BLANK ROWS
Position Papers
Position Papers
Position paper 1
January 2019
In 1956, the Corporation of the city of Bath was signatory to Conveyance of the Recreation Ground from Bath & County Recreation Co Ltd to the Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of the City of Bath, taking on the Obligation in perpetuity under para 2 (under the Law of Property Act 1925), for use conditions set out in Schedule 2 of the contract..”….not using the Recreation Ground other than as an open space and (will) so manage, let or allow use principally for or in connection with the carrying out of games and sport of all kinds, and (will) not show any undue preference to or favour any particular game or sport or any particular person, club or body or organisation…..” The property has not been onward conveyed.
In 2002, the High Court upheld the Conveyance and confirmed that the above Obligation was held by B&NES on Trust for citizen Beneficiaries and the Charity Commission has confirmed this trust to be Contractual.
Citizens expect B&NES to honour the clear intent of the 1956 Conveyance. It would be dishonourable for Councillors and Trustees to collude with a Developer seeking to overthrow the Obligation for private gain. Citizens expect the Council itself to resolve any conflict of loyalty between its Obligation as Trustee under the above Conveyance, any Council benefit arising from the proceeds of development, and its role as Local Planning Authority in protecting Citizen’s interests. B&NES has stated that any consideration of a stadium could not be Council policy until all legal issues have been settled.
In December 2018, the Association made an Application to the Minister of Housing,Communities and Local Government under NPPF2 Sect 76 for the property to be Designated a Local Green Space under Sect 77, making the case for upholding the use conditions set out in the 1956 Conveyance. B&NES is required to give this Application formal consideration and openly state reasons for non designation ; in January 2019 B&NES confirmed that the Application will be treated in the Options document in preparation for the Draft Local Plan. The Application is a material consideration in the event of a planning Application.
Position paper 2
January 2019
The Association objects to the stadium for Bath proposal because
1 The proposal for a regional mass events venue at the centre of town fails to appreciate the limitations of local infrastructure, to appreciate the significance of the local green space in the centre of the city, at the very core of its historic area goes against its World Heritage Objectives (refer position paper 3 -190116). The stadium for Bath is a regional facility with significant traffic and parking implications which have yet to be solved.
2 Fewer than one third of present match attendees come from Bath itself. The intention to operate the facility outside of the 10/14 match days a year would mean extra noise and light pollution. This is unacceptable in an historic residential neighbourhood.
3 The proposal occupies over 50% of the Recreation Ground which is a charity property. It demonstrates that even a three sided, 18,000 seat premiership rugby stadium cannot be accommodated on the available site without significant nuisance and visual damage to listed buildings along the northern boundary, and to the wider Georgian neighbourhood. It renders the rest of the Rec impractical for significant recreational activity. Ongoing premiership rugby success will lead to ongoing pressure for increased capacity.
4 The horn configuration of the layout will cause exceptional levels of noise and night lighting nuisance to nos 60-75 Great Pulteney Street, to Johnstone Street and Laura Place. A planning consent could provide grounds for civil actions.
5 The almost six-acre flat roof of the stadium for Bath is quite inconsistent with the ‘walk-up’ verticality of its historic setting and fails to take account of attribute 4 of the adopted World Heritage Site management plan (WHSmp). The 16m+ roof height would dominate its immediate area and adjacent listed residential buildings.
6 The provision of a 700 space underground car park contradicts Council’s policy of reducing vehicular congestion and pollution in town. It would require the extract ventilation of polluted air onto the riverside walk, onto the north boundary and to the east end of the remaining open space and adjacent pedestrian areas. This is unacceptable in light of Government requirements.
Proposed car and coach access from North Parade presents a particular challenge to the A4/North Parade junction, already one of the most polluted pedestrian access points to the town centre. Alternative access from William Street via the residential Pulteney Estate is wholly unacceptable. There are moves for Bath to be in the forefront of emerging schemes for autonomous electric vehicles in town and likely implementation before 2025 will decrease the demand for in town parking.
7 The provision of 1300sqm of retail floor space above the car park seriously challenges Bath’s already declining retail centre, more especially to its numerous small traders which are a feature of the Bath brand which if to succeed must be focussed. The incorporation of “pop-up shopping” undermines a supportive feature of high street continuity.
8 A stadium by definitions presents it architectural rump to neighbours. Its long 12m high faux-facade to the river visually overpowers Pulteney Bridge (listed grade 1) which is an iconic promotional feature of the Bath brand.
9 The 3m high stadium lighting on top of the the 16m+ high roof, would light up Bathwick, the tudor Abbey, Johnstone Street and Great Pulteney Street and goes against Council’s low lighting policy, itself a feature of the Bath brand. In planning terms this is a nuisance well beyond the immediate neighbourhood of the recreation ground.
Position paper 3
January 2019
The Association objects to the stadium for Bath proposal as being contrary to the adopted World Heritage Site management plan 2016-22, a material consideration in the scrutiny of a planning application.
The City of Bath World Heritage Site derives its statutory protection from the 1977 Local Plan in accordance with PPG’s 8 & 15.
