Planning

Planning

Evaluation of the justifications and flaws  proffered by the Local Planning Authority’s planning department when assessing earlier applications for temporary stands and variations thereto.

Here we refer to officer reports on previous applications, and demonstrates the inconsistencies in the assessment of applications in policy terms particularly to impacts on the historic environment. Comments made are personal views WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

BANES Council have been consistent in their approval of all previous applications for temporary use since 2002 and these have involved the expediential increase in crowd capacity and the extension of time permitted in the retention of temporary stands. 

The reasons given for these increases in capacity are that the Professional Game Board that controls rugby clubs, are reported to have fined Bath Rugby for not meeting their criteria for spectator capacity. 

The justification for granting permissions for the increase in size of temporary stands has consistently been that the public benefit outweighs any detriments to the local conservation area, the amenity of local residents, and the World Heritage Site. It is the claim of public benefit that is the focus of this paper, together with the evidence that personal opinions rather than policy have informed decision making.

Relevant previous applications made by Bath Rugby plc and given consent by BANES Council. (the prefix number refers to the year of application). 
 96/00219/FUL Erection of temporary west stand and replacement of existing east stand 
97/00376/FUL Erection of temporary stands 
98/00667/FUL Erection of one bay extension to temporary seating 
98/00773/VAR Variation to extend period of temporary seating till 15th May 
01/01348/VAR Variation to extend period of temporary seating till 21st May 
03/01301/FUL Erection of temporary east stand 
05/02209/VAR Variation to extend period of temporary east stand till 21st May 2008 
05/02211//FUL Erection of temporary stands on west, north, and south sides till 20th May 2008 
05/03248/FUL Extension to temporary north stand 
06/04404/FUL Variation to allow earlier erection of stands 
06/02293/FUL Variation to allow earlier erection of stands 
06/02294/FUL Variation to allow earlier erection of stands 
07/03783/FUL Variation to permit extension of time for temporary permissions 
07/03784/FUL Variation to permit extension of time for temporary stands 
07/03785/FUL Variation to permit extension of time for temporary stands 
09/01319/FUL Erection of replacement temporary stands 
10/01608//FUL Erection of temporary covered seating 
10/01609/FUL Erection of temporary seating on west side. 
10/01610/FUL Erection of extension to standing area 
14/02158/FUL Retention and or replacement of, and extensions to existing temporary stands and provision of new hospitality boxes for two years. 
14/05824/VAR Variation of condition to allow permission for two years 
 14/05827/VAR Variation of condition to allow permission for two years. 
15/02164/VAR Variation of condition to allow permission for two years 


Previous planning permissions have necesarily been assessed on :
A - Environmental impact
B - Highways
C - Historic environment 
D - English Heritage 
E - Environment Agency 
F - Archaeology 
G - Residential amenity .

Historically, previous planning consents for the temporary stands have been justified in terms that recognise the deficits but conclude they are insufficient to warrant any refusals, and that the “claimed benefits” outweigh the detriments to policy.

Crucially, conservation officers have judged proposals to be acceptable, yet all conditions attached to previous consents make direct reference to the interests of the conservation area and World Heritage Site, but which are marginalised on all subsequent permissions.

Historically, subsequent permissions to increase the size of temporary stands and or vary the conditions attached, have ignored previous planning conditions that have been imposed in the interests of the conservation area, the World Heritage Site and the amenity of nearby residents. This has degraded the value of all previous conditions designed for the very purpose, such that it seems that any proposal of whatever size or design must be permitted.

Conclusions reached by planning officers have given little weight to actual conservation issues and adopted policies in the local plan. There is no doubt that the structures on the Recreation Ground significantly degrade the conservation area, the amenity of local residents and degrade the conditions for World Heritage.

In previous officer reports, weight has been given to matters outside the scope of considerations applicable to the proposals, and are based on a false prospectus. A “ There are public, social, cultural, and economic benefits brought about by having the facility within the city centre” B “this is a factor that significantly contributes to the city’s heritage, vibrancy, vitality, civic pride, sense of place and local identity”.

