LDF Steering Group Minutes

 

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK STEERING GROUP

23 May 2016

 PRESENT:     Councillor Robert Chapman – Chairman; Councillors John Beesley, Laurence Fear, David Kelsey, Pat Oakley, Michael Weinhonig.

REPRESENTATIVE FROM BOURNEMOUTH CIVIC SOCIETY: Ken Mantock – Vice-Chairman.

ALSO PRESENT:      Councillor Mike Greene, Portfolio Holder for Transport, Sustainability and Carbon Management; Councillor Philip Broadhead, ward member for  Talbot and Branksome Woods; Councillor Philip Stanley-Watts

 OFFICERS PRESENT:

Andrew England, Head of Planning and Regulation

Caroline Peach, Design and Heritage Manager

The meeting commenced at 3.30 p.m.

Note: To see a copy of the reports that were considered by the Local Development Framework Steering Group at this meeting please visit:

http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/CouncilDemocratic/CouncilMeetings/CommitteeMeetings/LocalDevelopmentFrameworkGroup/2016/05/23/localdevelopmentframeworkgroup23-may-2016.aspx

 SECTION I – BUSINESS RECOMMENDED TO THE CABINET

 ADOPTION OF TALBOT VILLAGE CONSERVATION AREA APPRAISAL AND MANAGEMENT PLAN

 The Steering Group considered a report which sought Cabinet approval of the Talbot Woods Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan and a recommendation to the Council that they be adopted. The purpose of the Appraisal and Management Plan was to set out the main features which made Talbot Village special and explain how the area would be managed for the future, including how a number of key issues would be addressed. The Appraisal and Management Plan would also be used to inform the master plan for the wider Talbot Project partnership.

The Steering Group had considered the Appraisal and Management Plan in an earlier draft format prior to a period of public consultation. Officers from other Council departments, ward councillors and the portfolio holder, interested parties and members of the public had all had the opportunity to comment on the documents. The Design and Heritage Manager explained that paragraphs 12 to 17 of the Cabinet report gave a summary of who had responded to the consultation and how the Appraisal and Management Plan had been amended to take into account the key issues raised.

A copy of the revised Appraisal and Management Plan was circulated with the report at Appendix 1 and 2. Further information about the consultation process was included at Appendix 3.  It was noted that the consultation report was quite lengthy due to the number of detailed responses which had warranted thorough consideration and response by the Council. The Design and Heritage Manager explained that as the Appraisal was essentially a factual document there was limited scope for significant changes to be made. In response to the consultation results a number of amendments had been made to the introduction, sections 7 and 9, as highlighted in red text. The Steering Group was satisfied with the Appraisal as amended.

The Design and Heritage Manager explained that the Management Plan by its nature had more scope to change as a result of the consultation responses received. Some of the amendments had been made to combine text and actions in order to ensure the document was clear and succinct, e.g. in respect of woodland management and activity, and parking and traffic arrangements. The Design and Heritage Manager responded to the points raised by Mrs Warner in her deputation and by members regarding enabling development and the deleted reference to Policy 4.12 in Action 10, page 18. She explained that Policy 4.12 was one of the saved policies from the Council’s District Wide Local Plan adopted in 2002 and was therefore still ‘live’. The policy related not only to the six residential plots and their location but also covered wider aspects such as lighting, pathways and the school. However the policy did not refer specifically to enabling development which was the intended focus of Action 10 and the preceding paragraphs 6.5 and 6.6 in the Management Plan. It was therefore considered more appropriate for Action 10 to refer to Historic England’s guidance on enabling development from 2008, as set out in paragraph 6.5.

Members of the Steering Group were supportive of the changes that had been made to the Management Plan and were happy to accept the document as amended. While being mindful of the issues raised in the deputations, particularly in relation to unwanted and inappropriate development, members also spoke about the need to adapt to the constant changes in planning legislation and guidance. Members felt it was helpful to include the definition of enabling development at paragraph 6.5. It was also important to remember that in planning terms each application was considered on its own merits. Members considered that the amendments to the Management Plan had taken on board the comments received and strengthened their previous discussions. The importance of the Management Plan as the tool by which improvements could be delivered was also noted.

The Cabinet Member for Transport stated that the Appraisal and Management Plan delivered the joint aims of protecting the Conservation Area and planning for its future management. He referred to the balance between the Trust’s charitable objectives and its role in preserving and enhancing the Conservation Area. He also felt that the Trust would need to take into account that the area was used not only by residents but by visitors many of whom would be travelling by car and would require parking.

 DECISION MADE:

 Recommended to Cabinet:

That the Talbot Village Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan be approved and recommended to the Council for adoption;

 

  1. That Cabinet delegates authority to the Service Director, Development Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Planning and Environment to make further minor editing changes, corrections and updates to the document prior to publication, to include the following minor typographical corrections:

 Appraisal (Appendix 1) – page 28 – text beneath image to start with the word ‘Bench …’

  • Management Plan (Appendix 2) – page 1 – paragraph 1.4, 2nd sentence to read ‘For Talbot Village this has been achieved through…’

 

  1. That the production of a heritage partnership plan with the Talbot Village Trust be welcomed.

     SECTION II – BUSINESS DECIDED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS

  APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS

 Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Don McQueen, Councillor David Smith (portfolio holder), Martin Broad and Angela Pooley.

Councillor Pat Oakley was substituting for Councillor McQueen at this meeting.

  

  1. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interest.

 

  1. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 DECISION MADE:

 

The minutes of the meeting held on 21 March 2016 were agreed and signed by the Chairman.

  

  1. PUBLIC ITEMS

 There were no public questions or petitions submitted for this meeting.

The Steering Group agreed to receive the following deputations in relation to the report on the adoption of the Talbot Village Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan.

Mrs Sheila Warner, a local resident of Talbot and Branksome Woods:

Mrs Warner expressed concern at the number of changes in the Appraisal and Management Plan documents before the Steering Group compared to the draft versions previously considered. She felt that some of the wording had been moderated to accommodate the views of the Talbot Village Trust. She was particularly concerned at the suggested deletion of the reference to Policy 4.12 of the District Wide Local Plan. She also felt that Trust’s charitable objectives were too restrictive in not allowing funds to be used to enhance the Conservation Area.

Mrs Warner asked members to consider whether they were happy to accept these documents bearing in mind the revised versions had not been subject to public consultation.

Ms Sally Knott, Planning Consultant for Intelligent Land, acting on behalf of the Talbot Village Trust (TVT):

TVT’s main concern was that some of the actions in the Management Plan could not be achieved without its financial support. Upkeep of the Conservation Area, while desirable, was not the primary objective of the charity’s funds. TVT asked that the Management Plan and future proposals for the Conservation Area recognise the need for heritage assets to be viable.

TVT sought the Council’s support in a number of areas, including improvements to woodland management, resolution of congestion/parking issues at the school, and the delivery of the scheme at White Farm. TVT thanked the Council for the opportunity to input into the Appraisal and Management Plan and welcomed the prospect of further working with the Council and residents for the good of the village and the legacy.

 

 

The Chairman thanked Mrs Warner and Ms Knott for their deputations. These would be taken into account when the report was considered.

 

 

 

The meeting closed at 4.13pm

 

==============================================================================

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK STEERING GROUP

21 March 2016

 PRESENT:     Councillor Robert Chapman – Chairman; Councillors David Kelsey, Don McQueen, Michael Weinhonig.

REPRESENTATIVE FROM BOURNEMOUTH CIVIC SOCIETY: Ken Mantock – Vice-Chairman.

BOURNEMOUTH 2026 PARTNERS: Angela Pooley.

ALSO PRESENT:

OFFICERS PRESENT:

Andrew England, Head of Planning and Regulation

Mark Axford, Development and Planning Policy Manager

Andrew Emery, Resort Development and Strategic Planning Manager (Tourism)

The meeting commenced at 10.30 a.m.

Note: To see a copy of the reports that were considered by the Local Development Framework Steering Group at this meeting please visit: http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/CouncilDemocratic/CouncilMeetings/CommitteeMeetings/LocalDevelopmentFrameworkGroup/2016/03/21/localdevelopmentframeworkgroup21-mar-2016.aspx

 SECTION I – BUSINESS RECOMMENDED TO THE CABINET

 TOURISM SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT

 The Steering Group considered a report which sought Cabinet approval of the Tourism Accommodation Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and a recommendation to the Council that it be adopted.

 

The Head of Planning and Regulation explained in his report that the SPD would replace the existing Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) and would bring it up to date with current market conditions and importantly the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). He explained the background to the preparation of the new SPD and the factors which had been taken into account as it was developed. The main changes in the new SPD were:

 

  • The introduction of a pre-application screening process to enable tourism accommodation which does not have a viable future to be identified at an early stage. Particular attention had been given to the terms of reference for the proposed screening panel in response to requests for more detail.
  • Clarification on alternative provision such as holiday flats.
  • Clarification that changes of use to Houses in Multiple Occupation are unlikely to be supported.

 

The Steering Group had already considered the draft SPD at an earlier stage prior to the public consultation period. A summary of the replies to the consultation and the proposed officer responses had been included for reference in the report at Appendix 1.  The Head of Planning and Regulation highlighted the response which had been given to comments questioning the tourism offer/ambition for Bournemouth. The response was very clear in restating that the policy was about viability, and that if a business was not viable it did not contribute. One member asked about the impact on smaller guesthouses and bed and breakfast accommodation when larger chain hotels were granted planning permission. It was explained that this had to be left to market forces. The policy was not intended to find in favour of particular types of accommodation. However it would address the issue of viability in these circumstances more effectively than the previous SPG.

 

The Steering Group also heard from the Resort Development and Strategic Planning Manager who reported that Bournemouth was adopting a more pragmatic approach to its SPD than other Councils, some of whom simply refused applications and others who had little by way of policy to prevent change of use. He explained that the intention of the pre application screening panel was to provide guidance in the decision making process, similar to the role of the local design review panel. The Head of Planning and Regulation confirmed that although the recommendation of the screening panel was a material consideration it was not binding. However the local planning authority would need to demonstrate clear planning reasons for taking a decision contrary to the panel’s recommendation.

 

A copy of the proposed SPD was attached at Appendix 2 and the suggested terms of reference for the screening panel were set out in appendix 3. Members discussed the terms of reference in detail and asked for a number of issues to be made more explicit in the final version, including details of membership, voting rights, and the process and timescale for reviewing arrangements.

DECISION MADE:

 Recommended to Cabinet:

That the Tourism Accommodation Supplementary Planning Document be approved and recommended to the Council for adoption, subject to the following suggested amendments made to the Terms of Reference at Appendix 3:

The terms of reference should specify that meetings of the screening panel are non public

 The composition of the panel should indicate that the Chair and 4 trade specialists will have voting rights. The Panel manager, which is an administrative role, and anyone attending as an Observer will not have voting rights

  • The 4 trade specialists will comprise 2 representatives nominated by Bournemouth Area Hospitality Association (BAHA) and 2 representatives nominated by Bournemouth Tourism Management Board (BTMB)

 

  • In order to achieve a consistent approach to the screening process it is expected that each BAHA and BTMB representative will serve at least a one year term with a nominated deputy for each representative (rather than taken from a larger pool of members)

 

  • On page 3, under the section on ‘BTASP members should’, the first bullet point should be ‘Focus on viability matters’ to give additional emphasis to this role

 

  • The terms of reference should be reviewed after 12 months through the LDF Steering Group and the Cabinet Portfolio Holder

 

  1. STRATEGIC CROSS BOUNDARY PLANNING ISSUES IN DORSET

 

The Steering Group considered a report which sought Cabinet approval of the summary of cross boundary planning issues and the timeline for undertaking work associated with these issues, as identified by the county wide Strategic Planning Forum (SPF). The report also sought Cabinet approval of the proposed terms of reference and governance structure for the SPF and a recommendation to the Council that these be incorporated into the Council’s Constitution.

The Development and Planning Policy Manager explained that the proposals had been developed to respond to the Localism Act’s ‘Duty to Cooperate’ by taking a co-ordinated approach to the strategic planning framework where cross boundary issues arose. Although the Localism Act had abolished previous arrangements for regional planning a mechanism was still required to work together with other Councils to review respective Local Plans and plan locally for housing delivery. One of the steps in progressing this had been the creation of a Strategic Planning Forum made up of representatives of all Councils in Dorset, the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and the Local Nature Partnership (LNP). The SPF had held its first meeting in November 2015 and made recommendations to formalise the arrangements for cross boundary working which each local authority was asked to consider and endorse.

The SPF had identified a number of work streams which would be able to provide evidence to inform growth options. These were set out in the Summary of Cross Boundary Issues paper at Appendix 1 of the report. Members of the Steering Group noted in particular:

the increase in the housing need assessment figures as set out on page 6

  • the need to undertake reviews of urban capacity, employment land, and green belt to inform the options for growth  
  • the need to look again at the evidence base in respect of gypsy and traveller provision due to a change in definition by central government.

 

The Steering Group indicated its support for the summary of cross boundary planning issues paper and the timeline for work which would result in an options paper being brought forward to LDF and Cabinet in Autumn/Winter 2016. The Development and Planning Policy Manager responded to questions from members and the following points were raised:

 

  • Although the proposed Combined Authority did not technically include planning the SPF would provide an integral link – but Local Plans would remain within the remit of each local authority
  • The majority of Local Plans within Dorset had been formed using the same evidence base taken from previous regional planning sources. This work would need to be done again when Local Plans were next reviewed so it was important to establish a mechanism for this. Central government expected local authorities to actively engage with each other in developing their respective Local Plans and could impose sanctions if this collaboration did not take place in a timely manner
  • Although the SPF had no executive powers it was more than a ‘tick box’ exercise and would be needed, particularly to discuss and progress high profile issues such as housing
  • In considering flood risk it was acknowledged that a new strategic flood risk assessment would be required as the current studies referred in Appendix 1 dated from 2007 and 2009
  • Reference should be included to the Local Nature Partnership’s Natural Capital Investment Strategy for Dorset and a report on Dorset’s Environmental Economy commissioned by Dorset County Council:

http://www.dorsetlnp.org.uk/Natural_Capital_Investment_Strategy.html

  • Under the recommended scope for strategic planning work the reference to the Dorset coastline should indicate that this extends beyond the county boundaries as the same issues apply to the coastline either side.
  • The SPF governance structure flowchart at Appendix 4 was difficult to follow in its current format and would benefit greatly from a written explanation of how the key elements fitted together in terms of decision making, communication and information sharing.

   DECISION MADE:

 Recommended to Cabinet:

 That the following documents be endorsed by the Cabinet, subject to the following suggested amendments recommended by the Steering Group:

 

  • Appendix 1 – Summary of Cross Boundary Planning Issues

 

Page 16: Flood risk – LDF Steering Group recommends that a new strategic flood risk assessment will be required to provide an up to date evidence base

 

Page 26: Infrastructure and resources – bullet point 7 to read:

‘Developing a consistent approach to Coastal Change Management Areas, to be applied along the full length of the Dorset Coastline and beyond

 

LDF Steering Group recommends that reference also be included to the Local Nature Partnership’s Natural Capital Investment Strategy for Dorset and a report on Dorset’s Environmental Economy commissioned by Dorset County Council

 

  • Appendix 2 – Timeline for cross boundary planning work

 

  • Appendices 3 and 4 – Terms of reference and the governance structure for the county wide Strategic Planning Forum – to be subsequently recommended to the Council for inclusion in the Constitution:

 

LDF Steering Group recommends that the governance structure at Appendix 4 be accompanied by a clear written explanation of the relationships between the various groups shown

 

 

  1. That Cabinet delegates authority to the Service Director, Economy, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Environment to make amendments to the documents to either paper. 

 

SECTION II – BUSINESS DECIDED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS

 

 APOLOGIES

 

An apology for absence on local government business was received from Councillor John Beesley. Apologies were also received from Councillor Laurence Fear and Martin Broad.

 

 

  1. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interest.

 

 

  1. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

DECISION MADE:

 

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 December 2015 were agreed and signed by the Chairman.

 

 

  1. PUBLIC ITEMS

 

There were no public questions or petitions submitted for this meeting.

The Steering Group agreed to receive a deputation from Mrs Sheila Warner, representing the Talbot and Branksome Woods Residents’ Association, in relation to the update report on conservation and heritage work.

Mrs Warner referred to the current staff resources for conservation and heritage work within the Council. She highlighted that only part of this work related to conservation areas and in turn only part of that work related to conservation area appraisals. Ideally government guidelines recommended that appraisals should be reassessed every five years. She referred to a recent Planning Board meeting where a 2009 appraisal had been cited as not being up to date. She expressed her concern at how the Council with limited resources intended to review its twenty existing conservation areas every five years.

The Chairman thanked Mrs Warner for her deputation which would be taken into account when the report was considered.

 

  1. UPDATE ON CONSERVATION AND HERITAGE WORK

The Steering Group considered a report which summarised the Council’s main responsibilities for conservation and heritage and outlined the key areas of work being undertaken to fulfil this role.

The Head of Planning and Regulation responded to the points made in the deputation from Mrs Sheila Warner on behalf of the Talbot and Branksome Woods Residents’ Association. He explained that the government guidance on reappraising conservation areas every five years was best practice rather than a statutory timescale. The Council managed its conservation work to the best of its ability within the resources available and according to its priorities. It was currently averaging a reappraisal every 18 months or so. It was noted that the Old Christchurch Road area was currently a work in progress. The next priorities which had been identified as areas particularly affected by pressure for change were East Cliff, and West Cliff and Poole Hill. As Mrs Warner had rightly pointed out the team also dealt with other areas of work including listed building applications and related issues. Expertise in the form of consultants was used as and when capacity required and resources allowed.  In a wider context the Planning Service was also having to respond to a continual stream of government guidance on planning issues, including the development of brownfield sites. There was also a need to review the Local Plan.

Councillor Kelsey, as Chairman of Planning Board, responded to Mrs Warner’s point about the 2009 appraisal and explained that updated information was provided to the Board in the planning officer’s report where required on a case by case basis. In this instance the conservation area appraisal had not changed significantly since 2009 to warrant an update.

Members of the Steering Group talked about the important nature and value of conservation and heritage work, but acknowledged that this had to be balanced against limited resources and competing priorities, and in particular the increasing pressure to respond to central government dictats. Although the budget was the same these increasing demands stretched resources and equated to a reduction in practice.  The message from government was clear in terms of what the priorities should be for local planning authorities, in meeting development management requirements and reviewing local plans. Regrettably conservation and heritage issues were not a current government priority.

In considering the conservation area work listed in the report there was more concern about completing new appraisal and management plans rather than reviewing existing ones. The Head of Planning and Regulation explained that a ‘light touch’ approach was not possible, as without proper consideration and consultation the documents would carry less weight and would be of less value to the planning process. It was noted that the neighbourhood planning process provided an opportunity to tap into resources within the local community and enable people to highlight heritage and conservation issues in their area.

DECISION MADE:

That the update on conservation and heritage work and the issues raised in the discussion in terms of managing resources and priorities be noted.

 

  1. TALBOT VILLAGE CONSERVATION AREA APPRAISAL AND MANAGEMENT PLAN

 

The Head of Planning and Regulation gave a verbal update on responses received to the public consultation on the proposed Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan for Talbot Village.

Overall there was a good level of support for both documents. There was particular support for the continued use and management of the allotments (Action 20). Areas of concern included the potential use of the woods (Action 4) and issues relating to the upgrade of the preferred north-south route (Action13). The Head of Planning and Regulation agreed that further discussion was required on the nature of the lighting for the north-south route so that it was safe and practical to use and sensitive to the surrounding area. The Talbot Village Trust (TVT) had provided a detailed response which raised questions about the enabling process and how the actions would be funded. Positive responses had been received from Bournemouth University, Bournemouth Civic Society, St Mark’s Church and Historic England which had called both documents as ‘an exemplar of their kind’. The responses all highlighted the importance and value of the area, its history, ethos and sustainability.

The consultation responses would be considered and used to inform the final Appraisal and Management Plan, which would be reported back to the Steering Group and on to Cabinet prior to formal adoption by the Council. The Head of Planning and Regulation explained that at the same time this may include the pre application brief for the Whites Farm site. Angela Pooley reported that the TVT was planning to develop the site into a working horticultural establishment for people who the Trust looked after.

DECISION MADE:

 

That the initial feedback from the consultation on the Talbot Village Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan and the next steps in the process be noted.

 

BOSCOMBE AND POKESDOWN NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

The Head of Planning and Regulation gave a verbal update on the progress of the Boscombe and Pokesdown Neighbourhood Plan.

The emerging Boscombe and Pokesdown Neighbourhood Plan Forum had submitted an application to the Council firstly to designate itself as the administrative body for the Plan and secondly to designate the area which the Plan would cover. This application was now subject to a public consultation. To date six responses had been received, four in favour, one neutral, and one which objected to the proposal of using the ward boundaries for Boscombe West and Boscombe East as the basis for the Plan area. Additional responses would be expected before the closing date on 31 March. It was anticipated that the decision would be dealt with through the Cabinet Member for Planning and Environment, as at this stage it related to the administrative process rather than the detailed formation of the Neighbourhood Plan which would be agreed through a separate mechanism.

 

Once the Neighbourhood Plan had been put together it would be subject to a referendum of local residents within the area it covered. One of the advantages of the area being based on the ward boundaries was that the referendum would be simpler to administer. The referendum question was expected to be a straightforward Yes/No answer to whether or not the Plan should be adopted for making planning decisions. The Neighbourhood Plan Forum was not intended to replace the two existing area forums for Boscombe and Pokesdown, and had been set up through engaging with the wider community.

DECISION MADE:

 That the update on progress of the Boscombe and Pokesdown Neighbourhood Plan Forum and Area be noted.

