.11 and 4.12 above). The main source is therefore likely to be the redevelopment of sites currently in use, and clearly such uses are more likely to occur in some areas, and at some locations, rather than others. 4.27 It is therefore clear that a substantial restructuring of the PUAs, primarily based on the redevelopment of current existing uses, would need to continue if the urban areas are still to be an important source of additional housing provision post 2011. 5. OTHER FACTORS IN RESTRUCTURING THE URBAN AREAS 5.1 However, there are also other important land uses essential to the health of the urban economy and the wider sub region that need to be provided for within urban areas. Prime among these is employment. Out of the estimated 496,500 jobs in the sub region at the 2001 Census, 79% (391,100) are estimated to be in the three PUAs ( 310,100 in Greater Bristol of which 94,700 are in South Gloucestershire, 51,800 in Bath, and 29,200 in Weston-super-Mare). Another 59,000 are in the smaller urban areas, excluding the 6000 at Royal Portbury. 5.2 The future economic prosperity of the area is very much dependent on sustaining this employment base and whilst the main influences on the levels of economic growth will be the strength of the national and international economy and ‘globalisation impacts’, future levels of growth and prosperity, as in the past, will also be influenced by local circumstances and local decisions on future economic well-being. Land within urban areas therefore will need


to be set aside for the renewal of the employment base as economic restructuring takes place. 5.3 A Government consultation paper published in July 2003, Supporting the Delivery of New Housing, also looked at the use of more employment and commercial sites for housing, proposing amendments to PPG3: Housing as part of broader Government initiatives to improve the delivery of housing. These would require the re-use of industrial and commercial land for housing unless a convincing case for retention could be made. However, there is concern that the current proposals fail to take into account the wider sustainability benefits of a planned supply of employment land, much of which is strategic and long term by nature. In addition possible outcomes could be less accessible greenfield employment sites being provided instead. Policies which simply see urban land as housing land will re-enforce trends for the decentralistion of employment to the urban edge and simply substitute one form of greenfield development for another. 5.4 In the restructuring of urban areas a high priority also needs to be given to sustaining and enhancing the viability of town and city centres; under current Government planning guidance this means ensuring an availability of a wide range of shops, services, employment, and other facilities to which people have easy access by a choice of transport, helping to reduce social exclusion. A new draft Planning Policy Statement, PPS 6, published in December 2003 re-emphasises these objectives and would require development plans to be much more specific about the need for new development in town centres and about identifying the locations and sites where such needs are to be accommodated, actively planning for growth in retail, leisure, office and other town centre uses. The potential contribution of edge of centre sites in meeting requirements for major town centre growth and in particular, for larger retail developments would also need to be taken into account. 5.5 The draft PPS offered very little guidance on retail park developments. Many of these were built at relatively low densities and as they age and leasing agreements come to an end landlords may review the role of their investments. With the difficulties in securing new out of centre retail and leisure locations under current planning policies there may be pressures for the intensification of such locations and changes of use. These locations may themselves therefore become foci for restructuring activity which may need to be acknowledged in any consideration of the future of urban areas. 5.6 Finally in restructuring the urban areas provision will invariably also need to be made for new transport and social infrastructure both to replace old outdated provision and to make additional provision for new populations. 5.7 The scale of the task to bring about urban restructuring was highlighted in the report of the Urban Task Force (UTF), chaired by Lord Rogers, and published in June 1999.


5.8 The UTF said that the Government’s target of 60% of housing on previously developed land could not be met on the basis of existing policies for households projected up to 2021,as there was unlikely to be sufficient land coming forward. Added to this was the fact that the greatest potential for recycling land was in the Midlands and North where the demand for housing was relatively low. A major change in approach would be needed and a “change in culture”. The report said, amongst other things, that

• means had to be found of making the best use of derelict, vacant and under-used land including requiring public bodies and utilities to release redundant urban land and buildings for regeneration

• urban areas should be made better places to live by creating compact mixed use, well designed, high density developments and reducing the need for car use recognising the congestion, environmental and health damage caused by the growth in car traffic

• in the worst areas a comprehensive package of measures was needed to achieve physical, economic and social regeneration