In the first instance even if this claim was valid and accurate, the implied claim is that the city would be somehow disadvantaged by a refusal to increase or modify the capacity of the ground. It is openly accepted and admitted that the purpose of increasing the ground capacity is to satisfy the economic needs of the professional rugby club and the plc. There has never been any claim by the plc that the increase in capacity has anything to do with the prosperity of the city. In addition, these justifications by the planning department are purely emotive and cannot therefore be material to any planning application.

In the second instance, the claim that the club contributes to the city’s heritage, vibrancy, vitality, civic pride, sense of place and local identity are all emotive has yet to be demonstrated. Even if this was true, previous proposals to extend the temporary stands in size and time allowed on site in no way threatens the existence of the club on the recreation ground, so it is false to concoct these reasons in support of such proposals.

It is false to claim that the activity is in any way a heritage asset. Bath’s heritage is firmly founded in the Roman baths, it’s Georgian Architecture and Townscape, it’s scientific and literary history and many other historical assets. It is also false to claim that the sport of rugby is a cultural activity. Culture is defined by “the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc..” And, “that which is excellent in the arts, manners, etc..” And “development and improvement of the mind by education or training.” Commercial sport does not fall within these descriptions. 4.16 Equally, the terms ‘vitality and vibrancy’ used to support previous proposals are emotive and unsubstantiated. The city of Bath has it’s own vitality and vibrancy provided by the tourist industry, the student population, business and commerce, and the retail centre that the city offers to residents and those outside the city all year round, and not just on seventeen days in the year that home matches are played. It is therefore false to give any emphasis to claims of the club’s contribution to these factors.

It is incorrect to give any weight to claims that the presence of the club contributes to a sense of place, local identity, and civic pride such that for the club to be prevented from expanding, the city will somehow suffer. There is no evidence to suggest this. Quite the contrary, the internationally renowned cultural assets the city has, provides ample reasons for a sense of place, civic pride, and local identity without the presence of Bath Rugby.

The claim made by previous planning officers in defence of Bath rugby’s previous applications that there are “public and social benefits” by having the club at the core of the city, needs examination. Firstly this claim is a presumption as there is no evidence to back it up, and secondly, there is an inference in this statement that suggests that the club may move from the Recreation Ground if their ambitions to enlarge the ground capacity are refused. Such a statement is outside the remit of the planning department as previous applications have never been made on the basis of “give us permission or we will move out of Bath”.

The claim that there are economic benefits derived by having the club in the centre of Bath and allowing the club to expand their ground capacity are highly questionable. Even if any cost benefit analysis was carried out, any enhanced turnover the city’s traders might experience ends up in the main in the pockets of the shareholders, of the multi-nationals that proliferate in the City, and most likely live elsewhere. The bulk of spirits is sold on the ground and there is no evidence to suggest that city traders employ additional staff on match days to cope with any increase in trade, ; to claim that the public might derive economic benefit is false. There has been much speculation in the past about how much revenue is contributed to the city on match days. Of the annual figures being claimed previously, it translates to over one hundred pounds per spectator on each mach day, this in addition to the cost of tickets the benefit of which goes exclusively to a plc based off shore.

Officer assessments of environmental impacts have consistently concluded that the permissions for extending the size and term of the temporary stands are acceptable in environmental terms. In every case the applicant has commissioned its own report with the single intent gaining a planning permission and it is clear that the planning officers have simply accepted the findings that are derived from a biased instruction. In every case, the negative environmental impacts on the locality and the amenity of local residents have been wholly ignored. There is no doubt that the visual intrusion, the disturbance caused during the construction and use of the temporary stands, and the noise the neighbourhood to endure on match days are unacceptable anywhere, far less a World Heritage City. It is remiss of BANES Council to simply accept the applicants proposal and allow the continued expansion of the rugby ground.

