Briefing
Temple Meads and Temple Quarter Masterplans
October 2018
Introduction
1.
This note follows a meeting held with other members of the
Bristol Temple Meads [“BTM”] and
Bristol Temple Quarter [“BTQ”] Masterplan project team, and representatives of the Bristol City
Council Planning Policy team (as representatives of the
Local Planning Authority [“LPA”]), on
Thursday 4th October 2018. At the meeting the issues and options associated with the
preparation of a
Supplementary Planning Document [“SPD”] (or similar) to cover the relevant
area of the BTM and BTQ Masterplan were discussed, having regard to how such a document
would fit alongside the ongoing
Bristol Local Plan Review [“LPR”] (which is underway), and the
project programme for the BTM/BTQ Masterplan project.
2.
The driver for this discussion is understood to be the potential for planning applications to be
made in the short term on land within the BTM and BTQ Masterplan project area, in advance of
the completion of the Bristol Local Plan Review, and the need to supplement the local Planning
Policy for this area to ensure that the Council (both as LPA and as a significant stakeholder in the
Masterplan project area, via its other statutory and non-statutory roles) is able to properly and
comprehensively plan for an influence the outcomes that are delivered. As a result of discussion
three main options were identified as follows:
Option 1 – Deliver a masterplan that is not an SPD with no intention for future SPD (i.e. all
policy to be contained in Local Plan)
•
this option assumes the current Masterplan project programme which would see the
Masterplan delivered in May 2019;
Option 2 – Deliver a masterplan that is an SPD and the preparation of which runs in-parallel
with the Local Plan Review
•
this option assumes that the preparation of an SPD would run in-parallel with the Local
Plan Review, with the current Masterplan project programme being elongated
significantly;
Option 3 – Deliver a masterplan that is not an SPD, but may be adopted as such at a later stage
(with or without further adaption/modification)
•
this option assumes the current Masterplan project programme, with the ability for the
outputs to inform the Local Plan Review process at appropriate stages, and the ability for
the Masterplan to be adopted as an SPD once the final suite of polices in the Local Plan
Review is fully known (and tested through Examination);
3.
The table below sets out the anticipated Local Plan Review programme, alongside broad program
options for the three options identified above (with a particular focus on relevant informal and
formal consultation stages).
Dec 2019-Mar
Nov-Dec 2018
Mid-Jan 2019
Mar-May 2019
May-Nov 2019
Nov 2019
Mar-Jun 2020
Mid-2020
Mid-End 2020
End of 2020
2021
2020
Bristol Local Plan
Local Plan Review
Final BTM/BTQ
Publication of the Local
Local Plan Review (Reg
Submission of Local
Examination Hearings
Local Plan Review
Review
consultation (informal
Masterplan available to
Plan (Reg 19
191) Consultation to Jan
Plan Review to SoS for
(Anticipated
adopted
non-statutory
inform future stages of
consultation)
2019 (assumed end
Examination
Programme)
consultation stage, to
Local Plan Review
date)
include draft site
allocations)
Option 1 –
Deliver a
Light touch vision
Information provided to
Publish
[
Option 1A – Potential
masterplan that is not
consultation and review
BCC as LPA by
Masterplan
to refine and update
an SPD with no
feedback
BTM/BTM project to
Masterplan following
intention for future
inform March 2019
Local Plan Review
SPD (i.e. all policy to be
consultation document
consultation to account
contained in Local
for representations
Plan)
Continued engagement
made as part of the
with stakeholders and
Local Plan process, and
updates to the
for this refined version
community
to inform the
subsequent, Reg 19,
consultation version of
the plan]
Option 2 –
Deliver a
Light touch vision
Information provided to
Bristol’s Local Plan
Develop SPD (consider
Consult on first draft of
Review feedback and
Consult on pre-
Review feedback and
Cabinet (or alternative)
SPD adopted shortly
masterplan that is an
consultation and review
BCC as LPA by
Review consultation -
changes required to
SPD (6 weeks
update SPD
adoption SPD (6 weeks
update SPD - Approx. 1
to agree SPD
after Local Plan Review
SPD and the
feedback
BTM/BTM project to
to include policy
Masterplan project
minimum), in parallel
minimum)
month
adopted
preparation of which
inform March 2019
wording that introduces
brief to secure this)
with Local Plan Reg 19
runs in-parallel with
consultation document
detail to be contained
consultation.