• local authorities should be given more powers to tackle this task and should establish local partnerships

• the new neighbourhood regeneration partnerships should be designated Urban Priority Areas, aimed ultimately at achieving self-sustaining property values

• Urban Regeneration Companies should be set up to quicken the pace of work, raise private finance and undertake direct development where necessary

• Local development plans should be simplified to create more flexibility at local level, avoiding detailed site policies, reviewing employment and other non-residential zonings with little demand and providing flexible designations that facilitate mixed uses and which can be readily adapted over time

• Compulsory purchase procedures should be streamlined • New financial incentives to encourage the recycling of buildings and new joint public/private investment funds to attract institutional

investors to provide long term risk capital for complex regeneration projects

5.12 The Urban Task Force emphasised the long term nature of such an urban renaissance. 5.13 It has to be accepted that Bristol, and the other PUAs, lack the large reserves of vacant and derelict land arising from de-industrialisation that might be found in Midland and Northern towns and cities. Given this, any significant potential for urban re-development beyond 2011 is going to have to be identified primarily in areas where other uses currently exist and/or through a re-assessment of any previously identified vacant areas which were assumed at the time to make no contribution to mixed uses which included housing, for example because they were safeguarded employment areas. The physical, economic and social factors which may lead to the further restructuring of urban areas, or which may provide the opportunities to restructure them, therefore need to be anticipated and ultimately harnessed, a particular difficult exercise over a 15-20 year period. This is a more complex proposition


compared to identifying areas outside and needs to relate to the existing economic, social and physical structure of these areas, possible changes to it, and the potential for addressing other problems in this process. 5.14 There is of course likely to be a continuing development of a core number of urban dwellings derived from variety of sources, for example intensification on small sites, flats over shops, sub-division of existing dwellings, which are not in themselves of strategic importance but which aggregated constitute a base level of urban housing development and these need to be built into any assessment. 5.15 In looking at urban areas the emphasis must be on creating a quality environment in line with Government policies, a place where people want to live, with a mix of uses, a decent transport infrastructure, with densities tailored to accessibility, and protecting and providing the green open spaces that contribute to “liveability”. Possible Approach to Appraisal of Urban Areas 5.16 An initial appraisal of the urban areas might therefore • seek to identify key areas and/or land uses (a) which may be undergoing

a process of change, are likely to do so over the medium term, or which have potential for change and which should be reviewed in the context of PPG3, particularly the proposed changes to para.42 relating to employment land and including a review of sites discounted in previous studies , and (b) where the scale of change may have significant implications for that area and/or the wider sub-region

• Focus areas of search to include (a) transitional areas in towns and cities

where traditional land uses are declining, perhaps on the fringes of town/city centres, for example around railway stations where much of the old industrial and commercial economy was built and buildings are unsuited to modern day usage, (b) major land holders where industrial or public utility/public services restructuring might be anticipated, (c) areas around surburban/outer centres where significant redevelopment/intensification, of existing uses, outside of that which might be affected by smaller scale infilling, might strengthen a centre

• Re-visit those areas where redevelopment is already planned or

anticipated up to , and beyond 2011 5.17 In effect the search would be for areas which could form the “urban villages” of the next decade. The approach would give initial consideration to


• the possible scale and type of that change given the need to adopt a mixed use approach to development and in particular to create a quality living environment

• key socio-economic factors, including accessible employment provision,

which may influence the scale or type of change highlighting social impacts

• environmental impacts including the need to retain urban open spaces or

significant buildings • economic impacts including the demand for competing land uses and

whether is possible to work with the market in supporting development • key pieces of existing, proposed or potential infrastructure which are

considered to play a role in the future development of the area, looking at existing capacity and particularly focusing on transport improvements

• whether restructuring could be developed through the normal ad hoc

delivery process, set within a local policy framework, or whether because of the nature of the land uses, patterns of ownership, state of the sites and scale of development, special delivery vehicles might be needed.