Officer assessments of highways considerations are also subject to question for similar reasons to those mentioned before. Once again, the rugby club commissions reports that are detailed and extensive, and designed to prove once again that all is perfectly acceptable in transport terms. The availability of public transport services is common knowledge. The shortage of city centre car parking is also common knowledge. The availability of park and ride services at three locations is also common knowledge. What is also common knowledge is the historic problem of vehicular access into the city that exists every day and is exacerbated on match days, often on a Saturday, when the city is crowded with shoppers. It seems therefore that the highway authority are too eager to accept the findings of a consultant commissioned by the plc to paint a rosy picture, and just simply refer to the fact that a “detailed highway assessment” has been produced without proper scrutiny or challenge.

The highway authority give scant regard to highway safety issues particularly on Pulteney and North Parade bridges where it is normal for rugby crowds to walk on the road. Equally little attention is paid to the access to the ground as this is confined from the city to the same bridges either down the steps by the sports centre in the case of North Parade road and the steps from Pulteney bridge along by the riverside café. The safety situation is by any standards unacceptable, and yet we see the planning authority giving no weight to the issue.

Previous planning conditions have stated a requirement that the rugby club publish and distribute a travel plan to all supporters. Has anyone seen it?

The environment agency have consistently imposed conditions concerning access to the radial gate for a crane at all times. How is this achieved? Previous consents have required the free passage of surface water through the temporary stands. This is clearly not the case as the West stand has a tarpaulin along the full length of the stand over the circulation zones beneath. In addition, there is a plinth along the full length of the back of the stand preventing flood and rainwater to flow.


Summary of Policies in assessing 10/01609FUL and their relevance

National Policies

PPS 1 Delivering sustainable development.
The proposals for any temporary stands fails to comply with this policy as do the extensive groundworks, seating is not recyclable and the transportation and erection has a significant negative impact by virtue of CO2 gasses emitted by plant and machinery

PPG 13 Transport
The council have consistently relied on reports prepared by the applicants without peer audit. No due regard is made to the fact that the city suffers from a high level of pollution that is in the main caused by traffic. It is unsustainable to claim that the expediential increase in crowd capacity over recent years will not have impact on air quality and parking provision. Whilst the planners seem content to simply obtain a travel plan from the applicants without it being enforceable, since spectators choose there own means of getting to the Rec with or without the travel plan that is supposed to be issued to spectators. It is evident that both Pulteney and North Parade bridges are crowded with pedestrians on match days posing major safety issues. It is evident that the planning authority ignores these risks and allow further increases to crowd capacity.

PPS 5 Planning and the Historic environment 
Impact on heritage is a key material issue in evaluating planning applications and the absence of any due regard to this policy by the planning authority is self evident by virtue of the fact that the temporary stands pose a significant detriment to the historic environment. There has never been any sustainable argument for temporary stands that can be assessed positively in terms of this policy.

PPG 17 Open space, sport and recreation
The fact that the council have allowed the encroachment onto the Recreation Ground by a plc for the benefit of private enrichment is both contrary to the aims of this policy. Far from the Recreation Ground being an open space, the policy is not intended to further the aims of a commercial organisation at the top of its profession. Quite the contrary, the policy is intended for the preservation of open spaces for the development of amateur sports and recreation and not the feathering of owners nests that has been the result of recent decisions by the planners in this case.

PPS 23 Planning and pollution control
Increases in crowd capacities allowed by the planning authority have exacerbated an already bad situation. The planners have clearly paid no heed to the obvious, preferring to simply rely on any partisan report prepared by the applicants without further scrutiny, or indeed the application of common sense.

PPS 25 Flood risk
The Recreation Ground is in the highest flood risk area and the planners simply rely on promises by the applicant that floodwater will be allowed to pass through the temporary structures unabated. Observer will see immediately that this is not possible by the introduction of skirting boards along the length of the east stand and the inclusion of tarpaulins in the stand structures.


Strategic Policies  

Policy 19 - Landscape
The permanent and temporary stands pose a major threat to landscape issues from both inside and outside the city. The importance of the city’s location, with the surrounding hills is a significant factor in assessing planning applications that have negative impacts. Structures on the Recreation Ground are without question contrary to the aims of this policy 4.3.8 Policy 43 - Recreation and leisure development Proposals to increase crowd capacity of a private commercial company is not the intent of this policy and to suggest otherwise is false.

