cmd---samm-s106 - bournemouth borough council · 2018-08-21 · development plan document (dpd)...

Collinsandy

Typewritten Text

10/04/2015

Collinsandy

Typewritten Text

17/04/2015

The Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework 2012-2014

Supplementary Planning Document

September 2012

Borough of Poole Bournemouth Borough Council Christchurch Borough Council Dorset County Council East Dorset District Council Purbeck District Council



Contents Consultation Note 1. Introduction 2. Relationship with Development Plans

3. Context 4. Towards a Solution 5. The Level of Contributions 6. Model Clause for s106 or Unilateral Agreement 7. Administration and Audit Trail Appendix A List of Mitigation projects proposed for 2012 - 2014 Appendix B Dorset Heathland designated as European Wildlife Sites Appendix C 400m Consultation Area Appendix D Use Class C2 proposals within 400m of protected heaths Appendix E Proposed Suitable Accessible Natural Greenspace (SANG)

Quality Standards for the Dorset Heaths Appendix F Gypsies and Travellers Appendix G Self catering, touring and holiday accommodation applications Appendix H Houses in multiple occupation (HMO) and student

accommodation



Consultation Note

The Local Authorities party to ‘The Dorset Heathlands Interim Planning Framework 2010-11 issued a draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for public consultation in February 2012. It proposed the conversion of the Interim Planning Framework (IPF) to a Supplementary Planning Document that when adopted will sit within each of the Local Planning Authorities, with responsibility for determining residential planning applications, Local Development Frameworks. The new Dorset Heathland Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) is proposed to run to 31 March 2014. Each of the local authorities has subsequently adopted the SPD and it takes effect from 20 September 2012. The SPD retains as its guiding principle that there is no net increase in urban pressures on internationally important heathland as a result of additional development The Planning Framework was published for public consultation for a 6 week period commencing Friday 3rd February 2012 and ending Friday 16th March 2012. The public consultation document was made available on the websites of the relevant local authorities i.e. Bournemouth, Christchurch, Dorset, East Dorset, Poole (www.boroughofpoole.com/dorsetheathlandconsultation) and Purbeck and in local libraries. The Borough of Poole co-ordinated the consultation arrangements on behalf of the local authorities. A copy of the report on consultation is made available on the websites of each authority. Note: The SPD has now been rolled forward by each local authority until the end of December 2014 or, if earlier, superseded by a revised SPD.

http://www.boroughofpoole.com/dorsetheathlandconsultation



1. Introduction 1.1 The Dorset Heathlands cover an extensive area of South East Dorset

fragmented by urban development and other land uses. It is the view of Natural England that the cumulative effect of a net increase of dwellings up to 5 kilometres from protected heathland in Dorset1 would have a significant effect on Dorset’s lowland heaths that are covered by several international designations.2 Mitigation will be required otherwise there is the prospect that Local Authorities will not be able to grant permission for residential development within 5 kilometres of these designated sites.

1.2 Local authorities in South East Dorset whose administrative area is

within 5 kilometres of protected heathland and which have responsibility for the determination of residential planning applications, have been operating an interim strategy for the protection of heathland since 2007. During this time the local authorities have been gathering evidence into the effects of urban pressures on the protected heaths that will inform the longer term strategy to be set out in a joint Development Plan Document (DPD) which is timetabled for adoption in April 2014.

1.3 This Supplementary Planning Document replaces the previous Dorset

Heathland Interim Planning Framework 2010-2011 and becomes a Local Development Document within each of the local authorities planning frameworks. It is intended that the SPD will facilitate the delivery of mitigation in the same way as the previous IPF. It is also intended that the SPD be based on a programme to April 2014 that enables the targeting of resources to specific projects as with the IPF but enables partners in this time to consider how to address the implementation of the Community Infrastructure Levy and its implications for the funding of mitigation.

1.4 It is the purpose of this document to set out the approach that,

together, the local authorities in South East Dorset will follow. This forms a basis for how harm to the heathlands can be avoided, based upon identified measures set out in an appendix to this document together with a map of the South East Dorset sub region. The document has been adopted by all the local authorities in South East Dorset i.e. Borough of Poole, Bournemouth Borough Council, Christchurch Borough Council, East Dorset District Council and Purbeck District Council. Dorset County Council is also party to the

1 The Dorset heathlands are found in the local authority areas of Bournemouth, Christchurch, East Dorset, Poole, Purbeck and West Dorset. 2 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



document due to its implementation role but has no responsibility for the determination of residential planning applications.