5.18 Maps prepared of the existing PUAs have begun to identify some of these features (Appendix 2) 5.19 Such an analysis would therefore • produce broad scenarios of future urban redevelopment, incorporating

assumptions on housing, employment, retailing, with estimates, perhaps banded, to reflect different assumptions

• clearly link to the need to also provide for other uses, • identify the types of areas where such change might take place, and • the supporting policy initiatives that might be needed. 5.20 The smaller urban areas outside of the PUAs also need to be considered in such an exercise. The scope for internal restructuring is likely to be much very much smaller but many of these towns have, for example, large areas of surfaced car parks close to their centres and to transport facilities which in a larger urban setting would become a focus for the consideration of redevelopment at higher densities. As the Census figures have shown, some of these towns have static or declining populations. It could be much more difficult to provide for new households and to sustain and improve the social and economic infrastructure, for example shops and schools, as average household size and consequently population declines, unless thought is given to making best use of land within these towns, and even considering whether moderate expansion may also be needed to maintain these as sustainable communities.


6 Summary 6.1 Urban development over the past 30 years has primarily development on the fringes of the main urban areas supported by completion of longer term transport infrastructure projects, particularly the motorway network. In the last decade much more focus has been placed on the older parts of the urban areas in part to make the best use of land, much of which has been derelict for years as industrial structures have changed, but also to address the concentrations of social deprivation found in these areas. 6.2 The contribution which the urban areas can make to the future development needs of the area needs to be based in a rational understanding as to where and how such development would take place, given that by definition the majority of these urban areas are already developed and it will primarily be through redevelopment, much of current existing uses, that new development takes place. 6.3 Government policies over the past decade have certainly emphasised the need to make the best use of urban land and the consequent tighter restrictions on Greenfield sites will have helped the regeneration of large and small sites which has been particularly noticeable in the wider Bristol area. However, the pattern of urban extensions around Bristol and Weston-super-Mare over the past three decades, although now in the most integrated into the main urban areas, only serve to emphasise the scale of the urban development that has been needed to provide jobs and housing for a growing population. The real issue is therefore likely to be not whether urban areas can provide for the bulk of development needs but what proportion is it realistic to expect them to provide and how can that development make a positive contribution to the variety of economic, social and physical problems that some parts of those urban areas face. 6.4 If urban areas are to play a positive and substantial development role in the future, on a defined scale, then this is unlikely to happen if reliance is placed solely on ad hoc development decisions, a point emphasised by the Urban Task Force. Significant change will be needed to bring about significant restructuring and this is likely to need a commitment of outside agencies to join with local authorities in this task. G:\SubRegStudies\InformationReports\Final\URBAN AREAS 0404.doc


APPENDIX 1 Urban Housing Capacity Studies 2002 -Summary of Results


Urban Housing Capacity 2002 West of England Sub-Region All Urban Areas

Source Potential Dwelling Numbers Total Dwellings Potential

2002-2011 % of Total 2011-2016+ % of total

1. Subdivision of Existing Housing 858 2.9 0 0.0 858

2. Flats over Shops 158 0.5 120 1.4 278

3.Empty Homes - - - -

4. PD vacant /derelict and and Buildings (non housing) 10375 35.3 2064 24.0 12439

5.Intensification of existing areas 3841 13.1 76 0.9 3917

6a. Redevelopment of existing housing 1385 4.7 1323 15.4 2708

6b. Redevelopment of other uses 5320 18.1 3713 43.2 9033

7. Redevelopment of car parks 391 1.3 567 6.6 958

8. Conversion of commercial buildings 685 2.3 123 1.4 808

9. Review of existing housing allocations - - - - - 10.Review of other existing allocations in plans - - - - -

11. Vacant land not previously developed 6368 21.7 611 7.1 6979

Total 29381 100.0 8597 100 37978 Source: Urban Housing Capacity Studies undertaken by B&NES, Bristol City Council, North Somerset Council, South Gloucestershire Council. Notes: 1) Urban Areas: Bath and North East Somerset; Bath, Keynsham , Norton Radstock.

Bristol. North Somerset, Clevedon, Nailsea, Portishead, Weston–Super-Mare. South Gloucestershire, Chipping Sodbury, Thornbury, Yate.

