BOROUGH OF POOLE
TOWN CENTRE AND BRIDGE ADVISORY GROUP
Wednesday 24rd November 2004
REPORT OF THE HEAD OF STRATEGIC PLANNING SERVICES ON
1. PLANNING AND URBAN DESIGN GUIDANCE FOR THE CENTRAL
AREA OF POOLE SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE AMENDED MASTERPLAN, AND
2. POOLE BRIDGE REGENERATION INITIATIVE PLANNING
OBLIGATIONS SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE
1.
Purpose
1.1
To provide members with feedback on the landowner consultation regarding the
changes to the draft supplementary planning guidance including the illustrative
master plan.
1.2
To report back the comments received to the consultation on planning obligations
for the amended master plan area.
2.
Recommendations
2.1
To recommend to Cabinet approval and the formal adoption of the Planning and
Urban Design Guidance for the Central Area of Poole (the Master Plan) and Poole
Bridge Regeneration Initiative: Planning Obligations.
2.2
That new paragraph 1.2 of the Planning Obligations spg is approved.
2.3
That the hotel use shown on land north of the proposed second opening bridge is
deleted and replaced with ground floor retail and upper floor residential use.
2.4
That officers and portfolio holder for local economy and Chair of the overview
group be delegated responsibility for approving minor wording changes to the
Planning Obligations spg and Planning and Urban Design Guidance spg.
3.
Background
Master Plan
3.1
In September 2002 the Council published draft supplementary planning guidance
for the central area of Poole. The overall objective of the document is to guide the
development and enhancement of the central area having regard to the existing
character of Poole. The document sets out guiding principles for development
grouped under the four cornerstones of access and movement; environmental
quality; community and economic well-being; and feeling safe and secure. The
document also includes an illustrative master plan that provides an interpretation
of the design principles providing an overview of the development form, content
and mix exemplifying the policies contained, at the time, in the emerging Poole
Local Plan First Alteration.
3.2
The comments received from the public consultation were reported back to this
group in early 2003. Following the public inquiry into Poole Local Plan First
Alteration additional work was commissioned in July 2003 to test the robustness
of the master plan particularly in respect of the employment component and
update financial viability work. This work relates purely to the amended master
plan area associated with the second harbour crossing, not the central area as a
whole i.e lower Hamworthy and land between West Quay Road and Backwater
Channel.
Obligations spg
3.3
During this period officer’s prepared draft supplementary planning guidance on
planning obligations for the master plan area. This work was informed by, and
informed, detailed design and costings for Poole’s second opening bridge, the
continuing development of streetscape spg and the changes that were emerging
from the masterplaning amendments referred to in 3.2 above. This draft spg was
endorsed by the Town Centre and Bridge Advisory Group at its meeting on 26
May and approved for consultation by Cabinet on 1 June 2004. Public
consultation commenced on 9 July for a period of 6 weeks closing on 20 August
2004.
4.
Changes to the Illustrative Master Plan
4.1
At the meetings of TCBAG on 26 May and Cabinet on 1 June 2004 a list of
proposed map and text changes to the master plan was considered and endorsed.
The final version of the spg is now in preparation and it is recommended that any
further minor wording changes be delegated to Local Economy portfolio holder
and chair.
4.2
Members will recall that the principal changes made to the Master Plan, following
the period of public consultation had been to:
 amend the master plan area to exclude the former Dalgety site (Asda) and
RNLI from the plan given the implementation of development
 to include the former electricity transformer station which was previously
excluded due to the understanding at the time that it was unlikely to be wholly
or partly relocated. This is not now believed to be so
 reduce the overall employment component from 65,000sqm to 55,000sqm of
which 36,000sqm is to be accommodated in the amended master plan area
 the consolidation of the employment component into primarily two
employment areas as opposed to the previous approach of spreading it evenly
across the area
 revise the road layout having regard to both the southerly alignment of the
proposed bridge and the incorporation of the transformer station
 the number of residential units has increased by approximately 170 to 1,873
given more detailed design consideration to unit sizes particularly in respect
of the delivery of affordable housing
5.
Master Plan: Further Landowner Consultation
5.1
On the advice of the Council’s legal advisors, it was considered that prior to
formally adopting the spg there was merit in a further 2 week period of
consultation with landowners within the amended master plan area, thereby
enabling the Council to consider their views on the proposed changes to the
master plan. The Council’s legal advisors considered that those changes were
concerned with the way in which the elements of the development might be
distributed, a feature which carried with it few or no external effects.
Consequently there was no need to re-consult the community at large as the
principles which underpin the scheme remain the same. Appendix 1 contains a
copy of the letter and attachments sent to landowners; they include block plans
previously considered by Members.