The City was inscribed by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site in 1987 (WHS), recognised as a place of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) which under criterion iv) includes attention to “……the interpretation of landscape and town…….interlinked spaces formed by crescents, terraces and squares set in harmonious relationship with the surrounding green landscape……”
The third WHS Management Plan 2016-2022 (WHSmp) identified the attributes of the OUV which were unanimously endorsed by Bath & North East Somerset Council, the steward of the site, at its full Council meeting on 15th September 2016, and were subsequently reviewed by the Council’s Planning Housing and Economic Development PDS Panel on 2nd May 2017.
1-Objective 1 (pp31) to ensure that all relevant new policy documents take full account of the WHS and accord actions that respect and avoid harm to the OUV criteria
2-Action 3 to engage with all emerging planning policy, major plans and strategies affecting the site to ensure that the significance of the OUV’s is safeguarded.
3- Action 4 to engage with proposals for major development which may impact on the OUV’s of there site including a the development of a sporting, cultural and leisure stadium at the Recreation Ground.
The Association considers that Action 4a of the WHSmp compromises Objective 2 and Action 3 when set against endorsed attributes of OUV, and as set out on pages 18-21 of the WHSmp as below
A Attribute 9 refers to the visual homogeneity of the city due to the use of oolitic limestone, a limited palette of colour tones and the uniformity of scale and height of buildings. The stadium for Bath proposal for a contemporary 18m high industrial steel structure surmounted by floodlights at the very core of the WHS, so close to and overshadowing the iconic Pulteney Bridge, Johnstone Street and the south side of Great Pulteney Street, cannot accommodate this principle of homogeneity
B Attribute 11 references the views and vistas within the georgian city deliberately created by awareness of contact and beyond…..to be viewed from the city centre. The recreation ground contributes to the unique townscape oil Bath by maintaining views of the surrounding hills which contributes so much to its setting. The stadium for Bath proposal completely blocks the key views and vistas identified by B&NES, Bath Preservation Trust, PERA and Historic England as relevant to this attribute.
C Attribute 13 references the design of the Georgian city to facilitate outdoor social interaction and activity including walks, promenades, colonnades to afford weather protection, and pleasure gardens. The stadium for Bath proposal is an exclusive, internal mass media facility turning its back on the city, occupying areas formerly available for the above activities with ancilliary buildings and car parking eliminating the above attributes.
D Attribute 19 references the design of the Georgian city as a theatre set with visual surprises and open spaces linked to one another. The Recreatiion Ground is the key open space that links the Tudor Abbey to the grade 1 buildings of Great Pulteney Street and the residential areas of Bathwick and is a vital pedestrian link to Henrietta and Sydney Gardens, the latter about to be upgraded.
E Attribute 20 references the relationship of buildings to landscape, the concept of blending countryside and town, and historic parks and gardens. The stadium for Bath proposal totally destroys this fundamental attribute at the very core of the city.
F Attribute 30 references the universal use of natural building materials in the georgian city ; the stadium for Bath proposal is a complete contradiction of this.
G Attribute 44 references the green and undeveloped hillsides within and surrounding the parklands and gardens ; the stadium for Bath proposal destroys one of the most significant local green areas of the city.
H Attribute 45 references the trees and tree belts lining the river and canal and within parklands and gardens. The stadium for Bath proposal overshadows the tree head which makes up this attribute.
J Attribute 47 references fingers of green countryside which stretch right into the city. The Recreation Ground is one such finger, from Bathwick Meadows through Sydney Gardens and Bathwick Hill leading right into the centre, a feature which will be blocked by the stadium for Bath proposal.
The Association considers that the stadium for Bath proposal contradicts each of items A-J above, seriously undermines the Bath brand, which impacts on both the national and local tourist industries.
Position paper 4
The way forward
January 2019
The Association believes that the stadium for Bath project cannot proceed on the Recreation Ground for legal reasons (Position paper 1), for planning reasons (Position paper 2) or Heritage reasons (Position paper 3) and that the Way Forward must be established early by Bath Recreation Limited in support of B&NES 1956 Obligations.
The Association will press B&NES for determination of its December 2019 Application to the Minister for the property to be designated a Local Green Space under NPPF sect 77. The Association asks that the Application be progressed by B&NES taking into account the adopted World Heritage Site management plan 2016-22 (WHSmp) Attributes 11, 13, 19, 20, 44, 45, & 47, to establish a planning brief for early adoption by the post election administration.
The stadium for Bath project identifies the opportunity to reshape the river frontage in an imaginative manner, one which would support WHSmp Attribute 45 to provide a further magnet for Bath’s tourism industry, and satisfy citizen demand for the public realm. To contribute to Government demands for pollution reduction and to further support Attribute 45 of the WHSmp, the Association believes that the river frontage should be dominated by a deep tree belt from North Parade bridge to Pulteney Bridge which would place the Tudor Abbey, Empire Parade and Pulteney Bridge in a more enhanced setting.
It is considered that car parking should be absolutely restricted to the present 160 places beneath the present Leisure Centre and that all other hardstanding be returned to a porous surface in support of WHSmp Attributes 44 & 45.
It is for Bath Recreation Limited to identify the forms of recreation and amateur sport anticipated by Bath citizens over the immediate decades, incorporating those indoor facilities provided by the B&NES Leisure Centre, especially its changing facilities, the Pavillion on North Parade, and the listed building of the cricket Pavilion.
Light pollution along the south boundary of the Rec is a serious issue and action should be taken to ameliorate that from the Leisure Centre and from Student Castle.
------------------------------------------------------