G:\HOUSING\Urban Capacity\Data\2002\Urban Housing Capacity 2002 West of England Sub.doc


Urban Housing Capacity 2002 West of England Sub-Region Principal Urban Areas

Source Potential Dwelling Numbers Total Dwelling Potential

2002-2011 % of Total 2011-2016+ % of total

1. Subdivision of Existing Housing 812 3.3 0 0.0 812

2. Flats over Shops 152 0.6 120 1.5 272

3.Empty Homes - - - - -

4. PD vacant /derelict and and Buildings (non housing) 6857 28.2 2064 25.0 8921

5.Intensification of existing areas 3484 14.3 76 0.9 35606a. Redevelopment of existing housing 1353 5.6 1298 15.7 2651

6b. Redevelopment of other uses 4781 19.7 3439 41.6 8220

7. Redevelopment of car parks 391 1.6 567 6.9 9588. Conversion of commercial buildings 685 2.8 123 1.5 808

9. Review of existing housing allocations - - - - -

10.Review of other existing allocations in plans - - - - - 11. Vacant land not previously developed 5812 23.9 573 6.9 6385

Total 24327 100.0 8260 100.0 32587 Source: Urban Housing Capacity Studies undertaken by B&NES, Bristol City Council, North Somerset Council, South Gloucestershire Council. Notes: 1) Source categories 6/7/8 for W-S-M PUA are estimates from 60% of N.Som totals (further information suggests that the total is 394). 2) Principal Urban Areas; Bath, Greater Bristol (including parts of South Gloucestershire), Weston-Super-Mare. G:\HOUSING\Urban Capacity\Data\2002\Urban Housing Capacity 2002 West of England Sub.doc


Urban Housing Capacity 2002 West of England Sub-Region Bath Principal Urban Area


2002-2011 % of total 2011-2016+ % of total

1. Subdivision of Existing Housing 94 5% 0% 94

2. Flats over Shops 13 0.1% 0% 13


4. PD vacant /derelict and and Buildings (non housing) 945 46% 150 47% 1095

5.Intensification of existing areas 317 15% 0% 317

6a. Redevelopment of existing housing 0% 0

6b. Redevelopment of other uses 535 26% 150 47% 685

7. Redevelopment of car parks 20 0.9% 10 3% 30

8. Conversion of commercial buildings 10 3% 10

9. Review of existing housing allocations - - - - - 10.Review of other existing allocations in plans - - - - -

11. Vacant land not previously developed 141 7% 0% 141

Total 2065 100% 320 100% 2385 Source: Urban Housing Capacity Studies undertaken by B&NES, Bristol City Council, North Somerset Council, South Gloucestershire Council. Notes: 1) JSPTU Categories 6/7/8 based on 86% of target figures in categories 1-5 occuring in Bath. Have therefore assumed 86% of 6/7/8 in Bath. G:\HOUSING\Urban Capacity\Data\2002\Urban Housing Capacity 2002 West of England Sub.doc


Urban Housing Capacity 2002 West of England Sub-Region Greater Bristol (including parts of South Glos) Principal Urban Area


2002-2011 % of Total 2011-2016+ % of Total

1. Subdivision of Existing Housing 700 3.8% 0 0% 700

2. Flats over Shops 139 0.8% 120 1.7% 259


4. PD vacant /derelict and and Buildings (non housing) 5809 31.6% 1914 27.5% 7723

5.Intensification of existing areas 2758 15% 76 1% 2834

6a. Redevelopment of existing housing 1289 7% 1298 18.7% 2587

6b. Redevelopment of other uses 3225 17.6% 2357 34% 5582

7. Redevelopment of car parks 371 2.1% 527 7.5% 898

8. Conversion of commercial buildings 685 3.7% 113 1.6% 798


10.Review of other existing allocations in plans - - - - -

11. Vacant land not previously developed 3361 18.4% 548 8% 3909

Total 18337 100% 6953 100 25290 Source: Urban Housing Capacity Studies undertaken by B&NES, Bristol City Council, North Somerset Council, South Gloucestershire Council. Notes: 1) JSPTU Categories 6/7/8 based on 94% of UHCS occuring in Bristol PUA in South Glos. Have therefore assumed 94% of 6/7/8 in PUA. G:\HOUSING\Urban Capacity\Data\2002\Urban Housing Capacity 2002 West of England Sub.doc