Policy 44 - Major sports stadiums
Although the intent of his policy may be rooted in sound planning sense, it is without question inapplicable in the case of the Recreation Ground by virtue of it’s central location within the conservation area, World Heritage Site, proximity to grade one listed buildings, and its negative landscape impacts.


Local Plan Policies

D.2 General design and public realm considerations
The planning authority place great store on heritage requiring a very high standard of design that compliments and makes direct reference to the conservation area and nearby built environment. In all cases of permissions to allow temporary stands, there is a total lack of deference to BANES Council policy. This is self evident to anyone who walks around the ground, the lack of any public realm considerations being laid bare for all to see.

D.4 Townscape considerations
All previous applications lack any reference to this policy as it is abundantly clear that the stands have an enormous negative impact on the townscape

SR.1A Recreational open space
Planners have allowed the Recreation ground to be monopolised by a private plc at the expense of community open space that it once was. The planning authority ignores council policies.

SR.4 Proposals for recreational facilities within urban areas and settlements
This policy, whilst admirable in other situations, is not appropriate in this instance, as the existence of the rugby club on the Recreation ground is already established and is a one sporting organisation without providing recreational facilities.

NE.14 Flood risk
The Recreation ground is in a highest risk area and the temporary stands prevent the flow of floodwater

BH.1 World Heritage Site
The adopted World Heritage Site Management Plan confirms it as a key material issue in evaluating planning applications and is clearly intended to protect the heritage assets of the World Heritage Site ; previous enlargements of the temporary stands have had an compounding negative impact without there being any benefits to out weight the deficits.

BH.2 Listed buildings and their settings
In consideration of previous applications to extend the temporary stands, the planning authority has consistently imposed conditions “in the interests of the character and appearance of this part of the conservation area and world heritage site”. Such conditions date back some ten years when far smaller permissions were granted, and the planning authority have subsequently relaxed their attitude to this policy allowing increases to the size and length of time allowed for the temporary stands, yet still imposing the same conditions. There is no record of policy BH.2 having been changed, so the question arises, who has given the planning authority the right to change the policies without BANES Council approval? The temporary stands have a significant detrimental impact on the grade 1 listed buildings of Johnstone Street, readily evident by any cursory visit to the Recreation Ground and from the surrounding hills.

BH.6 Development affecting conservation areas
See above .

BH.9 Parks and gardens of special historic interest
The proximity to Parade Gardens renders the Recreation Ground to special attention. There is no doubt that both the permanent and temporary stands on the Recreation Ground have a hugely detrimental impact on the setting of Parade Gardens from within and across, and as a consequence are contrary to this policy.

BH.11 Scheduled ancient monuments

BH.15 Visually important open spaces
Planning policies repeatedly make reference to the views in and out of the city and the importance of protecting the open spaces. There is a presumption against development of such spaces particularly in the context of those that make a contribution to the recreational wellbeing of residents, except where it can be demonstrated that there is a public benefit. The presence of the temporary stands only benefits the balance sheet of a plc who the planners and trustees of the Recreation Ground have allowed to encroach into the open space cited for that purpose.

NE.1 Character and local distinctiveness of the landscape
See above  

NE.4 Impact on trees and woodlands 
No consideration is evident and no consideration is made to retaining existing trees, far less plant new. In light of present Government policy, this is not acceptable.     

 The planning authority appears to pay little attention to highway safety issues which are real and present on both Pulteney and North Parade bridges where the pavements are very narrow, causing supporters to walk all over the road. In addition, the steps from Pulteney Bridge to the riverside are very restricted causing bottlenecks to occur. Similarly, the access staircase to the riverside at the end of North Parade bridge is totally inadequate for accessing the ground. 


Case Studies

Officer report for application 06/02293/VAR recommends refusal on the grounds of detrimental impacts on the setting of nearby listed buildings, citing policies BH1, BH2, BH6, and BH15 of the BANES local plan, and policies C1, C2, C3, C4, and LH3, C12, of the Bath local plan. 