the Local Plan Review
in a future SPD
Continued engagement
with stakeholders and
updates to the
community
Option 3 –
Deliver a
Light touch vision
Information provided to
Publish
[
Option 3A – Potential
[
Option 3B – Potential
First draft SPD
masterplan that is not
consultation and review
BCC as LPA by
Masterplan
to refine and update
to commence further
consultation - 6 weeks
an SPD, but may be
feedback
BTM/BTM project to
Masterplan following
preparation of SPD
minimum
adopted as such at a
inform March 2019
Local Plan Review
once Local Plan Review
Bristol’s Local Plan
later stage (with or
consultation document
consultation to account
submitted for
Review consultation -
Review feedback and
without further
for representations
Examination, with first
to include policy
update SPD - Approx 2
adaption/modification)
Continued engagement
made as part of the
consultation before and
wording that introduces
months
with stakeholders and
Local Plan process, and
second after the
detail to be contained
updates to the
for this refined version
adoption of the final
in a future SPD
Second draft SPD
community
to inform the
Local Plan]
consultation 6 weeks
subsequent, Reg 19,
minimum
consultation version of
the plan]
Review feedback and
update SPD - Approx 1
month
Cabinet (or alternative)
to agree and
adopt
SPD
1 The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended)
4.
The table below sets out the anticipated main advantages and disadvantages associated with
each option.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Option 1 –
Deliver a
- Secures early delivery of BTM/BTQ Masterplan with
- Weight that can be attributed to Masterplan (from
masterplan that is not
no change to overall project brief/programme;
date of publication) will be limited by extent to which
an SPD
there has been comprehensive engagement and
agreement with all parties; it will be a material
consideration in the determination of planning
application (and appeals), but would not have the same
weight/status as a Development Plan Document
[“DPD”] or SPD2;
- if it is necessary for all relevant policy details to be
included within Local Plan with no supplementary
documents, there is greater potential for the
preparation and Examination of the Plan (these
policies) to be more protracted and/or less effective
overall in the longer term.
Option 2 –
Deliver a
- Ensures that preparation of relevant and up-to-date
- Delays delivery of any final Masterplan product on
masterplan that is an
local planning policy for BTM and BTQ area is
basis of co-ordination as SPD in parallel with Local Plan
SPD and the
comprehensive with policy being set within Bristol
Review;
preparation of which
Local Plan Review, and further detail within SPD
runs in-parallel with
produce in parallel;
- Continues to leave actual or perceived policy gap
the Local Plan Review
whilst relevant new policies are developed and tested
- There may be overall time and cost efficiencies by
through Local Plan Review, with no interim position
preparing the SPD directly in parallel with the Local
established via publication of Masterplan; however,
Plan Review;
emerging Masterplan outputs could be used at
relevant stages to tell a convincing story about how the
Council is comprehensively planning for the long term
sustainable future of the BTQ area (i.e. not overly
focused on shorter term threats or disruptors);
- Substantially elongates Masterplan project
programme, with likely changes in scope as a result of
need to undertake formal (statutory) consultation
stages;
Option 3 –
Deliver a
- Secures early delivery of BTM/BTQ Masterplan with
- Weight that can be attributed to Masterplan (from
masterplan that is not
no change to overall project brief/programme;
date of publication) will be limited by extent to which
an SPD, but may be
there has been comprehensive engagement and
adopted as such at a
- Ensures that subsequent SPD containing detail for the
agreement with all parties; it will be a material
later stage (with or
BTM/BTQ area (within an SPD or similar document) can
consideration in the determination of planning
without further
be tailored to meet needs of final Local Plan Review
application (and appeals), but would not have the same
adaption/modification)
policy, with benefit of all input and engagement over
weight/status as a Development Plan Document
the life of its preparation;
[“DPD”] or SPD3;
- There would be a need for further additional work,
following the completion of the current Masterplan
project, in order to adapt/update the final Masterplan
(where relevant) in order to become an SPD. Once this
is known (at a future) date the relative
risks/costs/benefits of undertaking this process could
be better understood, to inform future decision
making.
- other landowner and developer interests within the
Masterplan project area may perceive an SPD, that is to
be produced at a future date, to be introducing
uncertainty and additional time into the process, that
could stifle beneficial development being brought
forward in the short term.
2 This is the same position as with the existing BTQ Spatial Framework Document, although the
Masterplan project will move this on beyond the stage previously reached.
3 as footnote 2.
5.
This note has been prepared for further discussion and to aid decision making on this issue,
which we anticipate may require further discussion and agreement between BCC Officers (as
both client for the Masterplan project and as LPA). Based on the above summary it is considered
that either
Option 1 or
Option 3 would likely be preferred, the main (and only limited) difference
being that the Option 3 Masterplan would be specifically drafted in anticipation of being
‘converted’ at a future date. For all options the main challenge (for the LPA and the other main
stakeholder in the area) will remain the extent to which the Local Plan Review can successfully
deliver a policy framework to inform the management of development in the short term, and to
also ensure the longer term success of future comprehensive regeneration over the next 20 years
and beyond, through both the Local Plan and any further SPD (or other documents) working in
combination.
2