Urban Housing Capacity 2002 West of England Sub-Region Bristol City Principal Urban Area


2002-2011 % of Total 2011-2016+ % of Total


2. Flats over Shops 89 0.8% 120 2.1% 209


4. PD vacant /derelict and and Buildings (non housing) 3720 32.1% 1064 19.1% 4784

5.Intensification of existing areas 2250 19.4% 76 1.4% 2326

6a. Redevelopment of existing housing 1054 9.1% 1298 23.3% 2352

6b. Redevelopment of other uses 2069 17.9% 1913 34.2% 3982

7. Redevelopment of car parks 276 2.4% 527 9.5% 803

8. Conversion of commercial buildings 614 5.3% 113 2% 727



11. Vacant land not previously developed 1065 9.2% 470 8.4% 1535

Total 11587 100% 5581 100% 17168 Source: Urban Housing Capacity Studies undertaken by B&NES, Bristol City Council, North Somerset Council, South Gloucestershire Council. Notes: 1) JSPTU Categories 6/7/8 based on 94% of UHCS occuring in Bristol PUA in South Glos. Have therefore assumed 94% of 6/7/8 in PUA. G:\HOUSING\Urban Capacity\Data\2002\Urban Housing Capacity 2002 West of England Sub.doc


Urban Housing Capacity 2002 West of England Sub-Region South Gloucestershire Principal Urban Area (within Greater Bristol PUA).

Source Potential Dwelling Numbers

Total Dwelling Potential

2002-2011 % of Total 2011-2016+ % of Total


2. Flats over Shops 50 0.7% 0 0% 50


4. PD vacant /derelict and Buildings (non housing) 2089 30.9% 850 62% 2939

5.Intensification of existing areas 508 7.5% 0 0% 508

6a. Redevelopment of existing housing 235 3.6% 0 0% 235

6b. Redevelopment of other uses 1156 17.1% 444 32.3% 1600

7. Redevelopment of car parks 95 1.4% 0 0% 95

8. Conversion of commercial buildings 71 1.1% 0 0% 71



11. Vacant land not previously developed 2296 34% 78 5.7% 2374

Total 6750 100% 1372 100% 8122 Source: Urban Housing Capacity Studies undertaken by B&NES, Bristol City Council, North Somerset Council, South Gloucestershire Council. Notes: 1) JSPTU Categories 6/7/8 based on 94% of UHCS occuring in Bristol PUA in South Glos. Have therefore assumed 94% of 6/7/8 in PUA. G:\HOUSING\Urban Capacity\Data\2002\Urban Housing Capacity 2002 West of England Sub.doc


Urban Housing Capacity 2002 West of England Sub-Region Weston-Super-Mare Principal Urban Area


2002-2011 % of total 2011-2016+ % of total


2. Flats over Shops 0 0% 0 0% 0

3.Empty Homes - - - - - 4. PD vacant /derelict and and Buildings (non housing) 103 2.6% 0 0% 103

5.Intensification of existing areas 409 10.4% 0 0% 409

6a. Redevelopment of existing housing 64 1.6% 0 0% 64

6b. Redevelopment of other uses 1021 26% 932 94% 1953

7. Redevelopment of car parks 0 0% 30 3% 30

8. Conversion of commercial buildings 0 0% 0 0% 09. Review of existing housing allocations - - - - -


11. Vacant land not previously developed 2310 58.9% 25 3% 2335

Total 3925 100% 987 0 4912 Source: Urban Housing Capacity Studies undertaken by B&NES, Bristol City Council, North Somerset Council, South Gloucestershire Council. Notes: 1) JSPTU Categories 6/7/8 based on 60% of N.Som totals (further information suggests that the total is 394). G:\HOUSING\Urban Capacity\Data\2002\Urban Housing Capacity 2002 West of England Sub.doc


APPENDIX 2

KEY FEATURES IN THE URBAN AREAS

WEST OF ENGLAND SUB -REGION REVIEW OF SPATIAL … areas 0404.pdf · 2.1 The growth of urban areas...

Documents

Transcript of WEST OF ENGLAND SUB -REGION REVIEW OF SPATIAL … areas 0404.pdf · 2.1 The growth of urban areas...