The application in question referred to temporary stands that were less than half the size that is currently permitted, and yet BANES  Council continued to grant consent in spite of officer reports. 

There has been no relaxation of policies referred to above. 

Condition 6 of a planning permission ref: 09/01319/FUL states that the top three rows of seating on the temporary east stand be turned down when not in use. This condition referred to an application that permitted a further increase in the size of the east stand even though the same policies were in place when officers recommended refusal in respect of 06/02293/VAR. This condition was un-enforceable as the club flouted it repeatedly. 

BANES Council as local planning authority continues to have a relaxed attitude to any application the rugby club make and do not take enforcement action when breaches occur such as permanent concrete foundations used to support the temporary hospitality boxes at both ends of the south stand or the concrete and steel structure now supporting the north stand. It was only after persistent reminders that the planning authority took action against the club for the scaffolding structures behind the screen at the end of the north stand. 


Previous Planning Applications

Previous applications have necessarily been assessed on A Environmental impact B Highways C Historic Environment D English Heritage E Environment Agency F Residential amenity.

Historically previous planning consents for temporary stands have been justified in terms that recognise the deficits, but conclude they are insufficient to warrant refusal, and that claimed benefits outweigh departure from policy. 

Crucially conservation offices have judged proposals to be acceptable, yet all conditions attached to previous consents make direct reference to the overriding interests of the conservation area and World Heritage Site, but which are marginalised on all subsequent permissions. 

Historically, subsequent permissions to increase the size of temporary stands and or vary the conditions attached have ignored previous planning conditions that have been imposed in the interests of the conservation area, the World Heritage Site and the amenity of near by residents.This has degraded the value of all previous conditions designed for the very purpose, such that any proposal of whatever size or design must be permitted. 

Conclusions reached by planning officers have given little weight to actual conservation issues and adopted policies of the local plan. The structures presently on the recreation ground significantly degrade the conservation area, the amenity of local residents and the conditions of the World Heritage site. 

In previous officer reports, weight has been given ti matters outside the scope of considerations applicable to the proposals and are based on a false prospectus A “there are public, social, cultural and economic benefits brought about by having the facility within the city centre” B “this is a factor that significantly contributes to the city’s heritage, vibrancy, vitality, civic pride, sense of place and local identity” 

Even were these claims valid and accurate, the implies claim is that the city would be somehow disadvantaged by refusal to increase or modify the capacity of the ground. It is openly admitted and accepted that the purpose of increasing ground capacity is to satisfy the economic needs of the commercial rugby club and plc. There has never been any claim by the plc that the increase in capacity has anything to do with the prosperity of the city. These justifications are purely emotive and cannot be material to a planning application. 

The claim that the club contributes to the city’s heritage, vibrancy etc are all emotive and have yet to be demonstrated. Even if this were so, previous proposals to extend the temporary stands in size, scope and time allowed on site, in no way threatens the existence of the club on the recreation ground, and is falsely concocted in support of proposals. 

It is false to claim that the activity is a heritage asset. Bath’s heritage is firmly founded in its roman baths, its Georgian architecture and townscape, kits scientific and literary history and many other historical assets. It is false to claim that commercial rugby is a cultural asset since culture is defined as “the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits etc” and “ that which is excellent in the arts, manners etc”.....and “ development and improvement of the mind by education or training...” Commercial sport does not fall within these descriptions. 

Equally the terms “vitality and vibrancy” used to support previous proposals are emotive and unsubstantiated. The city has its own vitality and vibrancy provided by its people and visitors, the student population, business and commerce and the retail centre that the city offers all year round, and not just on seventeen afternoons in the year that home matches are played.It is false to emphasis the claim of the clubs contribution to these factors. 

It is incorrect to give undue weight to claims that the presence of the club contributes to a sense of place, local identity and civic pride such that for the club to be prevented from expanding, the city will somehow suffer. There is no evidence to suggest this. Quite the contrary, the internationally renowned cultural assets the city has provide ample reasons for a sense of place, civic pride and local identity without the presence of Bath Rugby as a plc. 