5.2
Comments have been received from landowners within the regeneration area,
namely Sunseeker International, Pilkington Tiles, the consortium of landowners
between the two bridges on the Poole side of the channel, Gallagher Estates and
James Sherborne. The main issues raised are:
 Welcome the clarification of the status of the master plan as illustrative
 The revised link road ignores good urban design practice, creates difficult
parcels of land to develop and ignores the constraint of land ownership
boundaries
 Allocates the transformer station for development outside of the review of the
local plan
 Development needs to be viable and meet market demand
 Cost of developing sites will have a significant bearing on the mix of uses
brought forward
 The proposed changes concentrate employment uses into specific areas
contrary to what the local plan says
 Unrealistic to consider viability across all of the sites as each landowner needs
to generate sufficient value to enable regeneration to happen
 Fundamentally opposed to the inclusion of a plan within the spg that depicts
the distribution of land uses as amended. It does not follow policies in the
adopted local plan and does not develop or broaden them and is therefore
contrary to advice in PPG1
 Illustrative master plan ignores land ownership boundaries and opportunities
for phased development
 Why have other key stakeholders not been consulted other than the
landowners
 The land use allocations in the amended master plan do not tie in with adopted
local plan policy
 Local plan, amended master plan and draft environmental statement show
different bridge alignments
 The layout of blocks have incorporated elements not referred to or envisaged
in the 2002 draft
6.
Response to Landowner Representations
6.1
The principles that underpin the supplementary planning guidance have not
changed. The work that has been progressed over the last 15 months has sought to
respond to concerns raised by the Inspector at the local plan inquiry in relation to
the quantum of employment provision and to comments received through the
public consultation of the draft document. During this time the local plan first
alteration has progressed to adoption. The amended master plan rightly responds
to these comments and proposes a solution to enables the delivery of the
Council’s objectives set out in the adopted local plan.
6.2
The amended master plan does differ to that of the draft but this should not
prejudice the interests of individual landowners. It is illustrative and demonstrates
one way in which the objectives of the Local Plan can be secured. The Local Plan,
itself, is clear about the need for a comprehensive approach, requiring a
mechanism which would ensure that individual landowners are not disadvantaged.
Therefore, it is for landowners/developers to either comply with the policies of
the adopted Local Plan or demonstrate how together they are able to meet the
regeneration objectives in an acceptable alternative form. The fundamental
objectives have not changed and the strategic imperative of delivering a mixed
use extension to the urban heart of the town remains. In essence, the ‘soundness’
of the spg is unaltered. The road alignment is illustrative and accords with the
principles of the spg. The Local Plan does not promote any one alignment and
indeed states that alternatives may be acceptable, again provided they meet the
objectives of the plan. The spg has been amended to show the bridge alignment
that will be submitted as the Council’s application through the Transport and
Works Act.
6.3
The Local Plan runs to 2011 whereas the central area and illustrative master plan
spg has no end date. Indeed it has always been anticipated that the scale and
quantum of development accommodated within the spg would not be brought
forward in the local plan timeframe and therefore the local plan only assumes a
certain proportion of the development before 2011. At the draft stage in 2002 it
had been understood that the transformer station would in all probability remain
and therefore was assumed a constant constraint. This is not now believed to be so
and therefore it is right and proper that a masterplanning exercise should give due
consideration to longer term changes albeit ones that may not be allocated within
the local plan.
6.4
The evolution of the spg and a second harbour crossing has involved considerable
public involvement. The changes that are proposed respond to this process. As
stated the master plan is illustrative and demonstrates how development could be
delivered within the confines of the principles. This is backed up by financial
analysis that has helped inform the changes. Given the illustrative nature of the
changes further public consultation is considered unnecessary and would not
serve any useful purpose.
6.5
Where there are differences between the adopted local plan and illustrative master
plan is as a result of the updated commercial and financial viability work. While
this does indeed promote some difference in the breakdown of land uses and their
location within the regeneration area, treated comprehensively the broad mix of
land uses remains the same. The local plan and spg has always sought to bring
forward the scheme comprehensively to secure the range of benefits to support the
needs of the town. Landowners have consistently failed to address this issue.
6.6
The amended master plan does assume a smaller quantum of employment
floorspace reduced from 65,000sqm to 55,000sqm of which 36,000sqm is
envisaged for the amended master plan area. It is also noted that the amended
drawings sent out to landowners showed the provision of a hotel on Sunseeker
land and is included within the financial viability model. It is acknowledged that
the inclusion of an additional hotel is unlikely to come forward and therefore will
be replaced with a mix of retail and residential floorspace in the final document.
Given that the local plan does not set out other than for residential the scale of
development envisaged it is appropriate for the spg to include a schedule of uses
for the area as a whole (attached as part of Appendix 1). How these can be
delivered and where will be subject to detailed negotiation.
6.7
All landowners are now actively seeking to bring their sites forward for
development in one way or another. There is no argument for landowners not to
get together to secure a comprehensive package for delivery and ensure that each
shares the benefits and costs associated with the scheme. A suitable delivery
mechanism is within the compass of the landowners to ensure that development
meets the Council’s aspirations while generating sufficient uplift to ensure
involvement of all.
7.
Poole Bridge Regeneration Initiative: Planning Obligations spg –
Representations Received
7.1
A total of six representations were received to draft obligations spg. These were
received from GOSW, Poole Harbour Commissioners, Sunseeker International,
Gallagher Estates, James Sherborne and Environment Agency. The main concerns
raised were:

The guidance could contain advice on the process envisaged including
preferred forms of payment, standard heads of terms and model clauses and


















what measures may be needed to mediate any disputes
The guidance could indicate likely timings to co-ordinate the provision of
infrastructure and affordable housing
The port link road is not part of the initial infrastructure phase and every
effort should be made to secure a satisfactory link at the earliest possible
opportunity
Relocation of moorings and completion of works at Whittles Way should be
completed before Dee and Wilkins Ways are closed
Spg does not provide the quantitative guidance on contributions and fails to
meet key tests
A summary of requirements lists the obligations required without any
indication of the specific requirement. This makes it difficult to assess how
far individual sites might deliver the contributions alluded to in the spg
Piecemeal development is inevitable where multiple sites are allocated and
in multiple ownership
Phasing secured through obligations is not explained and therefore it is
unclear whether the Council will be seeking to control, by agreement,
implementation and how this will be managed
Expected contributions towards the public realm are not set out
The spg does not address how each development site will provide
contributions to the transportation network and it is unclear how the Council
intend to use obligations to phase improvements
Affordable housing spg is based on an outdated housing needs survey and
developers are left no clearer how they would contribute other than referring
to the existing affordable housing spg
Education contributions are unclear and with regard to open space the
Council has failed to set out expected contributions
The need for community facilities has not been addressed and no
recognition of what existing facilities are and how they might be improved
is not explained
The guidance lacks openness, consistency and transparency and runs
contrary to the government’s objectives for delivering sustainable
communities
The spg offers little over and above existing local plan policy
Inconsistencies in approach between the spg and local plan
The plan (figure 2) should reflect the applications submitted by Gallagher
Estates and LIH
Clarification required on what the Council may adopt as public
highway/realm
Need for cross reference between this and the streetscape spg in relation to
coast protection and sea defence
8.
Obligations spg: Response to Representations
8.1
A detailed schedule of the comments received and officer response is attached at
Appendix 2.The two main issues to highlight are whether i) the spg should
include model clauses and heads of terms; and ii) detailed costs should be
included. The purpose of the obligations spg is to identify the range of benefits
that that would be subject to obligation. While it is acknowledged that there
would be some benefit in setting out the process envisaged it is considered that a
supplemental note would be a more appropriate vehicle for addressing these
issues thus avoiding significant additional delay to the adoption of the spg. This
would become a Supplementary Planning Document under the new Planning
framework. The document will set out the Council’s approach to s106 agreements
and matters such as model clauses and standard heads of terms as well as timing
of payments and infrastructure delivery. It is however considered appropriate to
insert a new paragraph 1.2 into the spg to highlight the openness and transparency
with which the Council will negotiate with applicants:
“The SPG seeks to ensure that the negotiations with developers are conducted
with consistency, transparency and openness. Where any dispute or difference
arises between the Borough and developers this should be resolved by the parties
using their best endeavours to seek to resolve the issue by negotiation or
mediation. The Boroughs policy is that developers should contribute to the
Boroughs legal costs of negotiating and completing section 106 Agreements.
Where they do not already exist, monitoring and accounting procedures will be
established so that the receipt and expenditure of contributions can be
accounted”
8.2
The inclusion of detailed costs would go beyond the role and purpose of the spg.
Again significant delay would be introduced. The issue of costs can be rolled into
the supplemental note referred to in 8.1 above.
8.3
The spg which make clear that improvements should n be undertaken at Whittles
Way before the closure of Wilkins Way and Dee Way. Further, while it is hoped
that the port link can be delivered early this will be subject to negotiation and the
Local Plan in any event requires the link as part of the Lower Hamworthy
development.
8.4
The Council has consistently viewed and been supported at the Local Plan Inquiry
that development should be comprehensive. It is not therefore inevitable that
development will be piecemeal. The phasing of development will clearly be
fundamental to the success of the project but there is no reason to suggest given
the will of landowners that agreement cannot be reached on this matter. The
obligations spg is consistent with other documentation in that it treats the
regeneration area as one site. It is also not for the spg to mimic planning
applications but for to developers to respond to the planning policy context.
8.5
Appropriate cross referencing can be inserted and in respect of streetscape issues
these are more appropriately addressed in that particular document.
9.
Conclusion
9.1
The two documents provide a solid and robust exemplification of the Council’s
expectations for the amended master plan area. They will enable the Council to
take a strong yet flexible approach to securing its objectives while securing the
appropriate contributions to the provision of all infrastructure.
DAVID RALPH
HEAD OF STRATEGIC PLANNING
Contact Officers:
David Ralph 01202 633327
Nigel Jacobs 01202 633328
PLEASE NOTE: APPENDICES TO THIS REPORT ARE NOT
AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY. PLEASE CONTACT PAULINE
GILL, DEMOCRATIC SERVICES ON 01202 633043. THANK YOU.