The meeting was adjourned between 11.37am and 11.39am

The meeting closed at 12.07pm

================================================================================

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK STEERING GROUP

11 December 2015 

PRESENT: Councillors Robert Chapman – Chairman; Councillors John Beesley, Laurence Fear, David Kelsey, Donald McQueen, Pat Oakley. 

BOURNEMOUTH CIVIC SOCIETY: Ken Mantock – Vice Chair 

BOURNEMOUTH 2026 PARTNERS: Martin Broad 

ALSO PRESENT: 

Councillor Jane Kelly, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Public Health 

OFFICERS PRESENT

Mark Axford – Development and Planning Policy Manager 

Caroline Peach – Design and Heritage Manager 

The meeting commenced at 10.00am 

Note: To see a copy of the reports that were considered by the Local Development Framework Steering Group and to listen to the Council’s audio recording of this meeting please visit: 

http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/CouncilDemocratic/CouncilMeetings/CommitteeMeetings/  LocalDevelopmentFrameworkGroup/2015/12/11/localdevelopment   frameworkgroup11-dec-2015.aspx 

SECTION I – BUSINESS RECOMMENDED TO THE CABINET 

34. ADOPTION OF CHURCHILL GARDENS MANAGEMENT PLAN 

The Steering Group considered a report which sought Cabinet and Council approval to adopt the Churchill Gardens Management Plan. The Steering Group was asked to consider the document and submit any further comments for the Cabinet to consider at its meeting on 16 December 2015. It was noted that the Steering Group had previously had an opportunity to consider and comment on the draft Management Plan in detail prior to the public consultation process. 

The Design and Heritage Manager introduced the report and explained that the Management Plan had been amended to take into account responses received during the consultation period which had run from 20 July to 11 September 2015. For ease of reference the amendments were highlighted in red text on the Management Plan, attached at Appendix 1 of the report. The consultation report J2 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 11 December 2015 

at Appendix 2 provided a more detailed breakdown of comments received and the Council’s response to these. 

The Design and Heritage Manager reported that the overall response to the Management Plan had been very positive, with a high level of support for the proposals, especially for the ‘vision’ and co-ordinated approach taken with Churchill Gardens, seeking external funding for positive changes, the Council led grant scheme to repair/replace architectural features, and the development of a park management plan. Key amendments to the document related to making actions clear regarding the Council’s intention to involve stakeholders in the Plan’s delivery, improvements to cycling, lighting and signage, and encouraging private landlords to invest in improvements in the area. 

In considering the report the Design and Heritage Manager responded to questions from members, particularly around the role of property owners and private landlords ‘doing their bit’ to improve the area. She explained that as part of the work on the Management Plan a joint meeting had been held with colleagues in Housing, property owners, and large and small landlords to talk through the issues affecting Churchill Gardens. There had been a strong sense from the property owners and smaller landlords that they were contributing to the area, although there was a difference in attitude from the larger landlords who others felt were not doing as much as they could. 

The Portfolio Holder reported that there had been some success with multiple landlords through negotiation, with the message slowly getting through. She anticipated that the grant scheme for repairs would help in this respect and eventually show up those who were not taking care of their properties. The Steering Group also noted the ongoing work of Operation Galaxy in driving up decent housing standards through a zero tolerance approach and in helping occupants to access the services they need. The work of the Housing team and other partners extended beyond Churchill Gardens into the wider Boscombe community. 

The Steering Group agreed that it should send a clear message of support for the robust approach being taken by housing and planning enforcement. It was also felt that the goodwill found among the property owners and smaller landlords in Churchill Gardens should be encouraged and accentuated in the wider community to promote Boscombe regeneration more generally and ensure everyone was on board with what the Council and its partners are trying to achieve. It was acknowledged that a collective approach was needed to encourage multiple landlords to make improvements to their properties, as otherwise this would impact on the rate at which the area was being transformed. 

The Design and Heritage Manager explained that the process for facilitating the grant scheme was still under discussion with colleagues in Housing. She assured members that it would be a proper and fair process which would require the money to be spent in the most effective and demonstrable way possible to ensure best value. One area the Council was focussing on was improvements to boundary walls, which could result in maximum visual impact for minimum expenditure. J3 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 11 December 2015 

The Portfolio Holder added that the Council was looking at best practice elsewhere and would ensure that the area was the prime beneficiary of the grant rather than an individual landlord. 

DECISION MADE: 

Recommended to Cabinet: 

1 That the Churchill Gardens Management Plan as set out at Appendix 1 of the report be recommended to Council for adoption; 

2 That delegated authority be given to the Service Director, Planning, Transport and Regulation, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Environment, to make any further minor editing changes, corrections and updates to the document prior to publication; 

Note: 

In considering the report the Steering Group agreed to send a note to the relevant lead officers, with copy to the two Portfolio Holders, to express its strong support for the robust approach being taken by both Housing and Planning Enforcement in the Churchill Gardens area, and its expectation that this approach will continue.J4 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 11 December 2015 J5 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 11 December 2015 

SECTION II – BUSINESS DECIDED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS 

35. APOLOGIES 

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Michael Weinhonig and Councillor David Smith, Cabinet Member for Planning and Environment. 

36. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 

There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interest. 

37. PUBLIC ITEMS 

There were no public issues for this meeting. 

38. PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK 

The Development and Planning Policy Manager reported that there had been a number of releases from Central Government including the Housing and Planning Bill and the recently released proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The proposed changes, which were lacking in detail at this stage, placed a clear emphasis on the need for housing, and included: 

• Changes to the definition of affordable housing to expand the range of low cost housing opportunities and relax the ‘in perpetuity’ restrictions in some cases, and suggesting a period in which local plan policy on affordable housing should be amended to reflect the new definition (six to twelve months); 

• Introducing a statutory duty to promote starter homes and requiring a percentage of starter homes (as yet unspecified) to be included in new housing developments. The Housing and Planning Bill may define starter homes as new dwellings for first time buyers under 40, sold at a discount of at least 80% of market value with a cap of £250,000 (or £450,000 in London); • Promoting starter homes on underused / unviable employment, retail, leisure and institutional brownfield land; 

• Introducing a three year limit on how long an employment site can remain undeveloped before being considered for housing (subject to evidence of market interest); 

• Increasing residential density around commuter hubs; 

• Supporting new settlements, including urban extensions;

J6 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 11 December 2015 

• Development on brownfield sites through a statutory brownfield register. This would enable sites to benefit from ‘permission in principle’, i.e. no requirement for outline planning permission; 

• Introducing a presumption in favour of brownfield sites; 

• Supporting development on small brownfield sites; 

• Introducing a Housing Delivery test, to compare net housing delivery to local plan targets and impose penalties where not being met; 

• Rural and green belt exception sites for starter homes; 

• Making it easier to develop green belt brownfield sites for starter homes. 

The Development and Planning Policy Manager responded to questions and explained that the proposals referred to both greenfield and green belt land. The intention to relax the criteria for green belt development for starter homes was clear. The Council had adopted a uniform approach to the protection of its green belt land. The Steering Group highlighted green belt was of major importance to Bournemouth and there was a real concern that the proposals called this into question. 

The Steering Group expressed concern at a number of the proposals and did not feel that the consequences had been properly thought through. Members were concerned that local authorities would end up subsidising starter homes for starter homes would not be eligible to pay the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and Section 106 monies The proposals made employment land more vulnerable to unsuitable development and there were concerns regarding the impact this would have on inward investment in the town. It was noted that the quality of some office to residential conversions was poor. They required no financial contribution to improve the area or its infrastructure but at the same time placed additional demand on local services. While supporting housing as a priority the Group felt there was insufficient detail in the proposals to provide any assurance. 

The Development and Planning Policy Manager also talked about the proposed brownfield register which would require 90% of brownfield sites suitable for housing to be included by 2020, these would then benefit from a ‘permission in principle’. This would present some difficulties in identifying sensitive sites. As the presumption would be for housing development it may also require the Council to prepare mini planning briefs for each site to ensure that reserved matters reflected what was acceptable. This would incur costs on the planning department that are normally covered by the applicant. 

The consultation period on the proposed changes to National Planning Policy was now open and ended on 25 January 2016. 

DECISION MADE: 

a. That the Steering Group records its concern at the proposed changes to National Planning Policy as set out in the consultation document, in J7 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 11 December 2015 

particular the lack of detail and understanding of the impact and consequences which these changes will have for Bournemouth; 

b. That the Council prepares a joint response from the Chairman, the Leader of the Council and the Portfolio Holders for Planning and Environment and Housing, in order to make representations to the Department of Communities and Local Government through the Local Government Association and the two Bournemouth Members of Parliament. 

39. ADOPTION OF COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY 

The Development and Planning Policy Manager provided an update for information 

on the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) which was due to be adopted by the 

Council in January 2016. 

The CIL had been submitted for Independent Examination in August 2015 and had been found sound for the Council to adopt subject to three amendments. He explained that the High Court judgement quashing the government’s policy of not requiring affordable housing contributions from sites of 10 units and under had been made in time for the Council to amend the CIL residential rates for outside the Town Centre to a single flat rate of £70 per square metre. The other two modifications related to reducing the student rate from £50 to £40 per sq m and introducing a new levy rate of £134 per sq m for small scale convenience stores across the Borough. 

The development and Planning Policy Manager responded to questions. He confirmed that it was being recommended to Council to implement the CIL with effect from March 2016. He explained that the CIL did not replace Section 106 contributions for affordable housing and that site specific section 106 contributions can be sought if justified. CIL would however be used to fund open space, education, transport and heathlands infrastructure. CIL would be applied to some applications currently in the planning process but not determined until March 2016. Developers were aware of this and there was no known discernable impact on projects coming forward. Once implemented CIL would be monitored very closely to see what impacts were apparent on development viability. 

DECISION MADE: 

That the update on the adoption of the Community Infrastructure Levy be noted. 

40. ADOPTION OF HEATHLANDS SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT 

The Development and Planning Policy Manager also provided an update for 

information on the Heathlands Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which 

is recommended to be adopted by the Council in January 2016.J8 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 11 December 2015 

The Heathlands SPD set out the overall approach to enabling development through an avoidance and mitigation strategy for the Dorset Heathlands, through heathland infrastructure projects and sets a charge on development for strategic access management and monitoring such as wardening and education. 

DECISION MADE: 

That the update on the adoption of the Heathlands Supplementary Planning 

Document be noted. 

41. MEETING ARRANGEMENTS FOR 2016 

The Steering Group was asked to consider its meeting arrangements for 2016, in 

particular whether it wished to set a schedule of meeting dates in advance for the 

whole year. 

Members agreed that they felt the current arrangements – by which meetings were 

called as and when required prior to Cabinet – worked well. Members also wished to 

continue the process by which items were reported back to the Steering Group 

following the consultation period but agreed that in these circumstances an 

electronic version of the amended documents would be sufficient. 

DECISION MADE: 

That the meeting arrangements for the Steering Group remain as they are. 

42. ANY OTHER BUSINESS – GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION ON HOUSES OF 

MULTIPLE OCCUPATION (HMOs) 

Councillor Pat Oakley asked whether the Steering Group could consider a future agenda 

item on the implementation of HMO licensing. 

DECISION MADE: 

That the Steering Group considers a future agenda item on HMO licensing as 

appropriate. 

The meeting closed at 11.20am 

Contact: Jill Holyoake, Democratic and Overview & Scrutiny Officer 

 01202 454715 

 jill.holyoake@bournemouth.gov.uk 

Website: www.bournemouth.gov.uk

===============================================================================

12 October 2015 

PRESENT: Councillors Robert Chapman – Chairman; Councillors John Beesley, Laurence Fear, Donald McQueen, Pat Oakley, Michael Weinhonig. 

BOURNEMOUTH CIVIC SOCIETY: Ken Mantock – Vice Chair 

BOURNEMOUTH 2026 PARTNERS: Angela Pooley 

ALSO PRESENT: 

Councillor David Smith, Cabinet Member for Planning and Environment; 

Ward Member for Talbot and Branksome Woods: 

Councillor Andrew Morgan 

OFFICERS PRESENT

Andy England – Head of Planning 

Mark Axford – Development and Planning Policy Manager 

The meeting commenced at 3.10 pm 

Note: To see a copy of the reports that were considered by the Local Development Framework Steering Group and to listen to the Council’s audio recording of this meeting please visit: 

http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/CouncilDemocratic/CouncilMeetings/CommitteeMeetings/ LocalDevelopmentFrameworkGroup/2015/10/12/LocalDevelopmentFrameworkGroup12-Oct-2015.aspx 

SECTION I – BUSINESS RECOMMENDED TO THE CABINET 

30. AUTHORISATION TO CONSULT ON TALBOT VILLAGE CONSERVATION AREA APPRAISAL AND MANAGEMENT PLAN 

The Steering Group considered a report which sought Cabinet approval to publish the Talbot Village Conservation Area draft Appraisal and Management Plan for public consultation. The Steering Group was asked to consider the documents and submit any comments for the Cabinet to consider at its meeting on 14 October 2015. 

The Head of Planning introduced the report and explained that it was important to be clear about the purpose of the Appraisal and Management Plan. Although the documents had been prepared to reflect the strategic partnership approach for the area, the Appraisal and Management Plan were stand alone documents L12 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 12 October 2015 

which did not serve to endorse the Talbot Project informal masterplan or allocate land for development. The aim of the documents was to provide a clear understanding of what made this historic area special and to set out in more detail the constraints on development and how the area would be preserved, managed and enhanced in the future. It was noted that the Conservation Area itself was a very small area compared to its original size, and the context of the listed buildings was an unusual feature for Bournemouth. Although the woodland had not been an original feature of the landscape it made a valuable contribution to the character of the area and was considered worthy of retention. 

The Head of Planning explained that the Conservation Area did contain areas with potential for development but these were clearly defined in ‘saved’ policy 4.12 of the District Wide Local Plan. He confirmed that this policy would remain in place alongside other ‘saved’ policies until the formation and adoption of new Development Management Policies, which would not be within the next 12 months at least. He responded to concerns expressed in the deputation about the extent of the ‘enabling development’ referred in the Management Plan. He explained that paragraph 5.2 made direct reference to policy 4.12 which set out the maximum number and location of new dwellings. While this did not preclude further development applications being submitted or the need to be mindful of English Heritage’s advice regarding the scope for enabling development, any proposal received would need to demonstrate why it was justified and required in addition to provision contained within policy 4.12. 

The Management Plan contained a set of key themes with actions associated with each theme, for immediate, medium term and longer term delivery. Each action identified which area of the Council and/or other organisation was responsible for its delivery. The Plan was intended to manage change and identify opportunities for the area. 

In considering the report the Head of Planning responded to questions from members and the following points were discussed – 

• The reference to the ‘imminent sale’ of White Farm in paragraph 10 of the report was correct. It was confirmed that the Council was in the process of selling the buildings to the Talbot Village Trust (TVT) and was currently assessing the valuation figure submitted by TVT. 

• The proposed change to the boundary of the Conservation Area related to the removal of a small square piece of land to the east of White Farm and would not affect the community garden at Slades Farm. 

• The wording of some of the Actions in the Management Plan could be strengthened by exchanging ‘should’ with ‘will’ and ‘will be encouraged to’. 

• There were some concerns about the use of the woodland and it was felt that these could be addressed by amending the wording of Action 4 to reference the natural, historic and wooded aspects of the area. 

• The concerns about potential development could be addressed by including specific reference in Action 11 to saved policy 4.12

L13 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 12 October 2015 

• Action 17 could include reference to a travel plan to take into account the ward member’s remarks about safer walking and cycling routes to the school. 

The Steering Group discussed the point raised by TVT in its deputation regarding the need for heritage assets to be viable to ensure future preservation and the problem of restricting enabling development. It was acknowledged that the Appraisal and Management Plan had a difficult balance to strike and that some elements would not be in line with the aspirations of TVT. However the primary consideration in preparing and adopting the documents was to ensure the preservation and enhancement of the Conservation Area for the future, not to discuss the financial issues involved. The Head of Planning reminded members that enabling development was not precluded in the Conservation Area but would require demonstrable justification. It was also noted that TVT had a duty to maintain trees and woodland as did any landowner. 

Mr Henshaw provided clarification on the financial arrangements in respect of enabling development. He confirmed that any funds which TVT acquired from enabling development would be used to support the best interests of the Conservation Area rather than TVT’s charitable purpose. 

DECISION MADE: 

Recommended to Cabinet: 

A That the Talbot Village Appraisal and Management Plan as set out at Appendix 1 and 2 of the report be published for public consultation subject to the following amendments: 

Appendix 1 – Talbot Village Conservation Area Appraisal 

Paragraph 4.3 Correction to third sentence to read: 

…built on Talbot Health. 

Figure 9 Spatial and Character Analysis Summary Map 

Remove reference to ‘Wooded Garden’ in map legend. 

Appendix 2 – Talbot Village Conservation Area Management Plan 

Action 2 Replace ‘should’ with ‘will’ to read: 

‘In their forward planning, the universities will be encouraged to acknowledge….’L14 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 12 October 2015 

Action 4 Replace ‘should’ with ‘will be encouraged to’ and add wording to read: 

‘The Talbot Village Trust will be encouraged to consider how the woods could be put to a more active community and economic use which is sympathetic to the natural, historic and wooded aspects of the Conservation Area

Action 7 Replace ‘should’ with ‘will’ to read: 

‘Planning policy for Talbot Village will be developed with the Appraisal….’ 

Action 8 Replace ‘should’ with ‘will’ to read: 

‘The Borough Council’s Enforcement Protocol, ….will be widely published…’ 

Action 9 Replace ‘should’ with ‘will’ to read: 

‘The Local Planning Authority will proactively seek the repair and reuse….’ 

Action 11 Add wording to read: 

‘….with consideration given to appropriate and proportionate enabling development, based on ‘saved’ Policy 4.12 of the District Wide Local Plan, and other funding opportunities.’ 

Action 15 Replace ‘should’ with ‘will’ to read: 

‘The setting of the Conservation Area will be safeguarded through the planning system and ..’ 

Action 17 Add wording to read: 

‘….and the detailed design of present and proposed parking provision within the Conservation Area, and a Travel Plan to include parking, cycling and walking, with a view to promoting solutions….’ 

Paragraph 8.1 Correction to read: 

‘….and Action 9 covers this’ 

Action 20 Replace ‘should’ with ‘will be encouraged to’ and put text into Italic formatting to read: 

Talbot Village Trust will be encouraged to continue to manage the allotments positively…..’L15 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 12 October 2015 

B That officers be authorised to make further editing changes, corrections and updates to the consultation documents prior to the start of consultation 

C That delegated authority be given to the Service Director, Planning, Transport and Regulation, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Environment, to agree any significant changes in advance of the consultation, should the need arise. L16 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 12 October 2015L17 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 12 October 2015 

SECTION II – BUSINESS DECIDED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS 

31. APOLOGIES 

Apologies for absence were received from Martin Broad. 

32. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 

There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interest. 

33. PUBLIC ITEMS 

The Steering Group was advised of deputation requests submitted on behalf of the Talbot Village Trust and by a local resident in respect of the agenda item on the Talbot Woods Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan. 

DECISION MADE

That the deputations be received and the contents be taken into account when the agenda item is considered. 

Richard Henshaw, planning consultant for the Talbot Village Trust (TVT), primary landowner within the Conservation Area, thanked the Council for the opportunity for TVT to have input in the Appraisal and Management Plan. He raised a number of issues including: 

• The latest version of the Talbot Project masterplan referred to some opportunities to enhance the Conservation Area. It did not include specific proposals for development. 

• The Trust’s charitable objective of providing support for vulnerable people locally did not meet with preserving and enhancing the Conservation Area. 

• The Trust currently provides £100,000 to look after the Conservation Area and this was not sustainable. The Appraisal and Management Plan should recognise that heritage assets need to be viable to ensure their protection. 

There were opportunities for enhancement including: 

• The woodland required extensive tree work to improve access, amenity and wildlife. A detailed management plan was needed. It should be noted that the woodland had been created on what was previously open space. 

• Unsightly large area of tarmac for parking and school play areas. Current arrangements for school drop off and pick up were chaotic. 

• Further improvements would be required if requests to enlarge the school to meet demand were agreed.

L18 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 12 October 2015 

• The cottages did not meet modern living standards, particularly kitchens and bathrooms, and no longer fulfilled their original self sustaining ethos. 

• White Farm was in a very poor condition and required urgent action and a viable use for the future. TVT’s structural survey estimated that the work required would cost £1million. 

• It was essential to work proactively with the Trust as landowner to secure a viable future. 

Sheila Warner, local resident, raised a number of issues including: 

• The Appraisal was generally good – there were a couple of inconsistencies regarding the naming of Albion/Talbot Woods and the SNCI status which had now been lost due to neglect of the undergrowth by TVT. 

• The use of the woods by the community for walking children to and from school and as an educational resource for local schools was well established. Boundary Road provided an alternative safe and well lit route for travel from Ensbury Park to the universities and new Talbot Village. 

• The Trust had changed its charitable objectives to solely donations to deserving causes and did this very well. 

• The thrust of the Management Plan appears to be for potential development using the word ‘enabling’ – with particular reference to Paragraph 6.5 and Action 11. The timescale for delivery of Action 7 should come before Action 11 not afterwards. 

• Concern at Action 4 and whether plans for the woods are benign or otherwise. 

• If the Management Plan is adopted unchanged it could leave everything open to development which would then be difficult to reverse. 

• References to the Talbot Project, the masterplan and links to the website, which included the Council logo on its front page, could be seen as implying Council support. 

• The masterplan contained details of development ideas for the Conservation Area which were of great concern. 

Councillor Beesley left the meeting at 3.57pm 

The meeting closed at 4.10pm. 

Contact: Jill Holyoake, Democratic and Overview & Scrutiny Officer 

 01202 454715 

 jill.holyoake@bournemouth.gov.uk 

Website: www.bournemouth.gov.uk

=================================================================================

30 September 2015 

PRESENT: Councillors Robert Chapman – Chairman; Councillors John Beesley, Laurence Fear, Donald McQueen, Pat Oakley, Michael Weinhonig. 

BOURNEMOUTH 2026 PARTNERS: Martin Broad 

ALSO PRESENT: 

Councillor David Smith, Cabinet Member for Planning and Environment; 

Councillor Mike Greene – Cabinet Member for Transport, Sustainability and Carbon Management 

Ward Members for Talbot and Branksome Woods: 

Councillors Philip Broadhead, Andrew Morgan, Lynda Price 

Ward Member for Wallisdown and Winton West: 

Councillor Nicola Greene 

OFFICERS PRESENT

Mark Axford – Development and Planning Policy Manager 

Adrian Hale – Local Transport Plan Engineer (Major Scheme Bids) 

Trevor Sills – Development Control Team Leader, Transport 

The meeting commenced at 12.00 pm 

Note: To see a copy of the reports that were considered by the Local Development Framework Steering Group and to listen to the Council’s audio recording of this meeting please visit: http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/CouncilDemocratic/                    CouncilMeetings/CommitteeMeetings/ LocalDevelopmentFrameworkGroup/2015/09/30/                                                        LocalDevelopmentFrameworkGroup30-Sep-2015.aspx 

SECTION I – BUSINESS RECOMMENDED TO THE CABINET 

25. DRAFT TALBOT VILLAGE SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT – PROPOSED RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION 

The Steering Group considered a report which set out the Council’s proposed response to the Borough of Poole’s public consultation on the draft Talbot Village Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). The Development and Planning Policy L2 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 30 September 2015 

Manager explained that the report addressed each section of the SPD and then provided a proposed response for members to consider. An updated version of the report had been tabled at the meeting to include more detailed transport responses, which the Local Transport Plan Engineer (Major Scheme Bids) and the Development Control Team Leader, Transport, would explain. 

The Development and Planning Policy Manager wished to make it clear that the SPD was a Borough of Poole document which had been approved by its Council for consultation. The SPD had not been endorsed by Bournemouth Borough Council, either by the LDF Steering Group or any other Council body. He explained the relationship between the SPD and the Talbot Village Outline Master Plan. The Master Plan had been commissioned by the Talbot Project Principals Board to seek an overarching approach to development in the wider area and respond to the Poole Local Plan site allocation. However although Bournemouth Borough Council was represented on the Principals Board it was important to note that the Master Plan had not been formally endorsed by the Council and there were significant issues in the document which officers had yet to address. 

The Steering Group felt that the Council’s recommended responses to the SPD should counter the assumption of ‘consent by participation’ throughout. 

The Steering Group noted that the scope of the Master Plan allowed it to identify a range of proposals for land in Poole and Bournemouth. However, although the Master Plan had been used to inform the SPD it was not considered appropriate for the SPD itself to include specific proposals outside of its boundary. In order to make this explicit the Steering Group asked for Recommended Response 2 to be reworded. 

The Development and Planning Policy Manager reported that in recognising the amenities of the local community, particularly in relation to parking, the SPD referred to the concerns of residents on the Talbot Estate. As there were similar concerns from the residents of Talbot Woods the Council felt this should be reflected in the wording of the SPD. Recommended Response 6 aimed to address this. To be absolutely clear on this point the Steering Group asked for the wording of the response to refer to streets in both Poole and Bournemouth. This would also include the concerns of residents adjoining Slades Farm Open Space, as highlighted by the ward member for Wallisdown and Winton West. 

In respect of land uses adjacent to the SPD area there was reference in the SPD to enhancing the social and economic value of the model village. Recommended Response 7 asked that the heritage and cultural value of the village also be included. Ward members for Talbot and Branksome Woods expressed concern about the impact of proposed tree works on the visual amenity of the tree canopy in the area. The Steering Group asked that the environmental and arboricultural value of the model village also be referenced in the response. 

The Development and Planning Policy Manager explained that Recommended Response 10 was intended to provide a composite response to references L3 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 30 September 2015 

throughout the SPD to routes, networks and connections. Ward members for Talbot and Branksome Woods were concerned about the impact of any proposals for roads, bus routes, cycle ways and footpaths on residential amenities. In particular there was a concern that cycleways and footpaths could be developed into through access for motorised vehicles at some point in the future. Whilst it may not be the University’s intention the Steering Group asked for this point to be included in the response. Members also discussed the use of parking management plans or whether it was better to discourage car use altogether. It was noted that the location of cycle parking on campus was poor and needed to be addressed. Further research into what more the universities can do to encourage alternative modes of transport was also required. In the meantime the Steering Group felt that any parking management plan should be constructed in such a way as to be a maximum deterrent to students wanting to bring a car to university. 

The Steering Group shared the concerns of ward members regarding the use of land on the Talbot Academic Quarter and the Digital Village. The SPD referred to possible alternative uses for the land if it were no longer required by the universities. Members agreed that any use other than that for which it was originally intended, for example manufacturing or general industrial use, would be inappropriate in these locations due to the potential harmful impact on nearby residential amenities. The Steering Group asked that this point be included in the response. Members supported the comments made in the Council’s responses regarding the scale, height and massing of buildings and the proximity of these to residential properties. 

It was noted that a Habitats Regulation Assessment accompanied the SPD. This contained references to possible development in Bournemouth which was outside the scope of the SPD. In order to make a meaningful assessment the HRA had needed to specify a quantum of development in the Talbot Village Conservation Area, Talbot Woods and Slades Farm. This had not been discussed with Bournemouth Borough Council. The Steering Group considered this presumption to be entirely inappropriate and asked for the wording of Recommended Response 18 to reflect this. 

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Beesley, asked for clarification on whether there would be any opportunity for challenging the SPD. The Development and Planning Policy Manager explained that the Borough of Poole would need to demonstrate that it had considered the results of the public consultation in preparing the final version of the SPD for adoption by its Council. It should not be adopted in its current form without acknowledging Bournemouth’s concerns about proposals that had a bearing on Bournemouth Borough, including land within Bournemouth Borough. Although it may be possible to submit a challenge it was acknowledged that in general the opportunities for legal recourse were limited. 

The Leader expressed his dissatisfaction at the process which had been adopted so far in preparing the SPD and at the content of the SPD itself. There were clear concerns regarding the severity of impact of the proposals on Bournemouth L4 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 30 September 2015 

residents living along the Borough boundary. These concerns had not been recognised in the SPD. Although the evolution and expansion of the universities was welcomed in no way should this be at the expense of local residents in Bournemouth, who appeared to be of secondary concern throughout the SPD. It should also be noted that many of the proposals required the consent of Bournemouth Borough Council as the local highway authority. The Steering Group’s priority, and that of the Cabinet, was to ensure that the interests of Bournemouth residents were safeguarded. He hoped that a robust response to the consultation would send a strong message to all parties involved that the proposals were unacceptable. 

The Steering Group considered the Council’s proposed response to the transport elements of the SPD. These had been updated to reflect further discussions with members and were set out at paragraphs 33 – 57 of the report. 

The Local Transport Plan Engineer (Major Scheme Bids) reported that there was an absence of any meaningful or detailed transport strategy in the SPD, particularly in relation to Wallisdown Road. The Council’s response to the consultation made it very clear that Bournemouth Borough Council was the local highway authority with statutory responsibilities for the Wallisdown Road corridor adjacent to the SPD area. The main issues of concern for the local highway authority were long term congestion and road safety, and these were highlighted throughout the Council’s response, as was the lack of detailed mitigation measures. 

The Steering Group was advised of the serious road safety record along the Wallisdown road corridor, particularly at the Boundary Road roundabout which had some of the worst statistics in the country for cycling casualties. The impact of these accidents on the local economy was considerable, at a cost of 11.2m for Wallisdown Road and £1m at Boundary Roundabout. The SPD should contain a transport strategy which sought to improve facilities rather than exacerbate the situation. 

Paragraph 37 addressed the SPD’s incorrect designation of Wallisdown Road as a ‘Quality Bus Corridor’. Its correct designation was as a Prime Transport Corridor and this included cycling and walking improvements where appropriate as part of a more balanced sustainable transport approach. There was a lack of detail in explaining how the transport impacts of the proposals would be mitigated. Members were concerned that traffic may end up being diverted along residential roads running adjacent to Wallisdown Road and lead to an unacceptable increase in rat-running. 

Paragraphs 40 – 42 addressed the Council’s concerns regarding the introduction of a fourth southern arm off Boundary Roundabout. The objection would not be so strong if this had been for a bus link only, but the proposal was to open it to all traffic. There was no transport need to do this. It would also be another impediment to cyclists and pedestrians.L5 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 30 September 2015 

Members discussed the provision of low level lighting along the section of cycle route next to the heath and agreed that a balance was required between protecting the amenities of nearby residents and encouraging more use of cycle routes by providing a safe lit route to and from the campus. It was suggested that low level directional lighting might be a solution. Members acknowledged the concerns of the ward member regarding the impact of an additional railway holt on local residents but did not feel it would be prudent to give a definitive view at this stage. 

DECISION MADE: Recommended to Cabinet: 

1. That the recommended responses to the Talbot Village Supplementary Planning Document as set out in the updated report circulated and published on 30 September 2015 be approved, with the following amendments: 

a. Land Use Planning Considerations 

Recommended response 2 – page 5 of report 

Remove reference to Indicative Master Plan and amend sentence to read: 

‘Land use proposals outside of the SPD boundary should therefore be deleted from the SPD.’ 

Recommended response 6 – page 6 

Further amendment to sixth bullet point of 2.1.1 of the SPD to read: 

‘..There are also resident concerns about parking on the streets in residential areas surrounding the campus in both Poole and Bournemouth…’ 

Recommended response 7 – page 7 

Further amendment to paragraph 3.5.3 of the SPD to read: 

‘The future vision is to enhance the heritage, cultural, environmental and arboricultural, social and economic value of the historic model village…..’ 

Recommended response 10 – page 8 

Add to response ‘Any proposed cycleways and footpaths should not be developed further so as to allow for vehicular access’ 

Recommended response 11 – page 8 

Amend to read: 

‘In order to minimise the potential impact from on street parking associated with the development in existing residential areas, a robust and enforceable parking management plan should be developed’ 

Recommended response 12 – page 9 

Add to response: 

There is concern about reference in the SPD at paragraph 6.9.3 to the alternative use of land in the Talbot Academic Quarter and the Digital Village. Bournemouth Borough Council expects the primary use of this land to be for business uses in accordance with Use Class B1, and not to be used L6 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 30 September 2015 

for more general industrial or storage / distribution purposes such as found in Use Classes B2 and B8.’ 

Recommended response 17 – page 10 

Amend to read: 

Bournemouth Borough Council has made no provision…’ 

Recommended response 18 – page 11 

Amend to read: 

‘..it is premature and entirely inappropriate to assume such development is acceptable.’ 

b. Transport Considerations 

The Council’s proposed response to the transport elements of the SPD has been amended by the Local Transport Plan Engineer (Major Scheme Bids) at paragraphs 33, 34, 46, 52, and 55, to reflect the views expressed by the Steering Group in its discussions, as follows (amended text in blue): 

Recommended responses – paragraphs 32 – 58 – pages 11 – 18 

33 Bournemouth Borough Council recognises it is important that the Talbot Village SPD provides clear direction to prospective developers to enable the appropriate level of sustainable development. In order to achieve this aim and as the Local Highway Authority responsible for the Wallisdown Road corridor adjacent to the SPD area, Bournemouth has the following comments on the transport elements of the Consultation Draft. 

34 Amend first bullet point to read: 

Aim to ensure that there is no increase in vehicle journey times on any of the various sections along this already congested transport corridor resulting from the development at Talbot Village; 

34 Additional bullet point: 

Ensure that car-borne trips to any new developments at Talbot Village are discouraged and that measures are put in place (enforceable as appropriate) to deter parking in nearby residential roads; 

46 6.10.5 States that ‘the [traffic] modelling indicates a small increase in journey times along Wallisdown Road, but that most trips are dispersed across the wider [highway] network’. The detailed modelling work has yet to determine the increase in journey times and therefore the actual impacts on congestion. It is also necessary to calculate any increase in trips, including L7 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 30 September 2015 

additional bus, walking and cycling trips, both with and without any mitigation, in order to assess impacts upon congestion and road safety along Wallisdown Road. This also applies to other routes as a result of any reassignment of traffic. Furthermore the developments should not lead to any additional ‘rat-running’ along adjacent residential roads. Notwithstanding the above due to the current high levels of congestion and road casualties along Wallisdown Road the new developments at Talbot Village should not result in any increase to these problems. The SPD therefore needs to be clear about what measures will be put in place to avoid this, how they will be funded and when they will be delivered. 

52 6.10.19 Where possible appropriate directional lighting, which is sensitive to existing nearby housing, should be considered along the section of the cycle route where it skirts the edge of the heath. This would encourage more use of this proposed route in winter evenings. 

55 Road safety Both the Borough of Poole and Bournemouth Borough Council as local highway authorities have legal responsibilities under Section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to take appropriate measures to prevent road accidents. In addition the Local Transport Plan identifies road safety as a key priority. In view of the serious road safety record in the vicinity of the Talbot campus and along the Wallisdown Road corridor generally (as well as the associated cost to the local economy) there ought to be a dedicated section on Road Safety within the SPD. This should set out the explicit measures to be implemented to ensure that there is no increase in road casualties resulting from any development at Talbot Village. 

2. That in view of the timescale for the Council to respond to the SPD it be noted that the portfolio holders for Planning and Environment and for Transport, Sustainability and Carbon Management will submit a draft response to the Talbot Village SPD prior to Cabinet agreeing the Council’s formal response.L8 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 30 September 2015L9 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 30 September 2015 

SECTION II – BUSINESS DECIDED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS 

26. APOLOGIES 

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor David Kelsey, Ken Mantock and Angela Pooley. 

In her absence Angela Pooley had asked for a statement to be circulated to the Steering Group with her comments on the report. 

27. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 

There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interest. 

28. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 

DECISION MADE: 

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 August 2015 were agreed and signed by the Chairman. 

29. PUBLIC ITEMS 

The Steering Group was advised of a deputation request submitted by the Talbot and Branksome Woods Residents Association on the draft Talbot Village Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). 

DECISION MADE

That the deputation be received and the contents be taken into account when the agenda item on the draft SPD was considered. 

Sheila Warner spoke on behalf of the Talbot and Branksome Woods Residents Association and outlined its concerns in respect of the draft SPD as follows: 

• The SPD clearly states that it has been prepared for public consultation with support from Bournemouth Borough Council, giving the impression that the Council agrees with the contents of the document. This is incorrect. It should also be highlighted that the Council has not formally endorsed the Talbot Project Master Plan through the democratic process. 

• Questions over the land allocation and use for the Digital Village 

• Potential increase in traffic and late submission of traffic modelling 

• Railway holt inappropriate in residential area

L10 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 30 September 2015 

• Purpose in purchasing bungalow at end of Alyth Road cul-de-sac 

• Increase in on street parking as a result of East Avenue footpath 

• Impact of 3 storey commercial buildings on Dulsie Road 

• It is unfortunate that the Borough of Poole has not been able to address issues with Bournemouth before SPD produced 

In conclusion the Residents Association suggested that as part of its response the Council should request a delay in the process of at least 6 months to enable both Authorities to work together to resolve issues of concern. 

Councillors Beesley, Broadhead, Nicola Greene, and Morgan left at 2.00pm. 

The meeting was adjourned from 2.00pm to 2.10pm. 

The meeting closed at 3.10pm. 

Contact: Jill Holyoake, Democratic and Overview & Scrutiny Officer 

 01202 454715 

 jill.holyoake@bournemouth.gov.uk 

Website: www.bournemouth.gov.uk

12 August 2015 

PRESENT: Councillors Robert Chapman – Chairman; Councillors Laurence Fear, Donald McQueen, Michael Weinhonig. 

BOURNEMOUTH CIVIC SOCIETY PARTNER: Ken Mantock – Vice Chairman. 

BOURNEMOUTH 2026 PARTNERS: Angela Pooley 

ALSO PRESENT: Councillor David Smith, Cabinet Member for Planning and Environment; Councillor Lawrence Williams, Cabinet Member for Tourism, Leisure and the Arts; Councillor Pat Oakley, Vice Chairman of Planning Board. 

OFFICERS PRESENT

Andrew England, Head of Planning 

The meeting commenced at 10.05 a.m. 

Note: To see a copy of the reports that were considered by the Local Development Framework Steering Group and to listen to the Council’s audio recording of this meeting please visit: 

http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/CouncilDemocratic/CouncilMeetings/CommitteeMeetings/ LocalDevelopmentFrameworkGroup/2015/08/12/LocalDevelopmentFrameworkGroup12-Aug-2015.aspx 

SECTION I – BUSINESS RECOMMENDED TO THE CABINET 

19. AUTHORISATION TO CONSULT ON DRAFT TOURISM ACCOMMODATION SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT 

The Steering Group considered a report which sought Cabinet approval to consult on the draft Tourism Accommodation Supplementary Planning Document – SPD. The Head of Planning explained that the draft SPD had been produced to replace the current Tourism Supplementary Planning Guidance – SPG. The SPD was intended to bring the guidance up to date with the National Planning Policy Framework and current market conditions. 

Members were reminded that the original SPG had been introduced to address concerns relating to the increasing number of Use Class C1 (Hotel) sites being granted change of use for residential development in the early part of the 2000s, particularly those along the coastal strip. The impact of the SPG was clearly demonstrated by the reverse of this trend from 2005 onwards. However it was generally acknowledged that since this time visitor expectations of tourist M2 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 12 August 2015 

accommodation had changed considerably. While Bournemouth’s firm stance compared with other holiday destinations had yielded results in maintaining hotel stock, it had also seen cases of tourist accommodation no longer fit for purpose struggling and failing to compete. More recently Planning Inspectors had begun to question the value of the SPG and had given it less weight when determining appeals, and in certain cases appeals had been upheld for this reason. In terms of current trends, including the potential effect of new hotel stock on more traditional guest house accommodation, the statistics provided by Visit England were unable to provide a consistent comparison year on year as different criteria had been used each time. 

The Head of Planning reported on two workshop sessions which had been held with trade representatives and councillors to inform the development of the new SPD. Internal consultation had also taken place with the Tourism Service and the Cabinet Member for Planning and Environment. The key issues raised at the workshops were set out in section 3 of the report. The Head of Planning explained that the workshops had considered three different approaches to addressing the issues raised when considering viability and the potential loss of tourism accommodation: 

• Zoning – to identify zones within the town where a different approach could be taken, e.g. core tourism areas 

• Adopting a ‘light touch’ approach or setting a threshold for smaller businesses beneath which detailed viability assessment was not required 

Both of these options were disregarded as being too rigid and impractical to apply. There were sufficient examples of both ‘out of town’ and smaller businesses operating successfully. 

• Adopting a screening service across the borough to provide a professional opinion on whether a full viability appraisal would be required 

This proposal had been led by the tourism trade and was the preferred option. It was recommended that the screening service be administered by the Council. Membership of the screening panel should include a senior Tourism Officer from the Council and experts from the trade. It was suggested that the panel be chaired by a Council officer to avoid any perception of bias or interest from the trade. One of the main advantages of the screening service was that it could where appropriate negate the need to market a property for at least 18 months. This marketing requirement had proved detrimental in some cases. 

The Head of Planning also referred Section 9.1 of the draft SPD which made clear the Council’s expectation that any change of use/redevelopment into residential use would be for flats and/or family housing rather than HMOs. Although it was stated that the Council would be unlikely to accept applications for HMOs it was not able to introduce a blanket refusal on these and the wording in the draft SPD reflected this. He also highlighted the need to ensure that proactive enforcement measures were in place to support the SPD once adopted.M3 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 12 August 2015 

In considering the report the Head of Planning responded to questions from members and the following points were discussed – 

• The weight given to the advice of the screening panel. The important role of the panel in making its recommendation was acknowledged. It was also noted that the panel was providing advice rather than a decision, and that this advice would form one of a number of considerations when determining an application. As such there may be occasions when the panel’s advice could be outweighed by other material planning considerations. 

• Although the screening panel was only an advisory body members agreed that the governance arrangements would need to be very carefully developed to ensure they were clear, transparent and robust. Membership, chairing, terms of reference and voting arrangements would all need to be carefully considered. Bournemouth was the first local authority to advocate the use of screening so there was no similar example to follow. The Head of Planning explained that it was intended to use the recently formed Local Design Review Panel as a model of good practice. The size of the panel and the breadth of expertise needed had yet to be agreed but it was noted that the panel’s main brief would be limited to providing professional advice on the viability requirements. 

• Members agreed that there should be some mechanism for ward members to be consulted as part of the screening process, and asked if this could be taken into account when developing the governance arrangements. 

• Ability to challenge the legality of the screening panel, for example at a planning appeal. The Head of Planning explained that the draft SPD would be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for public examination. The screening service was an intrinsic part of the SPD so if the Planning Inspectorate considered that the SPD was fit for purpose this would include the process put forward for screening. 

• In response to a question from a member of the Council regarding the problems experienced by businesses in areas where there were unlicensed HMOs with associated anti social behaviour, it was considered that the provisions within the draft SPD would cover these circumstances by way of the screening assessment at an early stage in the process. The SPD also recognised that conversion to HMOs could be to the detriment of other tourist accommodation in an area. 

• Proposed fee for using the screening service. The Head of Planning assured members that this would not be preclusive to potential applicants, particularly bearing in mind the alternative costs of meeting the marketing requirement.

M4 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 12 August 2015 

The Steering Group supported the principles of the draft SPD and agreed that a more flexible, pragmatic approach was required to respond to the change in circumstances and market conditions since the original Tourism SPG was adopted. 

Members agreed that the governance arrangements for the screening service needed detailed consideration and suggested that the Head of Planning set up a working group during the consultation period to develop these proposals for inclusion in the final SPD prior to its adoption. 

DECISION MADE: 

Recommended to Cabinet: 

a. That the draft Tourism Accommodation Supplementary Planning Document be approved for public consultation, subject to the following technical amendments being made to the document: 

• Page 8 – Self Catering and Services Holiday Flats, paragraph 8.3, bullet point 6 to read: 

“Parking provision for holiday flats, including secure facilities for cyclists, to be provided…………..as specifically for use of the holiday flats only.” 

• Page 9 – Appendix A, Viability Screening Service – second paragraph, line 3 to read: 

“The screening is a simple process where using the template of information at Appendix 2 the team will………..as part of a planning application fee.” 

b. That the Cabinet delegates authority to the Service Director, Planning, Transport and Regulation in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Environment to make minor text changes to the document prior to publication. 

Additional comments of the Steering Group: 

As the screening panel will have an important role, albeit in an advisory rather than decision making capacity, the Steering Group considers that the governance arrangements for the screening panel will need to be clear, transparent and robust, to include the terms of reference, membership, appointment of chair, voting arrangements, and the role of ward councillors. It is recommended that the Head of planning set up a working group to develop these arrangements during the consultation and include these for consideration in the final SPD before its adoption by Council.M5 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 12 August 2015 

SECTION II – BUSINESS DECIDED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS 

20. APOLOGIES 

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor John Beesley and Councillor David Kelsey. 

21. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 

There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interest. 

For the purpose of transparency in respect of discussions on the draft Tourism Accommodation SPD the Chairman stated that he was appointed by the Council to serve as a member of Bournemouth Tourism Management Board. 

22. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 

DECISION MADE: 

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 June 2015 were agreed and signed by the Chairman. 

23. PUBLIC ITEMS 

There were no public questions, deputation requests or petitions submitted for this meeting. 

24. ANY OTHER BUSINESS 

a. Draft Supplementary Planning Document for Talbot Village 

The Chairman informed the Steering Group that the Borough of Poole was consulting on a draft SPD for Talbot Village. While the area concerned was within the Poole boundary there was reference in the document to the Talbot Village/Talbot Woods Conservation Area and there were areas on the Bournemouth side of the boundary which could be affected by proposals in the SPD. 

The Steering Group noted with disappointment that the 6 week consultation period ran from 10 August to 21 September 2015. Unfortunately this included the summer holiday period when many people were away or on leave. Angela Pooley reported on some of the proposals in the SPD, including access to areas of open space as an M6 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 12 August 2015 

alternative recreational facility to the heathland, which may impact on farmland and increase traffic in the vicinity, potential improvements to pedestrian and cycling links, and the creation of a Digital Village. Councillor McQueen reported that the development of a digital hub between the two university sites had been included at an early stage in the development of the SPD, and it was therefore regrettable that there appeared to be a lack of notice of proposals prior to the consultation. 

The Head of Planning advised members of the process by which the Council responded to this type of consultation, which in this case would be through a Cabinet Member Decision due to the time constraints involved. 

DECISION MADE

That the Council’s response to the consultation on the draft SPD for Talbot Village be circulated to the Steering Group before being signed off as an Individual Cabinet Member Decision. 

b. Chancellor’s statement regarding further deregulation of planning 

The Vice Chairman reported on a recent statement from The Chancellor of the 

Exchequer, the Rt Hon George Osborne, MP, regarding proposals to further deregulate 

the planning system. 

The Head of Planning agreed to update the Steering Group once relevant legislation 

and guidance had been published and further details were known. 

The meeting closed at 10.55am 

Contact: Jill Holyoake, Democratic and Overview & Scrutiny Officer 

 01202 454715 

 jill.holyoake@bournemouth.gov.uk 

Website: www.bournemouth.gov.uk

19 June 2015 

PRESENT: Councillors Robert Chapman, Laurence Fear, David Kelsey, Donald McQueen, Michael Weinhonig. 

BOURNEMOUTH CIVIC SOCIETY PARTNER: Ken Mantock. 

BOURNEMOUTH 2026 PARTNERS: Angela Pooley 

ALSO PRESENT: Councillor Jane Kelly, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Public Health 

OFFICERS PRESENT

Mark Axford, Planning Policy Manager 

Caroline Peach, Design and Heritage Manager 

The meeting commenced at 10.00 a.m. 

Note: To see a copy of the reports that were considered by the Local Development Framework Steering Group and to listen to the Council’s audio recording of this meeting please visit: 

http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/CouncilDemocratic/CouncilMeetings/CommitteeMeetings/ LocalDevelopmentFrameworkGroup/2015/06/19/LocalDevelopmentFrameworkGroup19-Jun-2015.aspx 

SECTION I – BUSINESS RECOMMENDED TO THE CABINET 

11. AUTHORISATION TO CONSULT ON CHURCHILL GARDENS MANAGEMENT PLAN 

The Steering Group considered a report which sought Cabinet approval to consult on the draft Churchill Gardens Management Plan. 

The Design and Heritage Manager introduced the report and explained that the draft Management Plan had been produced to accompany the Conservation Area Appraisal for Churchill Gardens which had been adopted in 2013. The purpose of the Management Plan was to set out in more detail how the area will be preserved, managed and enhanced in the future. Both the Appraisal and the Management Plan had been prepared in support of the work of the Boscombe Regeneration Partnership. Both documents demonstrated a holistic and partnership working approach to the area, with conservation and heritage as a key component. Consultation on the Management Plan had already taken place with other Council departments, local ward councillors and the Cabinet member for Planning and Environment.I2 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 19 June 2015 

The draft Management Plan document was circulated with the report and contained a set of key themes with actions associated with each theme, for immediate, medium term and longer term delivery. Each action identified which area of the Council and/or other organisation was responsible for its delivery. The Management Plan was the first of its kind in Bournemouth and was intended to manage change and identify opportunities for the Churchill Gardens Conservation Area. 

In considering the report the Design and Heritage Manager responded to questions from members and the following points were discussed – 

• Chapter 5 (page 22) included actions for comprehensive publicity and communication with property owners and landlords to raise awareness of the responsibilities of being located within a Conservation Area. It was suggested that this information should also be circulated to local property agents as some landlords were absentees. 

• Chapter 7 (page 28/9) recommended the completion of a robust Park Management Plan. Members supported the idea of a community led gardens scheme and it was suggested that this could be assisted by the Bournemouth Parks Foundation. 

• Chapter 7 (page 35) of the Management Plan included reference to bin storage. The presence of multiple bins in front gardens around Churchill Gardens was a particular problem. Members were advised that the Council was considering alternative options for bin storage, including large semi buried ‘district’ bins already in use elsewhere in the UK. These would mitigate the impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 

• Chapter 6 (page 25) – Plans for the Top Spot building were at an early stage but may involve a possible change of use and appearance depending on other activities which may be developed in the park. The Management Plan was an important tool for attracting investment and grant funding from external bodies such as Heritage Lottery Fund. The Top Spot building was likely to be included in any bid for funding. 

• The financial / grant support from the Council’s Strategic Housing capital pot was primarily intended to achieve the greatest positive visual impact for the least cost, to fund a lot of small improvements which added together made a big difference to the area. The cost would be too great to be able to use this money to encourage private landlords to convert more HMOs to flats. It was also acknowledged that some HMOs were required to serve the housing needs in the area. 

• Local residents were expressing an interest in more community involvement / ownership of Churchill Gardens and the Council was providing advice. The ‘Friends of ’ group had been less active in recent times but it would be helpful if a residents group could reform to help deliver elements of the Management Plan. 

The Steering Group agreed that the existence of the Management Plan and the Council’s own investment in properties in Churchill Gardens should encourage other owners and landlords to maintain and improve their properties. Members I3 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 19 June 2015 

were very supportive of the Management Plan and agreed that it gave the council and its partners the tools with which to address the issues identified in the Conservation Area Appraisal. The Steering Group thanked the Design and Heritage Manager for her hard work in producing such an excellent, comprehensive document. 

DECISION MADE: 

Recommended to Cabinet: 

a. That the draft Churchill Gardens Management Plan be approved for public consultation; 

b. That the Cabinet delegates authority to the Service Director, Planning, Transport and Regulation in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Environment to make minor text changes to the document prior to publication. 

Additional comments of the Steering Group: 

• Publicity and communication with property owners and landlords to raise awareness of the responsibilities of being located within a Conservation Area should include local property agents. 

• Park Management Plan – Members supported the idea of a community led gardens scheme and it was suggested that this could be assisted by the Bournemouth Parks Foundation. 

• Bin Storage – Members supported the Council’s exploration of alternative options for bin storage to mitigate the impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 

12. PROPOSED PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON BOURNEMOUTH, DORSET AND POOLE DRAFT MINERALS SITES PLAN AND DRAFT WASTE PLAN 

The Steering Group considered a report which sought Cabinet approval to undertake a public consultation on the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Minerals Sites Plan and draft Waste Plan. 

The Planning Policy Manager explained that that Dorset’s Minerals and Waste Team produced these plans for its own area and on behalf of Bournemouth and Poole for their areas. The period of consultation between July and September 2015 would run concurrently with those of Dorset County Council and the Borough of Poole. The authority to consult required the agreement of all three authorities. The consultation would be a final opportunity for the public to comment before final draft (pre submission) plans were produced, expected to be in Spring 2016. 

The Planning Policy Manager explained the Minerals Sites Plan identifies and allocates the specific sites needed to deliver the Minerals Strategy which was I4 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 19 June 2015 

adopted in 2014. He explained how the sites had been identified as currently the most suitable through a detailed and lengthy process which had started in 2007. The Plan included an Area of Search for sand and gravel, part of which was located in the Stour Valley opposite the Borough boundary. However the site nominated by landowners at Parley Court, as shown at Appendix A of the report, was not being progressed as part of the plan at this stage. Members had received written communication from Honorary Freeman Ron Whittaker, former member of the Steering Group and long time campaigner against the allocation of the Parley Court site. Honorary Freeman Whittaker wished to thank members and officers, particularly Councillor David Kelsey, Councillor David Smith and Mark Axford, Planning Policy Manager, for their support in making representations to Dorset County Council for the removal of this site from consideration, due to the detrimental impact which any extraction works would have had on the Stour Valley. 

The draft Waste Plan identified a need for additional waste site capacity in the south east of the county to deal with the management of bulky waste and non hazardous residual waste treatment. One of the sites in the region which had been identified for a waste facility was on vacant land at Kinson Sewage Works, as shown at Appendix B of the report. This was land currently owned by Wessex Water which it had put forward for consideration following discussions with Dorset. However it was acknowledged that inclusion as a potential site in no way indicated any support or commitment for its allocation or for future planning permission. 

In considering the report the Planning Policy Manager responded to questions from members of the Steering Group and the following points were discussed – 

• Although the site at Parley Court was not being taken forward as part of the Minerals Sites Plan at this stage this did not preclude it from future consideration should the owners make representations at the ‘examination in public’ stage or at any future time. The Council would continue to oppose the use of the site for the reasons previously expressed. 

• There were some concerns regarding the use of land at Kinson Sewage Works, as the site is in the Green Belt and would have potential adverse impact on sensitive receptors and on the adjoining Cherry Tree Nursery. Other possible sites identified in the south east of the county were less sensitive and more easily accessible. 

• These concerns would need to be balanced against other considerations, such as sustainability in dealing with local waste locally, and creating local employment opportunities. 

• Members asked for it to be made clear in the Waste Plan document (if not already done so) what type of processes are involved in bulky and residual waste facilities and also to make it clear there would be no direct public access to the site. 

The Steering Group thanked the Planning Policy Manager and Planning Policy Officer for their hard work in preparing the report.I5 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 19 June 2015 

DECISION MADE: 

Recommended to Cabinet: 

a. That officers be authorised to carry out public consultation on the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole draft Minerals Sites Plan and draft Waste Plan , anticipated to take place between 15 July and 23 September 2015 (final dates to be confirmed subject to the agreement of Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole); 

b. That officers be authorised to make further editing changes, corrections and updates to the plans prior to the start of the consultation; 

c. That the Cabinet delegates authority to the Service Director, Planning, Transport and Regulation in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Environment to agree any significant changes in advance of the consultation should the need arise.I6 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 19 June 2015 

SECTION II – BUSINESS DECIDED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS 

13. APOLOGIES 

An apology for absence on local government business was received from Councillor John Beesley. 

Apologies were also received from Councillor David Smith, Cabinet Member for Planning and Environment. 

14. ELECTION OF CHAIR 

DECISION MADE: 

That Councillor Bob Chapman be elected Chair of the Steering Group for the ensuing Municipal Year 2015/16. 

15. ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIR 

DECISION MADE: 

That Ken Mantock be elected Vice Chair of the Steering Group for the ensuing Municipal Year 2015/16. 

16. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 

Councillor Laurence Fear declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in the report on the draft Churchill Gardens Management Plan as he had received sponsorship from a private landlord with properties in the area who could be affected by the issues raised. He did not take part in the discussion or the decision and left the meeting room while the report was considered. 

17. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 

DECISION MADE: 

The minutes of the meeting held on 23 March 2015 were agreed and signed by the Chairman.I7 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 19 June 2015 

18. PUBLIC ITEMS 

There were no public questions, deputation requests or petitions submitted for this meeting. 

The meeting closed at 11.00 am 

Contact: Jill Holyoake, Democratic and Overview & Scrutiny Officer 

 01202 454715 

 jill.holyoake@bournemouth.gov.uk 

Website: www.bournemouth.gov.uk

  23 March 2015  PRESENT: Councillor Robert Chapman – Chairman; Councillors Beryl Baxter, Michael Weinhonig and Ron Whittaker. REPRESENTATIVE FROM BOURNEMOUTH CIVIC SOCIETY: Ken Mantock – Vice-Chairman. BOURNEMOUTH 2026 PARTNERS: Martin Broad ALSO PRESENT: Councillor David Smith, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Planning and Environment. OFFICERS PRESENT: Caroline Peach, Design and Heritage Manager Sophie Leon, Urban Design Officer The meeting commenced at 9.30 a.m. Note: To see a copy of the report that was considered by the Local Development Framework Steering Group and to listen to the Council’s audio recording of this meeting please visit: 

http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/CouncilDemocratic/CouncilMeetings/ CommitteeMeetings/LocalDevelopmentFrameworkGroup/2015/03/23/                LocalDevelopmentFrameworkGroup23-Mar-2015.aspx 

  SECTION I – BUSINESS RECOMMENDED TO THE CABINET /23/LocalDevelopmentFr      ameworkGroup23-Mar-2015.aspx  6. TOWN CENTRE DEVELOPMENT DESIGN GUIDE – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT  The Steering Group considered a report which sought Cabinet approval to recommend to Full Council that the Bournemouth Town Centre Development Design Guide be adopted. The Design and Heritage Manager introduced the report and reminded members that the Design Guide had been developed to provide clarification and further explanation of the policies relevant to Town Centre development design within the Bournemouth Local Plan: Core Strategy and the Town Centre Area Action Plan. This was intended to support and strengthen the decision making process. She explained how the Design Guide had been formulated and the process followed in undertaking internal and external consultation. As it was a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) this included a period of public consultation. Q2 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 23 March 2015  The Steering Group considered the key results of the public consultation which had been held for a period of 6 weeks from 27 October to 8 December 2014. The full responses were set out in Appendix 1 of the report, a copy of which was available to view online on the Council’s website. Members asked about the type of responses received. It was noted that although the number of responses was relatively low the quality of content they contained was high and was predominantly supportive and constructive. The responses had been used to make improvements to particular sections of the Design Guide, which was circulated at Appendix 2. The suggested changes were highlighted in red text for ease of reference. In additional to the 34 formal responses received there had been a number of comments received via social media which had provided a valuable contribution to the discussion. In considering Appendix 2 the Design and Heritage Manager and the Urban Design Officer responded to questions from members of the Steering Group and the following points were discussed – • The consultation had included a number of one to one interviews with key stakeholders. A questionnaire had also been made available to target responses on specific areas which the Council was interested in. This was a particularly useful tool when consulting on lengthy documents. • Section 7: Character Areas – various existing policies and guidance had been brought together in this section to provide a clearer snapshot of what the Council wanted for these areas. • The Framework diagram on page 12 was discussed and it was noted that much of the content already featured in the Town Centre Area Action Plan. • The paragraph on car clubs on page 23 had been expanded to explain why it had been included in the document. • Section 6: Appearance, 6.2 Fenestration and Rhythm – The Steering Group felt that the wording on dark and reflective glazing could be amended to indicate that this should normally be avoided, to enable a degree of flexibility on those occasions when exceptional circumstances may apply. However this was not intended to be a signal to developers that the policy was being relaxed. • Section 6: Appearance, 6.5 Shopfronts – The Steering Group felt that the wording on roller shutters could be strengthened to state that shutters must be of the type to allow an acceptable degree of visibility when the shutter is down. • Section 7: Character Areas, 7.2 Core Area – The Vice Chairman asked whether consideration was being given to extending the Conservation Area to include the locally listed buildings along Westover Road, to provide some additional protection for these heritage assets now that the cinemas were being relocated to Exeter Road. The Design and Heritage Manager explained that Q3 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 23 March 2015  the Council was already considering this proposal very seriously as part of the review of the Old Christchurch Road Conservation Area. • Section 7: Character Areas, 7.4 Upper Old Christchurch Road – The Steering Group considered the reference on page 48 to “addressing the poor maintenance of some properties which give parts of the area a neglected feel” could apply to other areas of the Town Centre. It was noted that this was a matter which should be dealt with under planning enforcement powers. Members expressed concern about how robustly this was being addressed and asked that this be brought to the Cabinet’s attention. • Once adopted the Design Guide should be included in the policies and guidance which form part of the training programme for members of the Planning Board The Steering Group thanked the Design and Heritage Manager and the Urban Design Officer for their hard work in producing such a well-prepared, comprehensive document, and agreed that it was an excellent planning tool with which to manage future development in the Town Centre. DECISION MADE:  Recommended to Cabinet:  That the Bournemouth Town Centre Development Design Guide – Supplementary Planning Document, as attached at Appendix 2 of the report, be recommended to full Council for adoption, with the following amendments suggested by the Steering Group – • Section 6: Appearance, 6.2 Fenestration and Rhythm – reword caption bottom right of Page 24 to read “Dark and reflective glazing should normally be avoided” • Section 6: Appearance, 6.5 Shopfronts – reword caption top right of Page 28 to read “…Shutters must be of a type that allows the shop behind to be clearly visible when the shutter is down”. Additional comments:  • Section 7: Character Areas, 7.4 Upper Old Christchurch Road – The Steering Group asked that the Cabinet’s attention be drawn to the reference on page 48 to “addressing the poor maintenance of some properties which give parts of the area a neglected feel”. The Steering Group felt that this applied to other areas of the Town Centre and were concerned that the issue of poor maintenance was not being sufficiently addressed under planning enforcement powers. Q4 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 23 March 2015  • The Steering Group noted that the extension of the Old Christchurch Road Conservation Area to include the locally listed heritage assets in Westover Road was being considered as part of the Conservation Area review. Q5 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 23 March 2015  SECTION II – BUSINESS DECIDED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS  2. APOLOGIES  An apology for absence on local government business was received from Councillor John Beesley. Apologies were also received from Councillor Roger West and Angela Pooley, Bournemouth 2026 Partner. 3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST  There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interest. 4. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES  DECISION MADE:  The minutes of the meeting held on 23 January 2014 were agreed and signed by the Chairman. 5. PUBLIC ITEMS  There were no public questions, deputation requests or petitions submitted for this meeting. Councillor Weinhonig arrived at 9.35am The meeting closed at 10.20am  

 ==========================================

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK STEERING GROUP  23 January 2015  PRESENT: Councillor Robert Chapman – Chairman; Councillors Beryl Baxter, Michael Weinhonig, Roger West and Ron Whittaker. REPRESENTATIVE FROM BOURNEMOUTH CIVIC SOCIETY: Ken Mantock – Vice-Chairman. BOURNEMOUTH 2026 PARTNERS: Martin Broad, Angela Pooley. ALSO PRESENT: Councillor David Smith, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Planning and Environment. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mark Axford, Planning Policy Manager Julia Mitchell, Planning Policy Officer The meeting commenced at 11.00 a.m. SECTION I – BUSINESS RECOMMENDED TO THE CABINET  1. COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY: CONSULTATION ON DRAFT CHARGING SCHEDULE  The Steering Group considered a report which sought Cabinet approval to publish the Community Infrastructure Levy – CIL – Draft Charging Schedule for public consultation, and following consultation to give authority to progress to submission and public examination. Approval was also sought to publish the amended draft Regulation 123 List and draft CIL Instalments Policy for public consultation. The Planning Policy Officer introduced the report and explained that the preliminary draft charging schedule had already been subject to a public consultation. 18 representations had been received with a total of 77 separate comments and these together with the Council’s response were summarised in the report at appendix 3. The comments and the Council’s response had been used to inform the final draft charging schedule which was included in the report at paragraph 7. 2 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 23 January 2015  The Planning Policy Officer gave a summary of the main issues raised and explained the rationale for the Council’s response to each of these issues, as set out in section 4 of the report. The main changes to the proposed CIL rates were: • To reduce the charge for retail development from £400 to £250 per square metre (excluding town centre comparison development which remains at £0), and; • To increase the charge for residential development of 10 units or less outside the town centre from 70 to 120 per square metre The consultation had resulted in some objections to the draft Regulation 123 List. This set out the infrastructure which the Council may wish to fund through the levy. The List had been amended to take into account the comments received and was included in the report at appendix 3. The consultation had demonstrated strong support for a CIL Instalments Policy, setting out how payments could be made in two or three instalments depending on the levy amount, and a draft version was included in the report at appendix 4. The Council had also prepared a Funding Gap Background Paper, included in the report at appendix 5, to support the draft charging schedule and provide sufficient evidence to confirm the aggregate infrastructure funding gap. The Planning Policy Officer reported on the amended national planning policy guidance in relation to developer contributions introduced by the Government on 28 November 2014 and the impact that this had on the production of the draft charging schedule and the timetable for consultation. The new guidance introduced a threshold on affordable housing contributions which gave exemption to residential units of 10 or less. As this had a significant effect on CIL rates the Council asked its consultant, Peter Brett Associates, to undertake some additional testing and produce an addendum report in December 2014 to assess the impact of the new guidance on the proposed charging schedule. This had resulted in a recommendation to increase the charge for 10 units or less as set out above. The Planning Policy Manager and the Planning Policy Officer responded to questions from members of the Steering Group and the following points were discussed – • CIL was intended to be the primary source of infrastructure funding although Section 106 contributions (and other contributions through legislation or planning conditions) would still be sought for site specific infrastructure, affordable housing on site of 11+ and for Strategic Access Monitoring and Management (SAMM). This was set out in detail in the draft Regulation 123 List and it was important to note that the two sources of funding were kept completely separate. • The list of infrastructure projects in the Funding Gap Background Paper was based on information provided by Council departments such as highways, parks, and education. The purpose of including individual projects in the document was to demonstrate at the examination stage that a funding gap existed. It was not intended to prioritise particular projects or allocate spending at this point in the process, this would be done at a later stage. 3 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 23 January 2015  Arrangements for prioritising and allocating funding would be subject to further discussion within the Council. • The Steering Group had some concerns about the proposal to ‘exclude’ development inside the Town Centre Area Action Plan (AAP) area from CIL, at a £0 rate. Although this may encourage the type of investment in the town centre which the Council would support it could also lead to developers being able to build expensively-priced residential units with no CIL contribution required. • Officers explained that the regulations allowed for different charging zones to be set if the zones are separated by substantial and obvious price differences and there are obvious geographical boundaries. Results of viability testing set out in Tables 6.5 and 6.6 of the CIL Economic Viability Study October 2014 clearly show that it would not be viable to apply CIL to residential developments within the Town Centre AAP area, but that there was a considerable scope to charge CIL on all residential developments outside the Town Centre AAP area. • With regards to affordable housing there was a distinction between the 40% which the local authority requested from developers and the end result following negotiation which could be more like 10%. Unfortunately for the purposes of the CIL charging schedule the Government expected viability appraisals to factor in the full policy requirement for affordable housing, which effectively made town centre development unviable if CIL was introduced. However this may increase scope for more affordable housing contribution in some developments. It was important to note that every case was considered on its own merits in terms of viability. • Councillor Whittaker talked about the estimated funding gap of £104,000 for the Stour Valley Master Plan: Berry Hill to Pig Shoot Lane route improvements. Angela Pooley confirmed that the local Cycling Forum had received a presentation from Dorset County Council on plans for this route which was supported by the landowner and tentatively supported by Hurn Parish Council. The Cycling Forum was seeking the active support of Bournemouth Council for the proposal. The Vice Chairman highlighted the contents of paragraph 27 of the report as follows: ‘Government guidance states that in order to meet the Habitats Directive the Council must be clear it intends to prioritise the use of CIL receipts to deliver heathland mitigation. This will have an impact on the ability to fund other infrastructure requirements. Importantly even where a residential development is non CIL liable the local authority as the competent body must ensure the impacts from those dwellings are mitigated, in effect this means using money from the overall CIL pot’4 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 23 January 2015  The Steering Group expressed severe reservations about unfunded priorities being forced on the Council outside of its control due to national government policy, and asked if any representations had been made on this issue. The Planning Policy Manager explained that the apparent incompatibility between CIL and heathland mitigation had been flagged up at the beginning of the process in a letter to the Department for Communities and Local Government – DCLG. The introduction of CIL was effectively breaking the direct link between development and mitigation. He explained that the Borough of Poole had already introduced CIL and was funding heathland mitigation for non CIL liable development using its overall CIL pot. He was unaware of any official guidance or direction given as to alternative means of collecting money for heathland mitigation. Consultation was underway on a new draft Dorset Heathlands Supplementary Planning Document but this was not looking at the issues of permitted development or non CIL liable schemes. The Steering Group felt it would be useful to seek further information and support for lobbying on this matter from a number of local authorities and other bodies, including the Borough of Poole, other local authorities affected by the requirement to deliver heathland mitigation, and the Local Government Association. The Council may wish to make further representations to the Inspector or to the DCLG. The Council may also wish to seek legal advice on its position, although this will incur a cost. DECISION MADE:  Recommended to Cabinet:  1. To note the table of comments received on the CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule and Council responses to these comments attached at Appendix 2. 2. To approve the Community Infrastructure Levy Draft Charging Schedule attached at Appendix 1 for public consultation. 3. To approve the amended draft Regulation 123 List attached at Appendix 3 for public consultation. 4. To approve the draft CIL Instalment Policy attached at Appendix 4 for public consultation. 5. Following consultation on the CIL Draft Charging Schedule, to authorise the submission of the CIL Draft Charging Schedule for public examination. Additional recommendation:  6. That Cabinet is advised of the Steering Group’s concern that there is no clear mechanism in place for the Council to charge for heathland mitigation for those developments which will be non CIL liable (as this will affect the ability to fund other infrastructure requirements because the Council will be responsible for funding this mitigation from its overall CIL pot). The Steering Group recommends that the Council seeks further legal advice on its position and makes representations to the relevant authorities to express its concerns.5 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 23 January 2015  SECTION II – BUSINESS DECIDED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS  2. APOLOGIES  An apology for absence on local government business was received from Councillor John Beesley. 3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST  There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interest. For the purposes of transparency the Vice Chairman referred to his position as Treasurer of Southbourne Area Forum. Area Forums were one of the very many potential beneficiaries of funding which would arise from the introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy. 4. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES  DECISION MADE:  The minutes of the meeting held on 15 December 2014 were agreed and signed by the Chairman. 5. PUBLIC ITEMS  There were no public questions, deputation requests or petitions submitted for this meeting. Councillor Weinhonig arrived at 11.06am and Martin Broad arrived at 11.10am The meeting closed at 12.12pm   ———————————————————————————-   LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK STEERING GROUP  15 December 2014  PRESENT: Councillor Robert Chapman – Chairman; Councillor Ronald Whittaker. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOURNEMOUTH 2026 and CIVIC SOCIETY PARTNERS: Angela Pooley, Ken Mantock and Martin Broad. ALSO PRESENT: Councillor David Smith, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Planning and Environment. OFFICERS PRESENT:  Mark Axford, Planning Policy Manager. Julia Mitchell, Planning Officer. The meeting commenced at 11.00 a.m. SECTION I – BUSINESS RECOMMENDED TO THE CABINET  19. ADOPTION OF REVIEWED STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT  The Planning Policy Manager told the Group that the Statement of Community Involvement – SCI – had been through consultation and that 1 representation had been received. It was explained that the Woodland Trust had made comments relating to its role as a consultee in planning applications and seeking a provision to be incorporated in the SCI so that the Woodland Trust can be consulted on applications affecting ancient woodland. The Planning Policy Manager told the group that changes were made to the document highlighting the Woodland Trust as a body to consult in relation to ancient woodland and aged or veteran trees. Members asked a number of questions to the Planning Policy Manager which where possible were answered immediately, where this was not possible the Planning Policy Manager undertook to provide a response as soon as possible after the meeting. Topics raised included: Co-Opted Members – The Planning Policy Manager was asked about co-opted representatives not being mentioned in the SCI. It was explained that the SCI sent out to LDF members was missing a paragraph, due to technical N2 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 15 December 2014  difficulties, that included a reference to the Steering Group. The Planning Policy Manager report that the following paragraph should be inserted at 1.10 with the effect of making the paragraph at 1.10 in the report 1.11 with subsequent paragraphs affected accordingly: “The Council has in place a Steering Group which oversees and advises on the production of local planning documents and policies. The Steering Group is made up of a mix of elected Members of the Council and community representatives co-opted from partner organisations such as Bournemouth 2026 and the Civic Society. The Council also includes co-opted community representatives on other Scrutiny Panels. The meetings of the Steering Group are open to attendance by members of the Public. Dates of forthcoming meetings are available on the Council‟s website and at the Town Hall.” Strategic Leadership Group – Members of the Group asked the Planning Policy Manager to include in paragraph 1.11 (1.11 after the insertion of 1.10 as described above) a reference to the Bournemouth 2026 partnership Strategic Leadership Group that brings together key figures from public agencies and local employers. The Planning Policy Manager agreed that the suggestion would be agreed. Bournemouth Council Voluntary Services + Dorset Race Equality Group – Members asked the Planning Policy Manager if mention could be made of the Bournemouth Council Voluntary Services + Dorset Race Equality Group in the SCI. The Planning Policy Manager informed the Group that he would ensure that the Bournemouth Council Voluntary Services + Dorset Race Equality Group contact details are in the database for consultation but would not seek to add them into the SCI itself at this stage. DECISION MADE:  Recommended to Cabinet that Cabinet:  1) Recommend to Full Council that the revised Statement of Community Involvement be adopted subject to the following amendments to the Cabinet report as circulated: a. Insert the following as additional paragraph – titled Steering Group – as 1.10, with 1.10 in the report becoming 1.11 and all paragraphs subsequent renumbered accordingly: “The Council has in place a Steering Group which oversees and advises on the production of local planning documents and policies. The Steering Group is made up of a mix of elected Members of the Council and community representatives co-opted from partner organisations such as Bournemouth 2026 and the Civic Society. The Council also includes co-opted community representatives on other Scrutiny Panels. The meetings of the Steering Group are open to attendance by members of the Public. Dates of N3 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 15 December 2014  forthcoming meetings are available on the Council‟s website and at the Town Hall.” b. In paragraph 1.11 (as after a.) insert „The Bournemouth 2026 Trust facilitates the Strategic Leadership Group to which senior figures from public bodies and major employers are invited‟ after „vision‟. c. In paragraph 4.4 amend 4) to 4) Local Media (e.g. Daily Echo, Bournemouth Advertiser etc.) –user friendly, potential to reach large numbers of people, 5) BH Life Magazine – is the Council‟s own publication and is widely distributed. SECTION II – BUSINESS DECIDED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS  20. APOLOGIES  Apologies were received from Councillors Beryl Baxter, John Beesley, Michael Weinhonig and Roger West. 21. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST  There were no declarations of interest made by Members of the Steering Group. 22. MINUTES  DECISION MADE:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 8 October 2014 be confirmed. 23. PUBLIC ITEMS  There were no public questions, deputation requests or petitions submitted for this meeting. 24. COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY  The Planning Policy Manager told the Group that Council Officers had been working hard on the draft charging schedule for the Community Infrastructure Levy – CIL- and had been expecting to hit the target deadline for submission and implementation. The Planning Policy Manager however informed the Group that a recent government announcement that developments of less than 10 residential units could not be charged tariff N4 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 15 December 2014  style charges. It was explained that the current threshold, set by the Council, was 1 residential unit. It was explained that the government hoped the change would encourage small builds and urban development. The Planning Policy Manager also explained that the government was introducing a vacant building credit. The Planning Policy Manager explained as a result of the changes the timetable for CIL had slipped and that a meeting of the LDF in January would be needed to consider the matter then. The meeting closed at 11.35am   ———————————————————————————   LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK STEERING GROUP  8 October 2014  PRESENT: Councillor Robert Chapman – Chairman; Councillors Beryl Baxter, Michael Weinhonig and Ronald Whittaker. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOURNEMOUTH 2026: Angela Pooley. ALSO PRESENT: Councillor David Smith, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Planning and Environment. OFFICERS PRESENT:  Mark Axford, Planning Policy Manager. Caroline Peach, Design and Heritage Manager. Sophie Leon, Urban Design Officer. The meeting commenced at 12.00 p.m. SECTION I – BUSINESS RECOMMENDED TO THE CABINET  13. Town Centre Development Design Guide Draft Supplementary Planning Document – SPD.  The Design and Heritage Manager presented a report which recommended to Cabinet that the Town Centre Development Design Guide Draft SPD be published for public consultation and that the Service Director Planning, Transport and Regulation in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Environment are delegated the power to make minor text changes to the document prior to consultation. It was explained to the Group that the Development Design Guide would help deliver the Council’s priorities for an Improving Environment and Thriving Economy as well as leading to greater design quality in the town centre. It was further explained that the SPD would provide clarity and design guidance to property owners, developers and decision makers on a number of different areas such as sustainability, appearance and materials. Members asked a number of questions to the Design and Heritage Manager which where possible were answered immediately, where this was not possible the Design and Heritage Manager undertook to provide a response as soon as possible after the meeting. Topics raised included:N10 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 8 October 2014  Consultation – The Design and Heritage Manager was asked about the benefit the consultation would bring and who responses were being sought from. It was explained that it was particularly hoped that local businesses would respond to the consultation. It was also explained that the consultation would be publicised as widely as possible. Other local and national groups such as the Civic Society and English Heritage would also be contacted. Effective application of the SPD – The Design and Heritage Manager was asked about how the SPD could be used effectively. It was explained to the Group that positive use of the guide was somewhat at the mercy of the willingness of developers and investors to engage with the Council. However it was emphasised the Council would look to engage as early on in the planning and development process as possible to maximise influence and that by using the document developers would be able to potentially save time and speed up a project reaching fruition. The SPD would provide clarity to existing adopted planning policy, so that it would be referred to alongside and to reinforce policy in the case of refusal of planning permission and or appeal Officer Work – The Group wished to place on record their thanks to the Urban Design Officer for the work that had gone into producing the SPD. DECISION MADE:  Recommended to Cabinet that Cabinet:  1) Agrees to publish the Bournemouth Town Centre Development Design Guide Draft Supplementary Planning Document for public consultation.  2) Delegates to the Service Director Planning, Transport and Regulation in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Environment authority to make minor text changes to the document prior to publication.  SECTION II – BUSINESS DECIDED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS  14. APOLOGIES  Apologies were received from Ken Mantock and Councillors John Beesley and Roger West 15. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST  There were no declarations of interest made by Members of the Steering Group.N11 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 8 October 2014  16. MINUTES  DECISION MADE:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 21 July 2014 be confirmed. 17. PUBLIC ITEMS  There were no public questions, deputation requests or petitions submitted for this meeting. 18. HEATHLANDS SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT – SPD  The Planning Policy Manager told the Group that he was unable to formally present the Heathlands SPD to the Group as it was still being negotiated with partner organisations and authorities due to the SPD being a South East Dorset wide initiative. It was explained that discussions focussed on the Section 106 payments. The Planning Policy Manager suggested that once the report was finalised the Planning Policy Manager would circulate the document to members of the Local Development Framework Steering Group via e-mail. DECISION MADE:  1. That the Group ask the Planning Policy Manager to circulate, via e-mail, a draft of the Cabinet Report for the Heathlands SPD once it has been finalised. The meeting closed at 1.05pm   ———————————————————————————   LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK STEERING GROUP  21 July 2014    PRESENT: Councillor Robert Chapman – Chairman; Councillors Beryl Baxter, John Beesley, Michael Weinhonig, Roger West and Ron Whittaker. Ken Mantock – Vice Chair Angela Pooley ALSO PRESENT: Councillors David Smith, Cabinet Member for Planning and Environment. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mark Axford, Planning Policy Manager Julia Mitchell, Planning Officer Malcolm Hodges, Senior Planning Officer The meeting commenced at 13.32 p.m. SECTION I – BUSINESS RECOMMENDED TO THE CABINET  11. Community Infrastructure Levy Consultation on Charging Schedule  The Steering Group considered a report going to Cabinet seeking the approval for the Community Infrastructure Levy – CIL- charging schedule to go out for consultation. The Planning Policy Manager explained to the Group that under legislation the government introduced in 2010 local authorities in effect had to introduce a Community Infrastructure Levy in order to continue to seek contributions from developers to mitigate the impact of developments. It was explained that coupled with this the current vehicle for developer contributions – section 106 –s106 would be pared back with much stricter regulations such as the ability for only 5 s106 contributions to be pooled together to pay for infrastructure. It was explained that CIL would only be levied on additional square meterage of floor space from what had previously been on the site of the development. C2 Local Development Framework Steering Group,21 July 2014 The Planning Policy Manager outlined what forms of development will be exempt from CIL. The preliminary draft charging schedule was also outlined. It was explained that the Council had appointed consultants to produce an economic viability study to assess development viability in Bournemouth and the economic impacts of charging CIL and that the figures proposed had been tested and analysed by the consultants. The Steering Group was told that in accordance with the appropriate legislation in order to introduce CIL the Council had to demonstrate an infrastructure funding gap and that the Council had been able to do so. The Steering Group was further told that a list of infrastructure to be part funded from CIL had been produced under regulation 123 of the CIL regulations. Members of the Group asked a number of questions on the report and officers provided, where possible, an immediate response. Subjects raised included: Consultation – Members asked a number of questions about the length, timing and scope of the consultation. It was explained to the Steering Group that the consultation would be run from 1 August 2014 for six weeks and that there would be a further round of consultation on the charges. It was explained that the Council would seek the views of the public and those professions from the development industry. Funding Gaps – Members asked a number of questions on the size of the funding gaps which were considered to be large. It was explained that the figures were constantly being reviewed and that the gaps outlined were best estimates at the present time taking into account only known sources of funding. Other Authorities – Members asked about the charging schedule of neighbouring authorities. The Planning Policy officer outlined that Poole had split it’s borough into three charging areas varying from £75 per square meter to £150 per square meter and were charging on residential development only and that East Dorset and Christchurch was charging a flat rate of £100 per square meter for residential development. Permitted Development – Members asked how CIL would be implemented in relation to the permitted development regulations. It was explained that permitted development changes would not be subject to CIL and that it would become harder to fund necessary mitigation projects from permitted developments due to the new rules on pooling of s106 funds. Local Development Framework Steering Group Involvement – Members of the Group requested that a report come to the Group after the consultation had been carried out. The Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Planning and Environment told the Group he would be happy to consult the Group on minor amendments to the schedule that arise out of theC3 Local Development Framework Steering Group,21 July 2014 consultation should Cabinet grant approval to the relevant delegated authority recommendation. DECISION MADE: Recommended to Cabinet: It was agreed unanimously that the Local Development Framework Steering Group recommend to Cabinet that Cabinet: 1. Approve the Preliminary Draft Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule as attached as appendix 1 for a 6 week consultation period. 2. Delegate authority to the Service Director Planning, Transport and Regulation in consultation with the Portfolio holder for Planning and Environment to: a. In the event that having considered representations on the Preliminary Draft consultation minor changes are required to the Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule to make those minor changes; b. Authorise the publication of the Draft Community Infrastructure Levy charging schedule for consultation; c. Authorise the submission of the Draft Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule for public examination. 3. Monitor annually and periodically review the impact of the CIL on economic development in the area. 12. Authorisation of Public Consultation on Updated Statement of  Community Involvement  The Steering Group considered a report going to Cabinet seeking authorisation for a public consultation on an updated Statement of Community Involvement – SCI. It was explained by the Senior Planning Officer that the SCI would be updated as the current SCI was approved in 2006 and since then a number of regulatory changes had taken place that rendered parts of the SCI out of date. The Group was told that the Council are under an obligation to produce an SCI although the content was more at the Councils discretion. Members of the Group asked a number of questions on the report and officers provided, where possible, an immediate response. Subjects raised included: C4 Local Development Framework Steering Group,21 July 2014 Co-opted Representatives: The Senior Planning Officer explained to the Group that there was no reference in the draft SCI to co-opted representatives but that one could be added. DECISION MADE: Recommended to Cabinet: It was agreed unanimously that the Local Development Framework Steering Group recommend to Cabinet that Cabinet: 1. Agree the content of the proposed updated Statement of Community Involvement. 2. Authorise officers to carry out public consultation on the updated Statement of Community Involvement for a minimum period of 6 weeks. 3. At a forthcoming Cabinet meeting consider representations made on the consultation and adopt a Statement of Community Involvement. C5 Local Development Framework Steering Group,21 July 2014 SECTION II – BUSINESS DECIDED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS  13. Apologies  None. 14. Declarations of interest  Councillor John Beesley declared a pecuniary interest in item 6 – Community Infrastructure Levy Consultation on Charging Schedule – in relation to a business interest. Councillor John Beesley left the room for the duration of the meeting and took no part in the discussions on item 6 – Community Infrastructure Levy Consultation on Charging Schedule. Councillor Beryl Baxter declared a personal interest in relation to item 6 owing to a position held on the governing body of a school academy – Community Infrastructure Levy Consultation on Charging Schedule. Ken Mantock declared a personal interest in relation to item 6 – Community Infrastructure Levy Consultation on Charging Schedule owing to being a member of a neighborhood forum. 15. Confirmation of Minutes  DECISION MADE: That the minutes of the meeting held on 19 June 2014 be confirmed.

 

Minutes of the Local Development

Framework Steering Group Meetings

  Dear Ken I am sorry you were unable to attend the LDF Steering Group meeting yesterday afternoon. Karen Tomkins informed me that you would be interested to receive any additional presentation material that may be available. I gave a verbal presentation (no visuals), updating the Steering Group on conservation (and design) issues. I had prepared a note, which I am happy to share with you. The formal minutes will be circulated in due course, but will not provide the same level of detail found in this note, so I thought that you would find it helpful. Kind regards, Caroline Peach LDF Steering Group 19th June 2014 Since the last meeting 9th Dec 2013

  • Churchill Gardens Appraisal adopted (10th December 2013)
  • Holdenhurst Village Appraisal adopted (4th March 2014)

 Current work Heritage consultants Appointed – The Conservation Studio to carry out the following: Talbot Village Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan – aim for public consultation 16th August to end of September

  • Churchill Gardens Management Plan – public consultation early autumn
  • Holdenhurst Village Management Plan – public consultation late autumn

Appraisals prepared from now on will need to be accompanied by a Management Plan. Other on-going work 2.1 Town Centre As part of the Town Centre Vision and AAP it was always intended to carry out more work to help protect and add quality to the Town Centre and to help reinforce its identity and character – to add to the reasons for people to come and live, visit and work in Bournemouth. And to bring helpful clarity to developers and businesses about what we want and expect – proactive planning. There are 5 Conservation Areas that are in the Town Centre – reflecting the importance and origins of the town:

  • Meyrick Park & Talbot Woods – Appraisal adopted July 2009
  • Old Christchurch Road – key area – work underway
  • Dean Park – work started sometime ago – needs to be completed
  • East Cliff – not started
  • West Cliff and Poole Hill – not started

As a complement to this we are also producing: Town Centre Building Design SPD – promoting positive design features and materials that are ‘typical Bournemouth’. This is broken down into character areas – defined in the AAP. Looking to go out to public consultation early autumn. 2.2 Borough wide – Design Review Panel Currently setting up a multi-disciplined independent panel to encourage excellent design and sustainable development in Bournemouth. Advertising for members now (deadline 27th June) –to cover – major developments, public realm and guidance documents. Aiming to have it up and running in September. =====================================================================   LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK STEERING GROUP 9TH DECEMBER 2013 PRESENT: Councillor Robert Chapman – Chairman; Councillors Beryl Baxter, John Beesley, Michael Weinhonig, Roger West and Ron Whittaker. REPRESENTATIVE FROM BOURNEMOUTH CIVIC SOCIETY: Ken Mantock – Vice-Chairman. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOURNEMOUTH 2026: Angela Pooley. ALSO PRESENT: Councillor David Smith, Cabinet Member for Planning and Environment. OFFICERS PRESENT: Phil Robinson Planning Policy, Conservation and Design Manager Mark Axford, Principal Planning Policy Officer Caroline Peach, Principal Planning Officer – Conservation, Design and Urban Renewal Alexis Edward, Transport Strategy Engineer Mike Campkin, Development Control & Forward Planning Manager Philip Shearing, Forward Planning Manager. The meeting commenced at 2.01 p.m. Note: To see a copy of the reports that were considered by the Local Development Framework Steering Group at this meeting please visit:

http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/CouncilDemocracy/Councillors/CouncillorCommitteeMeeting/  LocalDevelopmentFrameworkGroup/2013/12/09/LocalDevelopmentFrameworkGroup09-Dec-2013.aspx

SECTION I – BUSINESS RECOMMENDED TO THE CABINET 22. PARKING SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT The Steering Group considered a cabinet report which sought approval for public consultation for the Parking Supplementary Planning Document (PSPD). The Steering Group was informed that the document would be submitted to Cabinet on 18 December 2013 and that the group was being asked to consider the report and make any recommendations to the Cabinet. It was explained to the Steering Group that the PSPD provides guidance through a series of principles on the level of parking to be provided within new developments. It was further explained that the document contains design guidance in relation to other aspects of parking such as the size of garages and the layout of parking areas. I2 Members were informed that the draft PSPD has been written to address parking problems that have occurred as a result of recent developments being built on the basis of the existing standards as set out in Appendix 4 of the Adopted District Wide Local Plan (2002) which set a „maximum‟ level of parking, this has caused varying degrees of parking stress across the Borough which have led to illegal and anti-social parking. It was explained that given the different levels of stress across the Borough the PSPD splits the Borough into three different zones with varying degrees of parking need, with less parking recommended for areas with high accessibility such as the town centre. Officers reported that the new guidance could increase access on roads for cyclists and buses as on-street parking decreases and though extra parking spaces may increase costs for developers they should increase the attractiveness of the development and negate the initial outlay. Members were advised that the document was a detailed guidance however the Council would seek to negotiate with developers on the basis of the contents of the document as it will be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. Members sought clarity on the evidence base for the recommended number of spaces per habitable room and the method of consultation. It was explained that the parking need was based on Census information and as part of the consultation the document would be sent to the industry and would be available on the website and at various public locations in accordance with the statement of community involvement. Members suggested that the Transport team contact the Safer and Stronger Communities team to consider how the document can be bought to the attention of community groups and area forums within the consultation period. Members raised concerns about the effect of certain driveway materials being used to replace gardens and the knock on effect this would have on the pluvial flooding resilience of the town. It was explained that currently the report did not specify a certain type of material to be used however this could be amended. The Principal Planning Policy Officer reported that this issue was addressed at a strategic level in the Core Strategy and it may be appropriate to cross-reference in the relevant documents. Members also raised concerns about the recommended size of parking spaces in multi-storey car parks given the increase in size of the average car. It was explained that multi-storey car parks are designed to national standards but that the document could recommend a wider space than the minimum, it was emphasised however that if the guidance was followed this could increase the cost of building a multi-storey car park in the town. I3 The Steering Group raised the issue of electric vehicle charging and how this emerging technology is and will be catered for in the town. It was explained that Bournemouth does currently have some, but not many, charging points around the town but in respect of the PSPD it was felt not suitable to commit at this time to recommending one type of charge point over another given that the technology was still very much emerging and a single type of charge point has not been settled on by the industry, although it was explained this would be kept under constant review. DECISION MADE: Recommended to Cabinet: That the Cabinet be advised that the Local Development Framework Steering Group supports and welcomes the report subject to the following: a.   Section 2 Layout and Design – the need to cross-reference with the Council‟s adopted Core Strategy Policy relating to sustainable urban drainage systems in respect of concerns relating to the use of appropriate surfaces for driveways to protect the town from pluvial flooding. b.   Paragraph 2.11.1 – that the technical guidance offered by the Institute of Structural Engineers “design recommendations for multi-storey and underground car parks” be acknowledged but that developers are encouraged to provide wider bays in view of the increase in car sizes in recent years. c.   Paragraphs 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 – that these paragraphs are strongly supported and that the following words be included in paragraph 3.3.2 after „provided‟: – “in the area according to the zoning” 23. HOLDENHURST VILLAGE CONSERVATION AREA APPRAISAL The Steering Group was informed that the Cabinet at its meeting on 29 January 2014 will consider a report seeking approval of the adoption of the Holdenhurst Village Conservation Area Appraisal. Officers explained that the consultation was conducted after a technical appraisal of the area which looked at a number of aspects including: •The historic development of the area •Key elements that make the area historically special and those which detract from its historic character •Those buildings which make a positive, neutral or negative contribution to the area •A potential extension of the Conservation Area Boundary •Management proposals to ensure the area is preserved or enhanced in the future I4 It was explained that consultation had taken place with the public for six weeks during August and September 2013 and had received 20 responses. Of those 20 responses the Steering Group was informed that 75% were supportive of the proposals. Officers reported there was a need to provide further clarification for the public on some issues such as the reason for the proposed conservation area boundary changes. A Member raised a concern over the Longbarrow allotments being seen as having a negative impact on the area when the report was read. Officers explained that this concern had been raised by other respondents and was a further example where clarification was needed as the allotments were seen as a positive contributor, whilst the building on them was negative. Members asked whether the gas lighting that the area has would be protected under the conservation area to an extent that it would place an onerous burden on the Council to maintain the lighting as it is now and leave little scope for modernisation such as the insertion of Light-Emitting Diode (LED) lights. It was explained that the conservation area would have little impact on such a decision as the fact that the gaslights have listed status would take precedence. Concern was also raised over the potential impact the dimly lit gaslights have on road safety in the area. It was stressed however that the consultation had found strong support for the gaslights and it was felt by residents they are important to the area historically. Members agreed that they added to the character of the area substantially. The Steering Group asked that they receive a draft version of the Cabinet Report electronically before it is submitted to the Cabinet on 29 January 2014. DECISION MADE: Recommended to Cabinet That the Cabinet be advised that the Local Development Framework Steering Group noted the update on the outcome of the consultation on the Holdenhurst Village conservation area and requested that a draft of the Cabinet report be circulated to the group prior to its submission to Cabinet on 29 January 2014 and at this stage suggests: a. that clarification is provided on the issue of the Longbarrow allotments b. that clarification is provided on the issue of the gaslights in the proposed conservation area. SECTION II – BUSINESS DECIDED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS 24. APOLOGIES Apologies were received from Martin Broad. 25. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest made by Members of the Steering Group. 26. MINUTES DECISION MADE: That the minutes of the meeting held on 21 October 2013 be confirmed. 27. PUBLIC ITEMS There were no public questions, deputation requests or petitions submitted for this meeting. 28 . BOURNEMOUTH, DORSET AND POOLE MINERALS AND WASTE POLICY JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Steering Group was updated following the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Minerals and Waste Policy Joint Advisory Committee on 6 December 2013. The Principal Planning Officer explained that at that meeting a list of potential sites for exploration was circulated. It was noted that none of the sites were in Bournemouth but the officers and members present at that meeting felt that one site in particular (Parley Court) would have an impact on Bournemouth as it was adjacent to the Borough border and was of a significant size. It was explained that they had raised a number of concerns at the meeting feeling that the site summary had seriously underestimated the impacts of the site. The changes put forward at the meeting by the Bournemouth representatives which addressed the underestimations had been accepted by the committee. The Steering Group thanked the officers and Councillors who went to the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Minerals and Waste Policy Joint Advisory Committee for raising the concerns and subsequent amendments which had been agreed. Members asked about the likely timescales for any Parley Court site mineral extraction proposals. It was explained that the site‟ actual allocation in the adopted plan, if agreed, was still some way from being realised and that any planning application is not likely to come forward until the end of December 2016. Note: Any other business – the Chairman agreed that the above update be provided to the Steering Group as a matter of urgency in order to apprise them of the outcome of the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Minerals and Waste Policy Joint Advisory Committee on 6 December 2013. The meeting closed at 3:30 pm  

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK STEERING GROUP 21 October 2013

PRESENT: Councillor Robert Chapman – Chairman; Councillors Beryl Baxter, John Beesley, Michael Weinhonig, Roger West and Ron Whittaker.

REPRESENTATIVE FROM BOURNEMOUTH CIVIC SOCIETY:

Ken Mantock – Vice-Chairman.

REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOURNEMOUTH 2026:

Angela Pooley and Martin Broad.

ALSO PRESENT:

Councillor David Kelsey, Chairman of the Planning Board.

OFFICERS PRESENT:

Phil Robinson, Planning Policy, Conservation and Design Manager

Mark Axford, Principal Planning Policy Officer

Caroline Peach, Principal Planning Officer – Conservation, Design and Urban Renewal

The meeting commenced at 1.30 p.m.

Note: To see a copy of the reports that were considered by the Local Development Framework Steering Group at this meeting please visit:

http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/CouncilDemocracy/Councillors/BoardsPanels/Local-Development-Framework-Steering-Group.aspx

SECTION I – BUSINESS RECOMMENDED TO THE CABINET

15. BOURNEMOUTH, DORSET AND POOLE GYPSY, TRAVELLER AND TRAVELLING SHOWPEOPLE UPDATED ACCOMMODATION ASSESSMENT 2013

 

The Steering Group considered a report on the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople updated Accommodation Assessment 2013.

The Principal Planning Policy Officer reported that the Dorset and South Wiltshire Planning and Transportation Liaison Committee in October 2012 had agreed that an updated accommodation assessment be produced before progressing further work on the Development Plan Document – DPD. He reminded the Group that in November 2012 it too had subsequently requested that the accommodation strategy be updated. Members were informed that Opinion Research Services had been commissioned to carry out the assessment.N2

The Group was informed that the assessment indicated that across Dorset County, Bournemouth and Poole the extra residential pitch provision required up to 2028 was 150 pitches. The Principal Planning Policy Officer explained that this varied between over 30 pitches required in both North Dorset and Purbeck to none in Bournemouth and Weymouth and Portland. He reported that the assessment has found that there was no identified requirement in Bournemouth for permanent residential pitches between 2013 and 2028 whereas the previous draft Regional Spatial Strategy estimate was 21 pitches. Members were advised that the report does note that there is a significant population of gypsy and travellers in the Borough living in housing, but there is currently no evidence that they wish to move to sites, it is also recommended that this finding is monitored.

The Principal Planning Policy Officer reported that, in terms of transit sites, the assessment recommends having considered travelling patterns, that the South East Dorset conurbation and the Dorset County area should each provide for a transit site to accommodate between 10 and 25 pitches, although it recognises the limitations of police powers for redirection if sites are shared across local authority boundaries. Members were informed that strengthened police powers can only be triggered if a transit site or temporary stopping place was made available within a specified local authority area.

Members were informed that it was proposed that a report seeking approval for the revised timetable for the production of the Gypsy and Traveller Site Allocation Development Plan Document was expected to be submitted to the next meeting of the Steering Group.

Councillor Whittaker reported on his and the Chairman’s attendance at a presentation on the main findings of the assessment by Opinion Research Services held in Dorchester earlier in October. He referred to the powers of the Police under section 62 which can only be triggered if the site was made available within a specified local authority area. Councillor Whittaker commented on considering police boundaries when identifying potential transit sites.

The Principal Planning Policy Officer provided clarification on the inclusion of travelling showpeople in the assessment in view of comments from Members. He explained that the needs of travelling showpeople needed to be considered.

Councillor Beesley referred to a recent press article concerning the police powers. He reported that until otherwise advised in writing, by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the status quo will remain as the powers under section 62 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 cannot be applied for a shared site outside the Borough boundary.N3

DECISION MADE:

Recommended to Cabinet:

That the Cabinet be advised that the Local Development Framework Steering Group:

1. receives and welcomes the report – see copy of officers report attached to these minutes.

2. requests that joint working on the issues associated with transit sites continue including addressing the police powers under section 62 and the application of police boundaries.

3. acknowledges the work undertaken by the Bournemouth Members of Parliament and asks that this be progressed with the Local Government Association.

16. CHURCHILL GARDENS CONSERVATION AREA APPRAISAL

The Steering Group was informed that the Churchill Gardens Conservation Areas Appraisal has been prepared in support of the work of the Boscombe Regeneration Partnership, support of future funding bids for environmental improvements and response to Government legislation.

The Principal Planning Officer – Conservation, Design and Urban Renewal explained that the appraisal was part of a holistic approach to address the social and environmental issues in Boscombe, with a particular focus in Churchill Gardens. The appraisal was primarily a technical piece of work which centred on:

• the historic development of the area

• key elements that make the area historically special and those which detract from its historic character

• those buildings which make a positive, neutral or negative contribution to the area

• a potential extension of the Conservation Area Boundary

• management proposals to ensure the area is preserved or enhanced in the future

Members were informed that the public consultation was undertaken between 28 June and 9 August 2013 and this was widely publicised. The Principal Planning Officer reported that 26 responses had been received from a mixture of local residents, multiple owners of property in Churchill Gardens and letting agents. A response was also received from the Civic Society. Set out below are the key messages from the consultation:

  • strong support for work being carried out in recognition of the area’s historic significance

• high level of support that the content of the appraisal covered all the appropriate issues

• high level of support for the extension of the Conservation Area boundary – 2 properties

• strong desire to see the social and physical issues in the area addressed together

• high level of support for reinstating and or maintain heritage features on the outside of properties if the work was funded by the Council and the Heritage Lottery Fund.

The Steering Group was informed of the key areas of change proposed for the appraisal as a result of the consultation including updating the document, providing various points of clarification and cross-referencing. The Principal Planning Officer also reported that there would be further clarification on the work of the Boscombe Regeneration Partnership.

Members were informed that the Cabinet would receive a report at its meeting on 13 November with a recommendation to adopt the appraisal which would then be submitted to full Council on 10 December 2013.

The Steering Group commented on the boundary of the conservation area and other properties in the area which were of historic value including St Clements Church. Councillor Beesley welcomed the conservation appraisal. He outlined the housing project in the area whereby HMOs were converted to flats and sought clarification that the proposals in the conservation area appraisal were not onerous. The Principal Planning Officer explained that the conservation area appraisal does not commit an owner or the Council to additional works but provides an opportunity to look at each property individually when considering development.

DECISION MADE:

Recommended to Cabinet

That the Cabinet be advised that the Local Development Framework Steering Group:

1. recommends the Conservation Area Appraisal for Churchill Gardens.

2. welcomes and supports the approach and in particular the interaction with the work of the Boscombe Regeneration Partnership.

3. supports the proposals outlined for the change of use of HMOs to flats.

4. suggests that consideration be given to extending the Knole Road Conservation Area to include properties such as St Clements Church, the school and the House of Bethany.

  SECTION II – BUSINESS DECIDED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS

17. ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRMAN

DECISION MADE:

That Ken Mantock be elected vice-chairman for the remainder of 2013/14.

18. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest made by Members of the Steering Group.

19. MINUTES

DECISION MADE:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 4 February 2013 be confirmed.

20. PUBLIC ITEMS

There were no public questions, deputation requests or petitions submitted for this meeting.

21. DATE OF NEXT MEETING

DECISION MADE:

That the next meeting of the Steering Group be held in November 2013 and proposed dates be circulated to the Group.

The meeting closed at 2.20pm

Contact: Karen Tompkins, Senior Democratic Services Officer

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK STEERING GROUP 4 February 2013 PRESENT: Councillor Robert Chapman – Chairman; Councillors Beryl Baxter, John Beesley, Michael Weinhonig, Roger West and Ron Whittaker. REPRESENTATIVE FROM BOURNEMOUTH CIVIC SOCIETY: Ken Mantock – Vice-Chairman. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOURNEMOUTH 2026: Angela Pooley. ALSO PRESENT: Councillor David Smith, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Planning and Environment; Councillor David Kelsey, Chairman of the Planning Board; Councillor Stephen Chappell. OFFICERS PRESENT: Phil Robinson, Planning Policy, Conservation and Design Manager Mark Axford, Principal Planning Policy Officer Caroline Peach, Principal Planning Officer – Conservation, Design and Urban Renewal  Kelly Ansell – Strategic Housing Service Project Manager The meeting commenced at 2.00 p.m. Note: To see a copy of the report that was considered by the Local Development Framework Steering Group at this meeting please visit:  http://archive.bournemouth.gov.uk/main/Minutes_Agendas/LDF_Steering_Group.asp
 
SECTION I – BUSINESS RECOMMENDED TO THE CABINET 10. THE BOURNEMOUTH LOCAL PLAN – TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN – ADOPTION The Steering Group considered a report which sought Cabinet and Council approval to adopt the Bournemouth Local Plan – Town Centre Area Action Plan (AAP), as proposed to be modified. The AAP provided more detailed planning policy for the Town Centre in support of the newly adopted Local Plan – Core Strategy document which covered the whole of Bournemouth. The Principal Planning Officer (Conservation, Design and Urban Renewal) explained that the main modifications had been recommended by the Independent Inspector who had been appointed by the Secretary of State to make the AAP sound. A copy of the Inspector’s report was attached at Appendix 1 for reference. Following the submission of the original AAP to the Secretary of State in November 2011 some minor additional modifications had also been included in the AAP in the form of updates, corrections and small changes. These minor changes did not materially affect the policies in the AAP and were therefore deemed lawful. N8 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 4 February 2013 The Principal Planning Officer referred Members to paragraph 4.6 of the report which provided a summary of the Inspector’s main modifications. These had to be accepted in their entirety for the AAP to be adopted. The Planning Officers responded to questions from the Steering Group, particularly in relation to the comments made by the Inspector regarding housing provision and other matters. The main points raised in the discussion were – • The Authority Monitoring Report 2011/12 provided details of affordable housing provision since 2000, including the amount taken in 2011/12 (£250,000). This matter had been discussed at the previous meeting on 14 January  • The definition of family housing was wide and appropriate to the area. It was important to acknowledge that some families chose to live in flats and that people’s housing aspirations were tempered by their economic circumstances • Members referred to changes in the age demographic of the Borough and how this may influence housing requirements • The Inspector acknowledged that the overall balance of the housing mix within the Borough was a matter for monitoring through the Core Strategy objectives. • One of the main modifications related to comprehensive planning of large complex sites. This would assist when sites were developed in stages. Members referred to Commercial Road which the AAP had identified as a site for intensification of development. This was an example of one of the large complex sites. • The Supplementary Planning Documents referred to in paragraph 3.4 were identified in the AAP and were Town Centre specific The Steering Group talked about the recent report by Feria Urbanism on the night time economy in Bournemouth and asked how the findings of this study were being taken forward. The Principal Planning Officer reported that the Council had set up a strategic group, led by the Executive Director for Environment and Economy, to take forward the actions in the report. She explained that Officers were very aware of the points raised in the report in terms of planning policy and design. The Chairman on behalf of the Steering Group thanked the Principal Planning Officer and her colleagues for the work they had done in developing the AAP. He also referred to the valuable contribution which had been made by Mr Geoff Turnbull, Major Engineering Developments Manager, who had sadly passed away in December 2012. DECISION MADE: Recommended to Cabinet: That the Cabinet recommends to the Council that the Bournemouth Local Plan – Town Centre Area Action Plan (AAP), as proposed to be modified, be adopted. N9 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 4 February 2013   SECTION II – BUSINESS DECIDED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS 11.  DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest made by Members of the Steering Group. 12.  MINUTES DECISION MADE: That the minutes of the meeting held on 14 January 2013 be confirmed. 13.  PUBLIC ITEMS There were no public questions, deputation requests or petitions submitted for this meeting. 14.  OLDER PERSONS HOUSING The Strategic Housing Service Project Manager gave a verbal report in response to an enquiry from Councillor Beryl Baxter on the planned provision of older persons housing. The Steering Group was told that the Council was currently undertaking a major piece of work to ensure that the housing needs of older people in the future was properly planned for and fit for purpose. This work would include a review of the sheltered housing stock across all sectors in the Borough to assess viability, demand and future provision of services. The project would build on the previous strategy and action plan, and would take into account new census data and demographics to set clear and meaningful targets for the future. Over the next three months the Council would be contacting a large sample of older people to discuss their housing aspirations with them. The Officers responded to questions from the Steering Group. Members noted that the review of sheltered housing provision would enable the Council to collect data on how older people access housing and how many people come from within or outside the local area to do so. The Steering Group agreed that older people’s housing provision would vary according to individual circumstances and requirements, including financial circumstances. The Strategic Housing Service Project Manager agreed that a further update could be given to the Steering Group once this work had been completed. N10  


  Local Development Framework Steering Group, 4 February 2013 DECISION MADE: That the update on older persons housing and the actions being taken by the Council in planning for future needs be noted. The meeting closed at 2.50pm Contact: Jill Holyoake, Democratic Services Officer   ( 01202 454715 + jill.holyoake@bournemouth.gov.uk Website: www.bournemouth.gov.uk LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK STEERING GROUP 14 January 2013 PRESENT: Councillor Robert Chapman – Chairman; Councillors Beryl Baxter, John Beesley, Michael Weinhonig, Roger West and Ron Whittaker. REPRESENTATIVE FROM BOURNEMOUTH CIVIC SOCIETY: Ken Mantock – Vice-Chairman. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOURNEMOUTH 2026: Martin Broad, Angela Pooley. ALSO PRESENT: Councillor David Smith, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Planning and Environment. The meeting commenced at 10.00 a.m. Note: To see a copy of the report that was considered by the Local Development Framework Steering Group at this meeting please visit:  http://archive.bournemouth.gov.uk/main/Minutes_Agendas/LDF_Steering_Group.asp

 
SECTION I – BUSINESS RECOMMENDED TO THE CABINET 1. DORSET HEATHLAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT – PREFERRED OPTIONS CONSULTATION The Steering Group considered a report which sought Cabinet approval to publish the joint Dorset Heathlands Development Plan – Preferred Options for consultation. The Plan had been prepared with other local authorities in South East Dorset to ensure that planning permission for new housing development complies with the Habitats Regulations. Once the Plan was adopted it would form part of the Bournemouth Local Plan and would supersede the interim arrangements which had been in place to manage local development proposals since January 2007. The Principal Planning Policy Officer explained that the Plan was now at the preferred options stage. The Plan contained four draft policies DH1 – DH4 which were set out in section 4.8 of the report. The report also sought approval to delegate minor text changes to the document to the relevant Service Director in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Portfolio Holder. Once agreed the participating local authorities would undertake an 8 week consultation with developers, agents and other interested parties, starting in February 2013. N2 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 14 January 2013 The Principal Planning Policy Officer responded to questions from the Steering Group, particularly in relation to the draft policies DH1 – DH4 and the operation of a Community Infrastructure Levy – CIL, both of which are anticipated to come into effect by April 2014. The main points raised in the discussion were – · In Draft Policy DH2 the type of uses which may have an adverse impact on the heathland had been widened to include more uses than just straightforward residential. · Draft Policy DH3 referred to the use of the Community Infrastructure Levy – CIL – and the prioritisation given to heathland projects. The Steering Group was concerned that certain types of development may not be subject to the CIL charge but would still need mitigation to meet the requirements of the Habitats Regulations. This mitigation would have to be ‘subsidised’ through the Council CIL pot. The Council had questioned this process with other local authorities and had been advised that this approach had previously been supported by Inspectors. · At this stage it was difficult to predict the impact that prioritising CIL monies for heathland projects would have on other types of contribution such as affordable housing. · The Steering Group felt that the document should contain specific reference to the need for heathland mitigation projects to take place in the same areas as the developments with which they were funded. · In Draft Policy DH4 the Sites of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) could include existing open spaces which had potential to increase capacity of use. A plan of proposed sites, which included the Stour Valley and other sites identified in conjunction with the Parks team, was attached to the Plan document. · Following its adoption an Authority Monitoring Report on the collection and distribution of CIL monies would be produced to ensure the process was accountable and transparent. · The CIL as a whole approach would be tested for soundness by an independent inspector, rather than the current case by case basis. DECISION MADE: Recommended to Cabinet: 1. That the Cabinet agrees to publish the joint Dorset Heathlands Development Plan Document – Preferred Options for public consultation. N3 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 14 January 2013 2. That any minor text changes to the document be delegated to the Service Director for Planning and Transport in consultation with the Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Planning and Environment. 3. That at the appropriate time a response to the consultation be submitted indicating that this Council requests that the following specific reference be included in the document – that the implementation of heathland projects should be prioritised in those areas where the developments funding such projects are taking place. 4. That where the policy requires development not subject to a Community Infrastructure Levy charge to be mitigated through the prioritisation of monies from the Council CIL pot, it should be noted that this is an unfunded pressure. 2. BOURNEMOUTH, DORSET AND POOLE MINERALS CORE STRATEGY The Steering Group considered a report which asked the Cabinet and Council to agree to the submission of the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Minerals Core Strategy to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government unchanged from its pre-submission draft form. Members noted that agreement was also required from the other two local authorities responsible for minerals and waste planning across Dorset, that is, Dorset County Council and the Borough of Poole. The Principal Planning Policy Officer explained that this was the last formal stage before the Plan’s submission to the Secretary of State and should not be materially different from the pre submission draft, otherwise further consultation would be required. The report also sought authority for officers to take a number of procedural actions to ensure the smooth running of the planning inspector’s public examination and to avoid unnecessary delay in determining the Plan as sound. These delegations were requested in accordance with the guidance provided by the inspectors undertaking Inquiries. The Steering Group was assured that this would not prejudice the responsibility of the three local authorities in formally adopting the final plan. The Principal Planning Policy Officer responded to questions. He confirmed that 57 responses containing 411 individual comments had been received as a result of the consultation on the pre-submission draft Strategy between July and September 2012. N4 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 14 January 2013 DECISION MADE: Recommended to Cabinet: 1. That the Cabinet recommends to Council that the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Minerals Core strategy be submitted in its pre-submission draft form to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government together with accompanying submission documents subject to any non material modifications (see 2). 2. That officers be authorised to make additional modifications (minor changes that do not materially alter the policies in the plan), including revisions to supporting submission documents, both prior to and after submission. 3. That officers be authorised in consultation with the relevant portfolio holders (or their substitutes) to request that the appointed inspector includes recommendations in the examination report on any modifications needed to make the plan sound. 4. That officers be authorised in consultation with the relevant portfolio holders (or their substitutes) to make main modifications (material changes) for consideration by the inspector in the interests of achieving a sound plan and to ensure the smooth running of the examination. 5. That officers be authorised to proceed with public consultation in the event that main modifications are proposed before the inspector closes the examination in accordance with the requirements of the Local Planning Regulations 2012. 6. That the change in the plan title to Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Minerals Strategy be noted. 3. BOURNEMOUTH, DORSET AND POOLE MINERALS SITES AND STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT The Steering Group considered a report which asked the Cabinet to agree that a period of public consultation on the Minerals Sites Plan takes place prior to the publication of a Pre-Submission document. The Principal Planning Policy Officer explained that the further period of public consultation was required to take into account updates to the evidence for the Minerals Sites Plan since the original work was suspended in 2008. The report also requested authority for officers to commence a review of the current Dorset Minerals and Waste Statement of Community Involvement. The review was necessary to take into account the impact of changes to planning legislation and regulation since the current statement was adopted in March 2007. N5 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 14 January 2013 The Principal Planning Policy Officer responded to questions and confirmed that existing licences would be looked at again as part of the Minerals Sites plan. Councillor Ron Whittaker commented on the response received from Dorset County Council in August 2012 to the concerns raised in respect of gravel extraction at Parley Court Farm and asked if these concerns could be raised again as part of the report’s recommendations. DECISION MADE: Recommended to Cabinet: 1. That the Cabinet agrees a period of public consultation on the Minerals Sites Plan takes place prior to the publication of a Pre-Submission document and its associated formal period of consultation. 2. That officers be authorised to commence a review of the current Dorset Minerals and Waste Statement of Community Involvement. 3. That officers be asked to contact Dorset County Council to reiterate the concerns previously expressed regarding gravel extraction at Parley Court Farm and its potential impact on the banks of the River Stour. 4.  REVIEW OF LOCAL DEVELOPMENT SCHEME The Steering Group considered a report which asked the Cabinet and Council to approve the revised Local Development Scheme Project Plan to form the basis of a fully revised Local Development Scheme to come into effect on 22 January 2013. The report also sought delegated authority to make text changes to the Local Development Scheme document. The Principal Planning Policy Officer explained that the Project Plan required updating to take into account any changes to the timetable for preparing planning documents and to reflect legislative requirements. Details of the key milestones in the revised Project Plan were set out in Appendix A of the report. The Steering Group talked about the timetable for preparing the Community Infrastructure Levy and the opportunity for Members to influence the charging schedule as it was developed. The Principal Planning Policy Officer explained that briefing sessions on the preliminary draft charging schedule were being arranged. There was a meeting between officers and developers on 22 January 2013 with the Cabinet Portfolio Holder in attendance.  It was proposed to arrange a briefing session for Members on the afternoon of 4 February, at the end of the next Steering Group meeting. This session was aimed primarily at Members of the Steering Group and the Planning Board but all Members were welcome to attend. N6 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 14 January 2013 DECISION MADE – Recommend to Cabinet: 1. That the Cabinet recommends to full Council that the revised Local development Scheme Project Plan be approved to form the basis of a fully revised Local Development Scheme to come into effect on 22 January 2013. 2. That the Cabinet delegates authority to the Service Director for Planning and Transport in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for planning and Environment to make text changes to the Local Development Scheme document. N7 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 14 January 2013   SECTION II – BUSINESS DECIDED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS 5.  DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest made by members of the Steering Group. 6.  MINUTES DECISION MADE: That the minutes of the meeting held on 19 November 2012 be confirmed. 7.  PUBLIC ITEMS There were no public questions, deputation requests or petitions submitted for this meeting. 8.  AUTHORITY MONITORING REPORT 2011/12 The Steering Group considered a report which highlighted some of the main findings of the latest Authority Monitoring Report – AMR – for 2011/12. Members were asked to note the contents of the AMR and agree its publication in accordance with the requirements of the Localism Act 2011. The Principal Planning Policy Officer explained the key areas covered by the AMR, including progress in preparing planning documents, number of additional dwellings including affordable housing, economic and natural environment, and actions taken regarding the duty to co-operate on strategic planning matters. The Principal Planning Policy Officer responded to questions and confirmed that the AMR provided details of affordable housing provision since 2000. DECISION MADE: 1. That the contents of the Authority Monitoring report for 2011/12 be noted and agreed for publication. 2. That all officers involved in the Local Development Framework process be commended for their work, particularly in relation to the adoption of the Core Strategy. N8 Local Development Framework Steering Group, 14 January 2013 9.  KAREN TOMPKINS, SENIOR DEMOCRATIC SERVICES OFFICER The Steering Group conveyed its best wishes to Karen Tompkins for a full recovery to health following a recent period of illness. The meeting closed at 11.30 a.m. Contact: Jill Holyoake, Democratic Services Officer   ( 01202 454715 + jill.holyoake@bournemouth.gov.uk Website: www.bournemouth.gov.uk  


  LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK STEERING GROUP 19 November 2012 PRESENT:     Councillor Robert Chapman – Chairman; Councillors Beryl Baxter, John Beesley, Michael Weinhonig and Ron Whittaker. REPRESENTATIVE FROM BOURNEMOUTH CIVIC SOCIETY: Ken Mantock – Vice-Chairman. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOURNEMOUTH 2026: Angela Pooley. ALSO PRESENT: Councillor David Smith, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Planning and Environment. The meeting commenced at 10.00 a.m. Note: To see a copy of the report that was considered by the Local Development Framework Steering Group at this meeting please visit: http://archive.bournemouth.gov.uk/main/Minutes_Agendas/LDF_Steering_Group.asp SECTION I – BUSINESS RECOMMENDED TO THE CABINET 31.              HEATHLANDS EXECUTIVE GROUP The Steering Group was reminded that the Cabinet at its meeting on 12 September 2012 had agreed that a review be undertaken by the Service Directors for Legal and Democratic and Planning and Transport on the governance arrangements for the Dorset Heathlands Executive Group and the Heathland Planning Framework Officer Group to ensure that the governance arrangements and accountability for expenditure of the monies raised through the process were robust and remained appropriate. The Service Director for Legal and Democratic reported that the Executive Group and Officer Group had been established in 2005 but had not yet been reviewed.  She informed Members that an Officer had now been appointed by the Council to submit bids for Bournemouth to the Heathland Planning Framework Officer Group. The Steering Group had raised concerns about the governance arrangements for the Executive Group.  The Service Director for Legal and Democratic reported that she had highlighted this issue with other monitoring officers in the County who acknowledged the need to review the terms of reference.  Members were informed that Dorset Monitoring Officers were due to meet in early December and would discuss this issue. The Service Director for Legal and Democratic reported that she would take forward the review and report back to the Steering Group on the outcome of the discussions with the Dorset Monitoring Officers. The Principal Planning Policy Officer updated the Steering Group on the outcome of the Heathland Planning Framework Officer Group on Friday 16 November 2012 and in particular the progress with the following projects:

  • River Stour bank stabilisation at Muscliffe
  • Boardwalk extension at Hengistbury Head
  • Harbour Bank stabilisation at Hengistbury Head

 DECISION MADE:  Recommended to Cabinet:  That the update from the Service Director for Legal and Democratic on the progress with the review of the Dorset Heathlands Executive Group and Heathland Planning Framework Officer Group be received and further information be circulated to the Steering Group following the meeting of the Dorset Monitoring Officers in early December 2012. 32.              DORSET GYPSY, TRAVELLER AND TRAVELLING SHOWPEOPLE SITE ALLOCATIONS JOINT DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT    The Steering Group considered a report on the findings of the Dorset Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocations Joint Development Plan Document – Final Report of Issues and Options Consultation 2011-2012. The Steering Group was circulated with an email from the Chairman for the Throop, Muscliffe, Strouden, Townsend and Holdenhurst Area Forum setting out a number of key points which he had requested Members bear in mind when considering the outcome of the consultation. The Principal Planning Policy Officer reported on the responses which had been received as part of the consultation in respect of the following sites in Bournemouth:

  • Careys Road
  • Land near Erlin Farm
  • Land off Park Road
  • Throop Road

The Steering Group was informed that they had been asked to note the contents of the Dorset Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocations Joint Development Plan Document – Final Report of Issues and Options Consultation 2011-12 and to reaffirm commitment to the Joint Development Plan Document process including the production of an updated Needs Assessment.  Officers explained the role of the appointed consultants in any future work. Councillor John Beesley, reminded the Steering Group of the statement he made on 22 October on the Council’s position as follows: ‘Bournemouth remains committed to the Joint Development Planning Document (DPD) process.  However, having considered the nature and number of responses presented in Peter Brett Associates (formerly Bakers Associates) final report on the Issues and Options Public Consultation regarding the four sites identified in Bournemouth, it is clear that for sound planning reasons none of these are appropriate to be taken forward to later stages of the DPD process.  For that reason, therefore, I can indicate that the sites included in the earlier consultation exercise, namely land near Erlin Farm, Careys Road, Throop Road and Park Road, will not be subject to further consideration and will not therefore appear in later stages of the DPD process.  I hope that this will put at rest the minds of those residents who have understandably been expressing concern at these proposals. I am aware that other sites were suggested by the public as part of the consultation process.  However from our knowledge of Bournemouth and the borough-wide analysis undertaken by Bakers, it is very unlikely that a suitable alternative site will be forthcoming.’ Councillor Beesley, Leader of the Council confirmed the above statement acknowledging the commitment to the DPD process, the rejection of the 4 sites referred to above and that it was very unlikely that a suitable alternative site would be identified.  He explained that it was important that the statement was not misinterpreted. The Vice-Chairman reported that the Steering Group needed to continue to put pressure on the Government relating to current policies. He also highlighted the need to work with other authorities to identify joint sites.  The Chairman suggested that the 2 Bournemouth MPs should be sent details of the decision of this Steering Group meeting. The Steering Group requested, in response to his email, that the Chairman of the Throop, Muscliffe, Strouden, Townsend and Holdenhurst Area Forum be sent a copy of the minutes from this meeting.  Officers confirmed that they would want to be actively involved in the needs assessment.  Councillor Beesley informed the Steering Group that on behalf of the Council he had provided the Government with information on the impact and problems of dealing with unauthorised encampments in Bournemouth. DECISION MADE: Recommended to Cabinet: 1.       That the approach set out in the above statement highlighted in bold, made by the Leader of the Council on 22 October 2012, be agreed. 2.       That the contents of the Dorset Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocations Joint Development Plan – Final Report of Issues and Options Consultation 2011-12 be noted. 3.       That commitment to work jointly with other Dorset Councils on the next stages of the Dorset, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Site Allocations Joint Development Plan Document including the production of an updated Needs Assessment be reaffirmed. 4.       That the Council continue to lobby Central Government in respect of changing police and planning powers in relation to Gypsy and Traveller sites and work with other Local Authorities to identify a joint site in the County. 5.       That the 2 Bournemouth Members of Parliament be sent a copy of the above recommendations. SECTION II – BUSINESS DECIDED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS 33.              APOLOGIES The Steering Group was informed that apologies had been received from Councillor Roger West and Martin Broad. 34.              DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest made by members of the Steering Group. 35.              MINUTES DECISION MADE: That the minutes of the meeting held on 15 October, 2012 be confirmed. 36.              PUBLIC ITEMS A.      Public Questions There were no public questions submitted for this meeting. B.      Deputations There were no deputation requests submitted for this meeting. C.      Petitions There were no petitions submitted for this meeting. 37.              FUTURE MEETINGS OF THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK STEERING GROUP DECISION MADE: 1.       That arrangements be made to hold the next meeting of the Steering Group prior to the Cabinet meeting on 16 January 2013.   2.       That the Senior Democratic Services Officer consult Members on the proposal to hold the next meeting of the Steering Group on 14 January 2013. The meeting closed at 10.43 a.m. Contact:      Karen Tompkins, Senior Democratic Services Officer ( 01202 451255 + karen.tompkins@bournemouth.gov.uk

Website:        www.bournemouth.gov.uk

 


 

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK STEERING GROUP, 15 October, 2012

PRESENT:     Councillor Robert Chapman – Chairman; Councillors Beryl Baxter, John Beesley, Roger West and Ron Whittaker. REPRESENTATIVE FROM BOURNEMOUTH CIVIC SOCIETY: Ken Mantock – Vice-Chairman. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOURNEMOUTH 2026: Martin Broad andAngela Pooley. ALSO PRESENT: Councillor David Smith, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Planning and Environment and Councillor Stephen Chappell. The meeting commenced at 9.45 a.m. Note: To see a copy of the report that was considered by the Local Development Framework Steering Group at this meeting please visit: http://archive.bournemouth.gov.uk/main/Minutes_Agendas/LDF_Steering_Group.asp SECTION I – BUSINESS RECOMMENDED TO THE CABINET 26.              THE BOURNEMOUTH LOCAL PLAN – CORE STRATEGY – ADOPTION   The Steering Group considered a report which requested that the Council accept the ‘main modifications’ recommended by the independent Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State to make the Core Strategy sound and approve the adoption of the Core Strategy, as proposed to be modified, as Council policy for planning purposes.  Attached at Appendix 1 to the report is the Inspector’s report and the Core Strategy as proposed to be modified can be accessed by using the following weblink: www.bournemouth.gov.uk/csmodified Officers outlined the proposed modifications in the document and responded to questions on the implication of the changes. Councillor Whittaker expressed his concern that no report had been submitted following the consultation on the Dorset Wide Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show People Site Allocations Joint Development Plan Document issues and options.  He referred to both Erlin Farm and Carey’s Road and stressed the implications for residents in the area.  He emphasised that a decision needed to be made quickly.  The Chairman reported that it was expected that a report would be submitted to the next meeting of the Local Development Framework Steering Group in 5-6 weeks time.  Councillor Beesley confirmed the above timetable. The Steering Group commented on funding for the Stour Valley Project and in doing so referred to the recommendation from the last meeting of the Steering Group relating to a review of the governance arrangements for the Dorset Heathland Executive Group and the Heathland Planning Framework Officer Group.  Members asked for feedback from Officers on how the review was progressing.  Councillor Beesley asked Officers to confirm if the constitution of the Heathland Executive Group allowed for attendance by him as the Leader of the Council or the appropriate Cabinet Member. The Steering Group thanked the officers for all their hard work in developing the Core Strategy document. DECISION MADE: Recommended to Cabinet: That the Cabinet recommends to full Council that the Bournemouth Local Plan – Core Strategy, as proposed to be modified, be adopted subject to the following: Page 7 – The Sustainable Community Strategy – that the text is not deleted and the following amendments are made: Paragraph 1.3.1 the start of the sentence reads – The Bournemouth 2026 Trust (formerly known as the Bournemouth 2026 Partnership) Paragraph 1.3.2 the first sentence reads – The Partnership produced a shared vision for Bournemouth which set out the long term aspirations for the town and how these could be achieved. Paragraph 1.3.3 – last sentence – Bournemouth Plan be deleted and replaced with Core Strategy. Paragraph 1.3.5 – partnership be replaced with Trust. Page 41 – Focus on Bournemouth Town Centre and District Centres – Policy CS8 (renumbered Policy CS9) – Enhancing District Centres – Officers be encouraged to review the boundaries of District Centres and progress this through the Development Management Policies DPD. Page 49 – Transport – Paragraph 4.2.21 – red text at the end of paragraph – the word change be replaced with charge. Page 53 – Housing – that regular updates are received on how the Council is performing against its housing targets. Page 62 – Housing – paragraph 4.3.33 – second from last sentence – the word windfall be included after individual. Page 79 – Natural Environment, Sport, Recreation and Green Infrastructure – Policy CS32 (renumbered Policy CS35) – Nature and Geological Conservation Interests – the following wording from the Inspector’s Report August 2012 be included after the first paragraph: If significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided through:

  • relocating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts
  • adequate mitigation,  or
  • as a last resort, through adequate compensation,

then planning permission will be refused by the Local Planning Authority. Page 111 – 116 – Appendix A – List of Replaced Policies be amended to read as follows: Appendix A – List of Retained and Replaced Policies Page 112 – Appendix A – List of Replaced Policies – the paragraph preceding the table be amended to read as follows: Ultimately all Bournemouth District Wide Local Plan saved policies will be superseded by policies in documents making up the new Bournemouth Local Plan. A full list of saved polices will be maintained on the Council’s website and will be updated as new Local Plan documents are adopted. The following table lists all the Bournemouth District Wide Local Plan policies saved in 2007. The right hand column of the table indicates those saved polices which are superseded by specifying the Core Strategy policy which replaces them.  Some saved policies are not superseded but are no longer required, for example completed residential allocations. In these cases the right hand column states “remove”. Saved policies with no entry in the right hand column remain as saved policies. Page 118 – Appendix B Glossary of Terms – Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) – existing text deleted and replaced with the following: An annual report assessing the progress and effectiveness of the documents which together form the new Bournemouth Local Plan including monitoring the progress of each document with respect to the timetable specified for each document in the Local Development Scheme. General: That Officers be authorised to change the photographs in the document and include details of the location. That a booklet be prepared to assist with the different numerical references for retained and replaced policies. SECTION II – BUSINESS DECIDED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS 27.              DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest made by members of the Steering Group. 28.              MINUTES DECISION MADE: That the minutes of the meeting held on 11 September, 2012 be confirmed. 29.              PUBLIC ITEMS A.      Public Questions There were no public questions submitted for this meeting. B.      Deputations There were no deputation requests submitted for this meeting. C.      Petitions There were no petitions submitted for this meeting. 30.              URBAN DESIGN AND COSERVATION PROJECTS The Steering Group was informed of the progress of the following projects by the Conservation, Design and Urban Renewal Team: Bournemouth Public Realm Strategy – this will be a wide reaching document which will be used to help guide change and investment and improve the function and appearance of streets and public spaces across the Borough.   It will touch on issues to do with local character and distinctiveness, personal security and safety, inclusivity, accessibility, sustainability and will include references to the need for reduced street clutter, coordination of street furniture and introduction of more opportunities for play, public art and planting. More detailed documents will follow for the specific areas of Bournemouth.  The public consultation was expected to start in mid November 2012. Conservation Area Appraisals for the following:

    • Holdenhurst Village – there are 21 Conservation Areas in Bournemouth that are designated for their special architectural and historic interest. The Council has a duty to prepare and publish proposals to preserve and enhance these areas. In this instance significant boundary changes are proposed to enlarge the protected area in HoldenhurstVillage and join two Conservation Areas together. Individual properties will be indicated as making a positive, neutral or positive contribution to the Conservation Area.  The public consultation was proposed to start in mid November 2012.
    • Churchill Gardens– an appraisal is being produced in support of the Homes for Boscombe Action Plan project. The public consultation was expected to start early in the new year 2013.

Cliff End Hotel Development Brief – the aim of the brief was to encourage positive redevelopment by setting out planning and design requirements, including proposed acceptable planning uses, size and appearance of new buildings. It will clarify existing planning policy in relation to the site and highlight historic features to be retained. The Council will be consulting the public on these issues and it was anticipated that this will start in mid November 2012. Westover Road – the Council is currently consulting on a design for improvements to the appearance and function of the street, looking at changes to the movement of pedestrians and vehicles. There has been publicity in the Echo and an exhibition on street. Traders, the public and other interested parties are being asked for their comments over the next month – the closing date is 7 November. Copies of drawings and ways to respond are on the Council’s website www.bournemouth.gov.uk/westoverroad Members welcomed the above projects.  The Vice-Chairman suggested that it would be helpful to provide the Steering Group with weblinks to the above and future projects. DECISION MADE: That the presentation be noted and Caroline Peach, Principal Planning Officer and her team be thanked for the progression of these projects. The meeting closed at 12.07 p.m.  


  LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK STEERING GROUP 11 September 2012 PRESENT: Councillor Robert Chapman – Chairman; Councillors Beryl Baxter, John Beesley, Michael Weinhonig, and Ron Whittaker. APOLOGIES: Councillor Roger West. REPRESENTATIVE FROM BOURNEMOUTH CIVIC SOCIETY:  Ken Mantock – Vice-Chairman. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOURNEMOUTH 2026: Martin Broad and Angela Pooley. ALSO PRESENT:Councillor David Smith, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Planning and Environment. The meeting commenced at 9.47 a.m. Note: To see a copy of the reports that was considered by the Local Development Framework Steering Group at this meeting please visit: http://archive.bournemouth.gov.uk/main/Minutes_Agendas/LDF_Steering_Group.asp

 
SECTION I – BUSINESS RECOMMENDED TO THE CABINET 17. ADOPTION OF THE DORSET HEATHLANDS PLANNING FRAMEWORK 2012-2014 SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT The Steering Group considered a report which summarised the consultation responses and requested that the Council approve the adoption of the Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework 2012-2014 Supplementary Planning Document – SPD – with the intention of replacing the current Dorset Heathlands Interim Planning Framework. The SPD was attached at Appendix 1 to the report. The Steering Group discussed the contents of the proposed SPD having regard to the representations which had been received during the consultation period. In particular, the Steering Group discussed the proposed list of mitigation projects for 2012-2014 set out at Appendix A to the SPD. Members expressed deep concern at the proposed deletion of the projects relating to Hicks Farm and Stour Acres Barn having regard to the fact that developments within Bournemouth were generating the largest amount of financial contributions towards mitigation measures. Councillor Ron Whittaker commented generally on the history of the Hicks Farm project in the context of the Stour Valley ‘Suitable Accessible Natural Greenspace’ and expressed the view that strong representations should be made to the Dorset Heathland Executive Group and the Heathland Planning Framework Officer Group to seek the reinstatement of this project albeit in an amended form to that originally proposed. The Principal Planning Policy Officer replied to a number of questions from Members of the Steering Group on specific elements of the proposed SPD and the list of mitigation projects. The Steering Group was fully supportive of the need to carry out an urgent review of the governance arrangements relating to the Dorset Heathland Executive Group and the Heathland Planning Framework Officer Group. DECISION MADE: Recommended to Cabinet:

  1. That, subject to the recommendations in 2 below, the Council be recommended to adopt the Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework 2012-2014 Supplementary Planning Document, excluding Appendix A of the Document namely the ‘List of Mitigation Projects proposed for 2012-2014’.
  2. That the Council write to the Dorset Heathland Executive Group and the Heathland Planning Framework Officer Group – HPFOG – to:

A. express deep concern that two projects in Bournemouth, namely Hicks Farm and Stour Acres Barn, have been deleted from the draft SPD projects list and request that they be reinstated as a matter of priority following resubmission by the Council; B. request that the projects recently submitted by the Council to the HPFOG, namely (1) Boardwalk Extension at Hengistbury Head, (2) Harbour Bank Stabilisation at Hengistbury Head, and (3) River Bank Stabilisation at Muscliffe, be considered by the HPFOG and included in the SPD projects list as a matter of priority; C. seek reassurance that, in future, when the suitability of projects are scrutinised as part of the SPD process and the forthcoming Dorset Heathland Development Plan Document that the criteria relating to the proximity of contributing new developments to the mitigation scheme is given paramount prominence and is broadly proportionate to the amounts raised by the contributions policy. That a review be undertaken by the Service Director for Legal and Democratic Services and the Service Director for Planning and Transport, of the governance arrangements relating to the Dorset Heathland Executive Group and the Heathland Planning Framework Officer Group to ensure that the governance arrangements and accountability for expenditure of the monies raised through the process are robust and remain appropriate, such review to be completed within two months and be considered by Members of this Steering Group and the Cabinet.

  1. That the detail of the representations to be made in respect of the matters highlighted in 2 above be agreed in consultation with the Chairman of the Steering Group and the Leader of the Council.

18. DRAFT DORSET MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE DUTY TO CO-OPERATE ON STRATEGIC PLANNING MATTERS – AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE AND CONSULTATION The Steering Group considered a report requesting that, subject to consultation, the Council agree to become a signatory to a Memorandum of Understanding – MoU – committing the Council to co-operate with other relevant agencies on strategic planning matters. The proposed MoU was attached at Appendix 1 to the report. The Principal Planning Policy Officer commented on the statutory background which placed a duty on the Council to co-operate on strategic planning matters. DECISION MADE: Recommended to Cabinet:

  1. That the Cabinet agrees to consult with the agencies set out in paragraph 4 of the draft MoU inviting comments on the document and inviting them to sign up to the final MoU.
  2. That delegated authority be given to the Leader of the Council, in consultation with the Service Director for Planning and Transport, to make minor changes to the draft MoU as necessary in response to the consultation process and to sign the final MoU.

SECTION II – BUSINESS DECIDED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS 19. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest made by members of the Steering Group. 20. MINUTES DECISION MADE: That the minutes of the meeting held on 21 May 2012 be confirmed. 21. PUBLIC ITEMS A. Public Questions There were no public questions submitted for this meeting. B. Deputations There were no deputation requests submitted for this meeting. C. Petitions There were no petitions submitted for this meeting. 22. RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION ON THE REVIEW OF THE USE CLASSES ORDER AND PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS The Steering Group considered a briefing paper concerning a document released for consultation purposes by the Department for Communities and Local Government highlighting possible amendments to the Use Classes Order and permitted development rights. The Steering Group was advised that the most significant impact of the proposals on Bournemouth would be those in respect of allowing the change of use of hotels to residential without the need for planning permission. Therefore, the briefing paper set out a detailed proposed response to the two questions in the consultation document which related to this issue. The Steering Group discussed the response to these questions in the consultation document and supported the proposed strong representations expressing concern at any change to this section of the Use Classes Order. DECISION MADE: That the response to the Government consultation document on proposed amendments to the Use Classes Order and permitted development rights, as set in the briefing paper, be fully endorsed and that a copy of that response be sent to Bournemouth’s two local Members of Parliament. 23. BOURNEMOUTH PLAN CORE STRATEGY The Principal Planning Policy Officer updated the Steering Group on the Bournemouth Plan Core Strategy following the recent publication of the Inspector’s Report on the Core Strategy. The Inspector had found that the Core Strategy was sound subject to the ‘main modifications’ which mirrored the modifications which had already been consulted upon. The Steering Group noted that the key findings included:

  1. Green belt protected from residential/employment urban extensions but housing delivery would need to be reviewed early in 2016 and 2021.
  2. Houses in multiple occupation 10% threshold policy agreed.
  3. Employment land protection policies agreed.

The Principal Planning Policy Officer responded to initial questions from Members of the Steering Group on the implications of the findings in the Inspector’s Report. He stated that a full report on the adoption of the Core Strategy would be submitted to the next meeting of the Steering Group in advance of its consideration by the Cabinet and the Council. DECISION MADE: That the update be noted. 24. BOURNEMOUTH TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN The Principal Planning Policy Officer updated the Steering Group on the Bournemouth Town Centre Area Action Plan – AAP – following the recent publication of the Inspector’s recommendations on further main modifications for the AAP which he regarded as necessary to make it sound. The Steering Group noted that the recommendations related exclusively to the NCP Exeter Road site and the provision of a bus hub. The Inspector had recommended that the AAP policy be watered down from requiring that a bus hub is provided on the site to being one of several uses that may be suitable on the site including retail, entertainment, culture and leisure uses and a hotel. The Steering Group was advised that the required consultation on these proposed main modifications had commenced on 6 September 2012 and would run until 19 October 2012. DECISION MADE: That the update be noted. 25. DATE OF NEXT MEETING DECISION MADE: That the next meeting of the Steering Group be held at 9.45 a.m. on Monday 15 October 2012. The meeting closed at 11.17 a.m.  


  LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK STEERING GROUP 21 May 2012 PRESENT : Councillor Robert Chapman – Chairman; Councillors Beryl Baxter, Michael Weinhonig, Roger West and Ron Whittaker. APOLOGIES: Councillor John Beesley on alternative Local Government Business. REPRESENTATIVE FROM BOURNEMOUTH CIVIC SOCIETY : Ken Mantock – Vice-Chairman. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOURNEMOUTH 2026: Angela Pooley. ALSO PRESENT: Councillor David Smith, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Planning and Environment, and Councillor David Kelsey. The meeting commenced at 2.00 pm. Note: To see a copy of the reports that was considered by the Local Development Framework Steering Group at this meeting please visit: http://archive.bournemouth.gov.uk/main/Minutes_Agendas/LDF_Steering_Group.asp SECTION I – BUSINESS RECOMMENDED TO THE CABINET 6. BOURNEMOUTH, DORSET AND POOLE MINERALS CORE STRATEGY – PUBLICATION – PRE-SUBMISSION The Steering Group considered a report which set out the changes made to the Revised Draft Minerals Core Strategy as a result of comments received during the previous consultation and subsequent evidence gathering, including sustainable appraisal findings. The Group was advised that the publication version was a formal consultation stage and was the last opportunity to consult the public and other stakeholders before the plan was submitted to the Secretary of State. The report seeks Cabinet approval to publish the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Minerals Core Strategy – presubmission document for a period of public consultation that will begin in the latter part of June for a 12 week period. Officers responded to questions on the strategy document. Councillor Ron Whittaker thanked members for visiting a potentially at risk area from flooding and flood erosion on the River Stour. In light of concerns over the potential for future gravel extraction at Parley Court, Councillor Whittaker tabled an additional recommendation for inclusion. Following a discussion relating to the flooding risks associated with gravel extraction, the Group agreed to the inclusion of the additional recommendation tabled by Councillor Whittaker. DECISION MADE: Recommended to Cabinet: 1. That the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Minerals Core Strategy be agreed for public consultation for a 12-week consultation period (precise dates to be determined) subject to the inclusion of the changes agreed at the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Minerals and Waste Policy Joint Advisory Committee meeting on the 2nd April 2012 – Appendix 2 http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/PlanningBuildings/Planning/Policy/ MineralsWaste/Core-strategy-documents/Mineral-and-Waste-Joint-Cttee-minutes.pdf 2. That officers be authorised to make minor amendments, additions and editorial changes to the document prior to consultation, including: • changes to reflect the recent publication of the National Planning Policy Framework; • the addition of updated text to summarise key changes arising from the sustainability appraisal; • revisions to the key diagram. 3. That officers be authorised to finalise all the necessary accompanying evidence and documentation, including revisions to the Proposals Map, and to make this publicly available in accordance with the development plan regulations. 4. That the Responses to Consultation on the Revised Draft Minerals Core Strategy be endorsed – Appendix http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/PlanningBuildings/Planning/Policy/ MineralsWaste/Core-strategy-documents/Mineral-Core-Strategyreps-and-responses.pdf 5. That the Steering Group recognise that the current pre-submission consultation document is a Core Strategy and, therefore, does not refer to any specific sites. However, Bournemouth Borough Council requests that those Officers working on potential sites for the Site Allocation DPD be notified of the Group’s concern at the possibility of a future gravel extraction scheme being identified at Parley Court. The concern arises because of the potentially adverse impact that this proposal would have on the banks of the River Stour in Bournemouth. 7. MINERALS AND WASTE DEVELOPMENT SCHEME The Steering Group considered a report on the Minerals and Waste Development Scheme. Members were informed that the current Minerals and Waste Development Scheme was published in 2010 and sets out milestones for emerging minerals and waste development plan documents, including the Minerals Core Strategy, Minerals Site Allocations Document and Waste Core Strategy. The Planning Policy Conservation and Design Manager reported that there was a need to update the development scheme to account for changes in circumstances which have rendered the current scheme out of date. These changes were intended to provide a realistic timeframe for document production and to streamline the Minerals Development Framework. The Steering Group was informed that the development scheme attached to the report was agreed by the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Minerals and Waste Policy Joint Advisory Committee at its meeting on 2 April 2012. In response to members’ questions, the Planning Policy Conservation and Design Manager reported that the document addressed the strategic planning decisions associated with the development of the Waste Local Plan, and the individual Waste Management Strategies and waste contracts remained the responsibility of each of the relevant authorities concerned. DECISION MADE: Recommended to Cabinet: 1. That the revised Minerals and Waste Development Scheme 2012-1015 attached at Appendix 1 and 2 to the report be agreed and the scheme brought into effect. 2. That Officers be authorised to make minor changes to the Local Development Scheme and make any changes needed to reflect recent planning policy such as the National Planning Policy Framework. 3. That Officers be authorised to determine the precise date at which the scheme comes into effect – anticipated to be June 2012 – on the understanding that it requires all three minerals and waste planning authorities to agree it which is expected to be completed by 12 June 2012. SECTION II – BUSINESS DECIDED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS 8. APOLOGIES Apologies for absence were received from Councillor John Beesley who was on alternative Local Government Business. 9. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN DECISION MADE: That Councillor Robert Chapman be elected Chairman of the Steering Group for 2012/13. 10. ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRMAN DECISION MADE: That Ken Mantock be elected Vice-Chairman of the Steering Group for 2012/13. 11. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest made by members of the Steering Group. 12. MINUTES DECISION MADE: That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 February 2012 be confirmed. 13. PUBLIC ITEMS A. Public Questions There were no public questions submitted for this meeting. B. Deputations There were no deputation requests submitted for this meeting. 14. NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK The Steering Group received a briefing on the contents of the National Planning Policy Framework. Officers responded to questions on the Framework. DECISION MADE: That the briefing be received and noted. 15. NEW PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR TRAVELLER SITES The Steering Group received a briefing on the New Planning Policy Framework for Traveller sites. Officers responded to questions on the Framework. DECISION MADE: That the briefing be received and noted. 16. UPDATE ON THE CORE STRATEGY AND TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN INQUIRIES The Steering Group received a verbal update on the recent Core Strategy and Town Centre Area Action Plan Inquiries. Officers responded to questions on the Framework. DECSION MADE: That the update be received and noted. The meeting closed at 3.55 pm.  


  LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK STEERING GROUP 13 February 2012 PRESENT : Councillors Beryl Baxter, John Beesley, Michael Weinhonig, Roger West and Ron Whittaker. REPRESENTATIVE FROM BOURNEMOUTH CIVIC SOCIETY – Ken Mantock – Vice-Chair – in the Chair. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOURNEMOUTH 2026: Angela Pooley and Martin Broad. ALSO PRESENT: Councillor Michael Filer – Cabinet Member with the Portfolio for Transport and Technical Services and Councillor David Smith – Cabinet Member for Communities and Planning. The meeting commenced at 3.00 pm. Note: To see a copy of the reports that was considered by the Local Development Framework Steering Group at this meeting please visit: http://archive.bournemouth.gov.uk/main/Minutes_Agendas/LDF_Steering_Group.asp SECTION I – BUSINESS RECOMMENDED TO THE CABINET 1. SOUTH EAST DORSET TRANSPORT CONTRIBUTIONS SCHEME 2 – SEDTCS2 – SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT The Steering Group considered a report which analyses the responses from the formal consultation exercise and recommends the adoption of SEDTCS2 subject to the actions and textural amendments identified at Appendix A attached to the report and the updated financial breakdown at Appendix B. The Development Control and Forward Planning Manager commented on the detail of the formal consultation exercise and how the Scheme and Supplementary Planning Document had been amended. Officers responded to questions on the implications of the revised Supplementary Planning Document, the impact on the industry and other Section 106 contributions. DECISION MADE: Recommended to Cabinet: 1. That the revised Developer Contributions Scheme for South East Dorset SEDTCS2, which is jointly being proposed by the Councils, be adopted subject to the textural changes proposed at Appendix A to the report and the cost of assessing the Financial Viability Appraisals being shared equally between the Council and the Developer concerned. 2. That authority be delegated to the Director for Planning and Transport Services in consultation with the Portfolio Members for Transport and Technical Services and Communities and Planning to make any necessary changes to the final document. 3. That a half yearly report on the operation of the scheme be submitted to the Local Development Framework Steering Group. 2. REQUEST FOR OFFICER DELEGATED AUTHORITY – THE BOURNEMOUTH PLAN: CORE STRATEGY, TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENTS – EXAMINATION The Steering Group considered a report seeking: • delegated authority for the Service Director for Planning and Transport to make minor changes to Development Plan Documents. • authority for the Service Director Planning and Transport, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Communities and Planning, to request that Inspectors, at the forthcoming Core Strategy, Town Centre Area Action Plan and other Development Plan Document- DPD – Examinations, make ‘main’ modifications to the Development Plan Documents to make them sound. DECISION MADE: Recommended to Cabinet: 1. That delegated authority is given to the Service Director for Planning and Transport to make minor modifications to the Bournemouth Core Strategy, Town Centre Area Action Plan and other forthcoming Development Plan Documents which do not affect the intention of the policies, following submission of a Development Plan Document to the Secretary of State and during the course of resultant public examinations. 2. That authority be delegated to the Service Director for Planning and Transport, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder of Communities and Planning, to enable Officers to request that the Inspector at a DPD Examination recommends ‘main’ modifications to a DPD that would make it satisfy the requirements of Section 20 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 – as amended by the Localism Act 2011 – and that would make the DPD ‘Sound’. 3. That in respect of 2 above the Portfolio Holder be asked to copy any proposed requests for the Inspector to recommend ‘main’ modifications to the Local Development Framework Steering Group. SECTION II – BUSINESS DECIDED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS 3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest made. 4. MINUTES DECISION MADE: That the minutes of the meeting held on 1 September, 10 October and 14 November 2011 be approved. 5. PUBLIC ITEMS A. Public Questions There were no public questions submitted for this meeting. B. Deputations There were no deputation requests submitted for this meeting. The meeting closed at 3.27 pm