The claim made by planning officers in defence of previous applications that there are “public and social benefits “ by having the club at the core of the city” needs examination. The claim is a presumption, there being no evidence to back this up. There is in this statement an inference that their club may move from the recreation ground if their ambitions to enlarge ground capacity and facilities on a permanent basis are refused. Such a statement is outside the remit of the planning department since previous applications have never been made on the basis of “give us permission or we will move out of Bath”. 

The claim that there are economic benefits derived from having the club in the centre of Bath, and allowing the club to expand ground capacity are highly questionable. Even if a cost benefit analysis were carried out, any enhanced turnover the retail sector might experience actually ends up in the pocket of the shareholders, of the multi-nationals that occupy the city and likely live elsewhere. The bulk of spirits is sold on the ground and there is no evidence to suggest that city traders employ extra staff on match days to cope with additional trade ; to claim that the public might derive economic benefit is false. There has been much speculation how much revenue is contributed to the city on match days ; of the annual figures being claimed previously, it amounts to over one hundred pounds per spectator per day over and above the cost of tickets, the benefit of which goes to the plc. 

Officer assessments of environmental impact have consistently concluded that permissions for extending the size and terms of temporary stands are acceptable in environmental terms. In every case the applicant has commissioned its own report with the intent of gaining consent, and it is clear that officers have simply accepted finding derived from a biased instruction. In every case the negative environmental impacts on the neighbourhood and the amenity of local residents have been ignored. There is no doubt that the visual intrusion, disturbance caused during construction and use of temporary stands, and the noise the neighbourhood must endure on match days are unacceptable, anywhere, far less at the centre of a World Heritage Site. It is remiss of BANES Council to simply accept the word of the applicant. 

Officer assessments of highway considerations are also subject to question for similar reasons as already stated, once again Bath Rugby plc commissions reports that are detailed and extensive and designed to prove that all is perfectly acceptable in transport terms. Th availability of public transport is evident ; the shortage of city centre parking is also evident ; the availability of park and ride services at three locations is known ; what is evident is the historic problem of vehicular access into the city and parking that exists every day and is exacerbated on match days, often on Saturdays when retail activity is at its height. It seems that the highway authority is too eager to accept the findings of the applicant to paint a rosy picture, or to simply refer to the fact that a “detailed highway assessment” has been produced, without proper scrutiny or challenge. 

The highway authority gives scant regard to safety issues particularly on Pulteney and North Parade bridges where it is normal for rugby crowns to walk on the road. Equally little attention is paid to access to the Recreation Ground as this is confined to the same bridges, either down the steps by the sports centre in the case of North Parade, and the steps from Pulteney Bridge along by the Riverside Cafe. The safety situation is by any standard unacceptable, yet we see the planning department giving no weight to the issue. 

Previous planning conditions have stated a requirement for publishing and distribution of a travel plan to all supporters ; few appear to have seen it. 

The environment agency has consistently imposed conditions concerning crane access to the radial flood gate, at all times yet it is unclear whether this condition is met. Previous conditions have required the free passage of surface water through stands. This is clearly not the case as the west stand has a tarpaulin along the full length of the stand over circulation areas beneath. There is a plinth along the full length of the back of the stand preventing surface water to flow. 


In Conclusion

This scrutiny indicates that the planning authority have informed their recommendations on false premise when it come to proposals made by Bath Rugby plc. It illustrates that the planning authority is inconsistent with the interpretation and application of planning policies. It demonstrates that the planning authority has not and do not use due diligence with regard to national, strategic and local plan policies in assessing supporting statements submitted by the club, and simply accept the biased analysis and evidence provided. 

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that those privileged with authority may not be paying due attention to the responsibilities of office to conduct their affairs in the best interests of the City of Bath and the protection of it’s heritage. Were this the case, none of the temporary stands would be on the Recreation Ground.  
Share by: