AGENDA ITEM 10
BOROUGH OF POOLE
ECONOMY OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
6 NOVEMBER 2014
REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGENERATION SERVICES
INCLUDING BUILDING CONSULTANCY ON
THE DORSET HEATHLANDS PLANNING FRAMEWORK SUPPLEMENTARY
PLANNING DOCUMENT CONSULTATION DRAFT
1.
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
1.1
To bring to Members the new draft supplementary planning document for the
Dorset Heathlands for consideration.
2.
RECOMMENDATION
2.1
That the Economy Overview and Scrutiny Committee recommend to Cabinet
that:
i.
the Dorset Heathlands draft supplementary planning document is
approved for public consultation; and
ii.
that any minor wording changes that result from the views of members
from the other South East Dorset local authorities are delegated to the
Head of Planning and Regeneration.
3.
BACKGROUND
3.1
The Dorset Heathland Interim Planning Framework (IPF) came into effect in
2007 and more latterly superseded by the Dorset Heathland Planning
Framework Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) in 2012. This
document currently runs to the end of the year. The purpose of the framework
is to operate as a mechanism for mitigating the adverse effects of additional
residential development upon the Dorset Heathlands European site. The
specific designations are Dorset Heathlands Special Protection Area, Dorset
Heathlands Ramsar Site, Dorset Heathlands Special Area of Conservation
and Dorset Heathlands Special Area of Conservation (Purbeck and Wareham)
and Studland Dunes.
3.2
For those authorities that have implemented the Community Infrastructure
Levy (CIL) i.e. Poole and Purbeck, this supersedes the tariff system within the
SPD. However, for those that have not, the SPD continues to provide the
mechanism by which residential development that is not able to avoid or
mitigate its own impact can attain planning permission subject to paying the
appropriate mitigation sum.
3.3
The introduction of CIL had been considered by the local authorities to
overcome the need for future iterations of the Dorset Heathland Planning
1
Framework SPD. In Poole, the Council has committed to funding the
necessary level of mitigation to enable housing development to secure
planning consent by agreeing to top slice CIL income for mitigation projects.
This is the approach that Purbeck has also adopted and that the other local
authorities were seeking to follow. However, a legal opinion has raised the
issue of legality of funding the Strategic Access, Management and Monitoring
(SAMM) or revenue element of heathland mitigation from CIL. The opinion is
of the view that the CIL Regulations can only fund infrastructure works and
that SAMM is not deemed to be infrastructure. Clearly it would not be
appropriate for the local authorities to disregard the opinion and it is the view
of four of the local authorities, excluding Purbeck, that in order to secure
future funding for SAMM new arrangements need to be put in place.
3.4
This follows closely on the back of the new arrangements that have also been
put in place for SAMM across South East Dorset following the review of the
operation of the Dorset Heathland Planning Framework, instigated by the
Dorset Heathland Executive, whereby the wardening aspect of SAMM
previously undertaken on behalf of the local authorities has been transferred
from the Urban Heaths Partnership back into the local authorities. This cost
now falls to the relevant service managing the warden(s), in Poole’s case,
Environmental and Consumer Protection Services.
4.
THE NEW APPROACH
4.1
Four of the five partner local authorities, excluding Purbeck who intend to
continue using CIL to fund SAMM, are of the view that alternative
arrangements need to be put in place to ensure compliance with the CIL
regulations. This new approach requires a mechanism to secure funding, and
with non infrastructure items not subject to the constraints imposed on funding
through CIL, it is considered that the use of s106 agreements are an
appropriate tool to do this. The key differences between the former and
proposed approach is set out in Appendix A.
4.2
The draft supplementary planning document (the draft) (Appendix B) proposes
a solution to this issue. Indeed the draft sets out the whole approach to
enabling development through an ‘Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy’ for the
Dorset Heathlands. The avoidance and mitigation strategy has two parts:
i.
Heathland Infrastructure Projects (HIPs)
ii.
Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM)
4.3
HIPs are projects that provide the facilities to attract people away from
protected heathland sites. These are the infrastructure projects that can be
funded through CIL or directly by developers as part of their developments.
The funding and provision of these projects is not affected by the legal
opinion.
4.4
The second strand of the strategy is SAMM. Given that the Dorset Heaths are
found across South East Dorset and within and across boundaries a strategic
approach to access management is required. Under the new operational
arrangements agreed between the local authorities the Urban Heaths
Partnership will be funded to operate as the co-ordinator of SAMM. Each
2
local authority will then be responsible for making arrangements for day to day
management measures within their jurisdiction.
Paying for the Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy
4.5
CIL has broken the link between development and mitigation with CIL being a
payment made on the value that a development can afford to pay whereas a
s106 payment covers the cost of a particular mitigating measure that is a
direct and relevant impact. CIL and the local authority need to cover off the
cost of infrastructure projects as far as it is able but at the least must ensure
that it covers the cost of mitigating the adverse effects of development on
internationally important sites. For Poole, CIL monies are profiled to ensure
that infrastructure projects are available to ensure projects can be funded so
that no harm comes from development in respect of the Dorset Heaths and
Poole Harbour European sites.
4.6
For SAMM it is proposed to introduce a new tariff arrangement similar in
approach to the mechanism that was in place in the previous SPD. As
explained in paragraph 4.4 SAMM consists of two elements that will need to
be funded i.e. the Core Team providing a co-ordinating role, educational
activities, wardening, volunteer arrangements and monitoring; and the cost of
employing wardens embedded with the local authority. These elements need
to be provided for the lifetime of the development in the same way as any
infrastructure that is put in place needs to be able to mitigate the adverse
effect of the development for the time it is there. Discussions with Natural
England have explored avenues for creating an investment fund for in
perpetuity costs, however, following discussions with section 151 officers of
the local authorities their recommendation is that this is unlikely to be a
suitable vehicle for the authorities. It will be for each authority to determine
how it will manage future costs, and the view of Poole’s Head of Financial
Services is that this authority will fund in perpetuity costs through future
budget setting. This commitment provides the assurance required that
mitigation will be funded over the lifetime of a development and that any
monies collected over and above base cost can be reserved to help support
this cost.
Table 1: Strategic Access, Management and Monitoring Costs
Core Team
Monitoring
SPA Bird Surveys
Wardening
Total
Year 1 Cost (£)
132,937
12,296
8,400
108,423
262,057
14 year Cost (£)
2,215,601*
172,144
117,600
1,790,149
4,295,494
N.B. Costs are total for Bournemouth, Christchurch, East Dorset and Poole.
4.7
The proposed tariff is calculated using the same range of factors that have
been applied to previous and current tariff regime i.e. mitigation is required to
cover the net forecast population growth anticipated over a given period of
time, the cost of SAMM measures as set out in Table 1 and calculated on a
3
per house or flat basis. This provides a consistency between the current and
proposed regime for paying for SAMM and is therefore familiar to those
involved in development across the area.
4.8
It is the intention that there is a charge applied across the four local authorities
that covers the individual costs incurred by each authority in delivering SAMM.
It is also proposed to add a 20% premium to this to ensure that future year’s
costs can be covered and that there is a small fund of money that will go
towards in perpetuity costs. It is therefore proposed that a standard charge be
applied in Poole and Bournemouth of:
 £355 per house
 £242 per flat
4.9
For Christchurch and East Dorset the charge will be:
 £241 per house
 £164 per flat
5.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1
The introduction of the new arrangements will secure funding to enable the
Council to fulfil its obligations towards the annual cost of the Urban Heaths
Partnership Core Team and the warden posts in Environment and Consumer
Protection Services. The additional premium above base cost would not only
provide some certainty to the long term funding of the mitigation but could also
act as a back stop for years where there may be an abnormally low number of
housing starts that could place pressure on an in year budget. Mitigation
funding needs to be secured that ensures that mitigation can take place.
5.2
Managing future in perpetuity costs will need to be identified within future
budget setting rounds to commence 2028/29. This provides the Council with
time to plan accordingly.
5.3
Failure to put in place a workable solution will result in new housing not being
granted planning consent. This would impact on the Council’s New Homes
Bonus receipt which would place pressure on the annual budget of the
Council.
6.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
6.1
Failure to have in place a workable solution to mitigating the impact of
development upon the European site has no direct legal implications unless
the Council was minded to approve applications without such a mechanism.
In this circumstance the Council would be in breach of the Habitat Regulations
and could open itself to significant financial costs.
7.
RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
7.1
Failure to have in place a sound mitigation strategy would leave the Council
unable to grant planning consent for new housing. Not delivering homes for a
growing population is not an option therefore a solution has to be found that
enables the impact of effects on the Dorset Heathlands to be mitigated.
4
Monies from CIL have already been identified for delivery of capital
infrastructure and maintenance but the provision of the non infrastructure
SAMM element requires a deliverable solution. The introduction of a s106
payment will enable the Council to cover its annual costs as well as smoothing
out the vagaries of housing delivery over a period of time. This should provide
the certainty to both Natural England and the development industry that a
practical and workable solution has been found.
8.
EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
8.1
There are no equalities issues associated with bringing forward this draft SPD.
9.
CONCLUSION
9.1
The draft document for consultation establishes a mechanism to secure
contributions to fund SAMM as part of the overall strategy for the avoidance
and mitigation of adverse effects on the Dorset Heathlands. It enables
proposals for housing to be granted planning consent which otherwise would
have to be refused and thereby having a significant effect on the delivery of
housing and wider economy of the area.
Stephen Thorne
Head of Planning and Regeneration Services inc. Building Consultancy
Contact Officer:
Nigel Jacobs, Planning Policy and Implementation Manager x3328
E: n.jacobs@poole.gov.uk
5
Appendix A
Key Differences for Poole Between Current and Proposed SPD
Current SPD
Proposed SPD
Tariff arrangements superseded by
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
Introduces a new charge in addition to
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
payment
Only those properties requiring planning
permission and also CIL liable pay CIL
New charge applicable to all new
dwellings
Prior approval schemes and those where
no net increase in floorspace pay no CIL
Prior approval and schemes where no
net increase in floorspace will pay the
new charge
CIL payment can only be used to fund
infrastructure projects
S106 charge can only be used to fund
Strategic Access, Management and
Monitoring (SAMM) i.e. non infrastructure
items
6