2. Relationship with Development Plans

2.1 Supplementary Planning Documents provide guidance on local

planning matters. They are not required to have a specific link or to “hang off” a development plan document policy but they must be consistent with national planning policy and any relevant regional plan.3 The recently published National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) recognises the value of our natural environment stating that the ‘planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment’4, and importantly that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where development requiring appropriate assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directives is being considered, planned or determined.5

2.2 This SPD accords with the principles of the NPPF and therefore does

not require all local authorities to have in place up to date Local Plans. It is also a result of the co-operative approach to partnership working between the local authorities in south east Dorset and statutory and third party stakeholders as prescribed by the Localism Act 2011. For reference, Poole adopted its Core Strategy in February 2009, Bournemouth and Purbeck Councils have recently completed Examinations in Public into their Local Plans and East Dorset and Christchurch are producing a joint plan which has reached the pre-submission stage with submission programmed for 2013. The SPD will be a local development document within each authority’s planning frameworks.

3. Context 3.1 European wildlife sites are protected by the EC Birds and Habitats

Directives, specific provisions of which are applied in the UK by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the Habitats Regulations). They place particular responsibilities on a decision maker in relation to such sites. As competent authorities, Local Authorities must have regard to these requirements, as advised in Circular 06/20056, which provides the procedure that should be followed in deciding whether to approve a proposal (a plan or project) that will potentially affect a European wildlife site.

3.2 Regulations 68 (grant of planning permission) and 102 (Assessment of

implications for European sites and Marine sites) of the Habitats 3 Taken from the Planning Advisory Service website 4 NPPF para 109 5 NPPF para 119 6 Circular 06/2005: DEFRA Circular 01/2005 to Accompany now superseded PPS9



Regulations require that any application for development or strategic plan or policy which is likely to significantly affect a European site is subject to an appropriate assessment of the implications of the proposal for the site’s conservation objectives. The planning authority must ascertain that the plan or project will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the site, alone or in combination with other plans or projects, either directly or indirectly, taking account of any conditions or restrictions that would help ensure no adverse effect, before granting permission or adopting a plan or policy.

3.3 Natural England locally is concerned at the intensification of residential

development in South East Dorset and the resultant pressures placed upon protected heathland by new occupants of these developments living in close proximity to the heathlands. These are similar to the impacts being observed within the Thames Basin Heaths SPA. Various studies7 have found that public access to lowland heathland, from nearby development, has led to an increase in wild fires, damaging recreational uses, the introduction of incompatible plants and animals, loss of vegetation and soil erosion and disturbance by humans and their pets amongst other factors.

3.4 These effects are most marked for development within 400m of

heathland where Natural England advise that additional residential development is likely to have a significant adverse effect upon the designated site, either alone or in combination with other developments. The implication of this is that in most cases it will not be possible for a local planning authority undertaking an appropriate assessment of a proposal for residential development (Use Class C3: Dwelling Houses8) to be certain that any adverse effects could be avoided or alleviated.

3.5 In the area between 400m and 5 km measured as a straight line from

the boundary of a protected heath, see plan attached at Appendix B and Appendix C 400m Consultation Area, Natural England considers that local authorities undertaking appropriate assessment will still identify a significant adverse effect in combination with other proposals, but that avoidance or mitigation measures can allow development to be approved. Mitigation of this effect will encompass measures to divert recreational pressure away from heathland, access management measures and resources to enable the aforementioned to be implemented. It is in this area between 400m and 5km that the SPD applies.

3.6 There may be circumstances within 400m of protected heaths where residential development within the Town and Country Planning (Use

7 de Molinaar 1998, Haskins 2000, Underhill-Day 2005 8 Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 as amended



Classes) Order as amended Use Class C2 may be permitted. Appendix D sets out the consideration of such uses.

4. Towards a Solution 4.1 This document sets out an approach to the mitigation of the harmful

effects of residential development in South East Dorset on Dorset’s lowland heaths. The solution will be in place until April 2014 by when the local authorities have agreed to have in place a joint Heathland Development Plan Document as part of their Local Development Frameworks (Local Plans).

4.2 Appendix A to this document sets out a range of measures that have

been identified jointly by the local authorities and Natural England. Natural England’s advice is that together these comprise an appropriate package of measures to reduce to an insignificant level the harm that would otherwise occur to protected heathland. These measures are costed at £4,104,0009 with the cost being attributable in the form of a planning obligation to residential development between 400m and 5km coming forward over the period of the SPD. The obligation will be applied to every residential development regardless of number of units proposed where there is a net increase in dwellings but will not be applied to extensions.

4.3 Large scale developments will be expected to explore ways of avoiding

or mitigating their adverse impacts. This may be through on site measures or more likely off site measures to facilitate the implementation of alternative natural greenspace. Recourse to financial payments in line with the SPD should be the fallback position only after exploration and agreement with Natural England and the relevant local planning authority of potential avoidance or mitigation measures. It may also be the case that a combination of avoidance/mitigation and financial payments may be required. For large greenfield sites and urban extensions the expectation is that SANGs will be provided as part of the avoidance and mitigation strategy. Guidance on SANG quality standards can be found at Appendix E.

4.4 The contribution will be based upon a standard charge, see section 5

for how the contribution has been calculated, with adjustment for the different occupancy rate for houses and flats. This approach is clear, robust and easy to operate. It is calculated based on the forecast increase in average population over the 2 year period of the SPD.

9 Base date figure November 2011



4.5 Discounting may be applied to residential schemes where an element of care is provided.10 As stated in paragraph 3.4 this SPD is only applicable to dwellings, including houses, flats and maisonettes. Other accommodation types such as student halls of residence, hotels, holiday parks and residential nursing homes which fall within a separate planning use class will be subject to assessment outside of the mechanism established in this SPD. Guidance for certain development types can be found in Appendices F-H.

4.6 A number of the local authorities have in place open space/play

provision policies that require a contribution to their provision where this cannot be provided on site. This contribution/obligation is not mitigation for the impact of urban pressures on protected heathland but to provide for recreational needs in the form of open space, sports pitches, indoor recreation and children’s play. This type of provision does not provide for the diffuse recreational pressures placed upon heathland e.g. the walking of dogs. The heathland mitigation obligation does not seek to duplicate other recreation contributions. Large sites that may be able to provide open space on site are unlikely to also be able to provide suitable on site heathland mitigation. However, this will be looked at on a case by case basis and should this be possible then an appropriate reduction to the contribution will apply.

5. The Level of Contributions 5.1 To provide certainty to those considering or making applications for

residential development and to ensure transparency and accountability a formulae approach has been adopted that sets out a mechanism for the calculation of the planning contribution/obligation. A standard charge is proposed that will provide the clarity required by developers, the owners of land and the general public thus avoiding unnecessary delay in the negotiation of planning obligations. The SPD has been prepared having regard to the tests set out in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, in particular Regulation 122 which transposes into law three tests previously found in Circular 05/2005 i.e. that the contribution is necessary, directly related and fairly and reasonable related in scale and kind to the development.

5.2 In order to ensure that contributions are sought only for the need

generated by development the costs presented below are based on the forecast 2 year average population increase by type of dwelling 2012-2026. It is therefore the increase in population and their impact that needs to be mitigated and the scale and apportionment of costs needs to reflect the additional pressure generated by the growth in population allowing for the different occupancy rates of houses and

10 If there are more than 6 residents in a single dwelling then this type of proposal would not fall within use class C3(b) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 as amended and would not be covered by this SPD



flats. It will also be necessary to discount the cost of the existing residential unit on site, for example, if a single dwellinghouse is proposed to be replaced by 10 flats then the calculation would be:

10 X cost of a flat minus the cost of 1 house

5.3 The factors that are taken into account for calculating the contribution

are:

• Forecast 2 year average population growth 2012-202611 (4871) • Local Authority housing trajectory forecasts 2012-201412 (2934)

• the relative proportion of households in houses (73%) and flats

(27%)13 • the projected net population increase per dwelling (Houses 1.81

persons/dwelling; Flats 1.13 persons/dwelling)14

• The cost of the mitigation at £4.1m (November 2011)15

5.4 The cost of mitigation divided by the forecast population growth i.e. £4.10m divided by 4871 gives a charge per person of £842. However an adjustment to the charge to allow for the net population increase per dwelling type results in a charge per dwelling of:

• Cost per house (£825.40 x 1.81) of £1,524.00 • Cost per flat (£825.40 x 1.13) of £952.00

5.5 Any contribution will need to be contained within a Section 106

planning obligation whether this is through an agreement or unilateral undertaking. An additional administrative charge16 to cover the cost of collection and distribution of the obligation will be applied at a standard rate reflecting the work involved in administering the obligation payable at the following rate (The charge excludes any legal costs that are incurred in respect of the completion of the deed that secures the planning obligation.):

• 2% of the total contribution payable on commencement of

development16 11 ONS Population forecasts for participant local authorities, 2010 mid year estimate base 12 Predicted housing numbers taken from each Local Authority housing trajectories for the 2 years 2012/13 and 2013/14 13 Census 2001 14 Provided by Borough of Poole R&I team 15 Base costs as at November 2010 16 The administrative charge excludes the recovery of individual local authority legal costs where these are incurred



• Administrative payments are subject to a minimum charge of £50 and capped to a limit of £1,000 per contribution type.

5.6 The cost of the mitigation measures is calculated at November 2011

prices. On each of the subsequent anniversaries of the adoption of this document the base costs will be adjusted by an amount equivalent to the percentage change in the Retail Price Index. In addition the Heathland Executive Group will review the level of contribution sought per unit on an annual basis, effective on 1st April 2012 and 1st April 2013. The principles to be applied to the annual scheme review of the SPD will include reference to the following: • Actual residential development levels delivered; • Any revisions to planning legislation and procedures; • Analysis of appeal decisions and financial viability assessments; • Any changes to Government funding procedures; • Impact of the delivery of Suitable Accessible Natural Greenspace

(SANGs). 5.7 Contributions will be spent in a timely manner to ensure that mitigation

is delivered as close as possible to occupation of new residential development.

6. Model Clauses for Planning Obligations 6.1 The use of a standard clause for either an agreement or unilateral

undertaking by the five local authorities will be in the interest of all involved and will help speed up delivery. For the purposes of the obligation the s106 clause could be worded:

“the Nature Conservation Contribution” means the sum of ( ) thousand ( ) hundred and ( ) Pounds increased by the percentage (if any)by the Retail Price Index shall have increased between the date of publication prior to the date of this Deed and the date of payment together with an administrative fee of £(pounds) towards measures which avoid or mitigate against any adverse effect of the Development on the Dorset Heathlands in accordance with the Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document 2012-2014. For the avoidance of doubt such sum or any part of thereof shall not be reimbursed to the pay or to any other party.

6.2 The obligation could then be worded:

“The Owner hereby Covenants with the Council that he will not cause or permit the commencement of the development on the land until the Nature Conservation Contribution has been paid to the Council.”



6.3 For strategically significant sites delivering large numbers of residential units the obligation may be worded differently to reflect payment of the contribution on a phased basis.

7. Administration and Audit Trail

a. The SPD will be adopted by the South East Dorset local authorities.

b. A joint Dorset Heathland Executive Group was established in 2007

to oversee the implementation of the IPF. This group consists of a Councillor from each of the 6 local authorities together with representatives from Natural England, Home Builders Federation and the RSPB. The Executive considers schemes recommended by the Heathland Planning Framework Officer Group (HPFOG) to mitigate the impact of additional urban pressures. Schemes are able to be put forward for consideration by public, private and voluntary sector. The officer group will meet regularly to review and consider schemes and to oversee the monitoring process. Progress on the implementation of the PF will be reported in the Annual Monitoring Reports of the local authorities collecting contributions. These provisions will continue under the operation of the SPD.

c. Contributions will be required from all qualifying developments from

adoption of the new SPD unless avoidance/mitigation measures have been agreed as overcoming any significant effects of a proposed development. The proposed mitigation at Appendix A may be varied through the on-going review process but crucially Natural England will need to be satisfied that the necessary overall level of mitigation is achieved.

d. The partnership between the local authorities will be separate from

the Urban Heaths Partnership (UHP). The UHP has received funding from the IPF through 2010-2011 to manage the increased pressures arising from development in South East Dorset. Dorset County Council will continue to employ staff of the UHP and will continue to work across local authority boundaries. Local authority countryside teams are able to put forward projects for delivery by UHP. The work of the UHP will be scrutinised by the Executive Group and will agree and monitor their annual business plan. The Executive Group in prioritising expenditure will maintain an appropriate balance between the activities of the UHP and agreed capital schemes. The partnership will also explore other funding sources to supplement the developer funded programme.

e. Each of the partner local authorities is responsible for the collection

of contributions through their role as local planning authority. The



financial responsibilities of local authorities also require them to administer the contributions in an accountable and transparent way. The contributions will be held separately from other accounts and will be co-ordinated by the Borough of Poole.

Appendix A: List of Mitigation Projects proposed for 2012-2014

Projects to divert users from Heaths

A. Preferred projects Ref Project Description Area (ha)

new access created

Catchment area

Budget HOF contribution

Proposer

1 Berry Hill footpath & cycle/horse riding route

Construction of surfaced route linking Berry Hill with Stour Valley LNR as part of an improvement programme for the Stour Valley Way in Bournemouth and as a contribution to the strategic development of the Stour Valley SANG. The route is approx. 1 km in length.

n/a 5000m £100,000 £50,000 BBC

2 Bourne Valley Park BMX

Creation of a dirt based BMX circuit at end of Turbary Close. To divert use of an informal BMX area, part within the nearby SAC which will be restored to heath.

n/a 1500m £24000 £22800 BoP

3 Broadstone Heath Extension of Footpath

To provide a 200m southern extension to an existing path for walkers and dog walkers. The existing path was constructed in 2007 using Heathland Mitigation Funds. The extension would complete a route through woodland onto a large open field. The new section of path would be usable throughout the year and in all weather conditions. To take pressure off Canford and Dunyeats

200m surfaced pathway

1500m £9550 £9550 BoP

4 Ford Lane Recreation Ground Ferndown

To develop existing derelict underused open space directly adjacent to the high user pressure area of Parley Common SSSI. Ford Lane is as readily accessible as Parley Common from the Heatherlands housing estate and with improvements such as improved play, path network for dog walking and signage will offer an attractive alternative to the Heathland.

6 ha 1500m £150000 £150000 EDDC

5 Iford Meadows – re-routing of Stour Valley Way

Re-route path across Iford playing fields and Iford Meadows LNR instead of along Iford Lane as part of an improvement programme for the Stour Valley Way in Bournemouth and as a contribution to the strategic development of the Stour Valley SANG

n/a 5000m £75,000 £75,000 BBC

6 Mudeford Wood Access Improvements

Enhancing an under-used track into a dual-use path, allowing access to a green corridor from Somerford to Mudeford. The purpose is not only to improve access to nature by allowing recreational activities away from the

1.8 km of dual access path

5000m £60000 £60000 CBC



busy main roads but encourages people to reach the coast and sensitive sites such as Christchurch Harbour in a sustainable manner. This also widens the cycle network created by Chewton Bunny and South Shore bike park projects.

7 Potterne BMX and Skate Park Verwood

To build on existing IPF and EDDC funded facilities to provide increased high quality and latest design BMX and Skate area. The work at Potterne has already seen huge benefits in diverting BMX users away from local heaths due to its integrated approach to the design and development of the facilities. With increased improvements the area will continue to attract users from the wider area lessening the impact of BMX on other surrounding heathland areas.

5000m £40000 £30000 EDDC

8 Sherborn Open Space

Improvements to access and attractiveness as interceptor site for Canford Heath. Create dog walking route around this site to join up with Haymoor dog walking route funded and completed as part of heath mitigation work. Length, approximately 400m. To allow for surfaced fixed dog walking path to be created, drainage of area needs to be improved. At present football pitches are moved around area, meaning that there is no fixed route for a dog walking path. Increase in size of car park on Sherbon OS to increase desirability as a destination.

1500m £104500 £104500 (possibility of some co-funding)

BoP

9 Slades Farm landscaping and car park improvements

Landscaping work as phase 2 of the site masterplan to include development of a ‘wildlife area’ with pond etc. Increased car park capacity of approx 100 spaces

1500m £75000 £75000 BBC

10 The Dell Broadstone Phase 2

To provide new path including steps to connect path constructed in The Dell Phase 1 and northern connection to all weather dog walking route made with heath mitigation funds in 2007. Length 150 m, which is same length as in Phase 1. To create this path route through understory in woodland will be cleared of thick vegetation, which will benefit woodland element of

1500m £29000 £29000 BoP



SNCI in this area. To take pressure off Canford and Dunyeats

11 Turlin Moor dog gym

Installation of a dog gym. To improve that attractiveness of this site as a destination for dog owners as an alternative and welcoming site for dog owners to exercise and play with their dogs, taking pressure of heaths

1500m £4800 £4800 BoP

12 Upton Farm/ Upton Country Park

Creation of a strategic SANG as an extension of Upton Country Park. To include 1) Identifying preferred option for securing the SANG 2) Appointment of consultants to carry out masterplanning exercise to determine how to make best use of the site. 3) Laying out of SANG

30 ha 5000m plus £2000000 £1100000 (includes £170000 already allocated

BoP

13 Upton Heath Estate and Woods

Phase 3. Provide through route from Upton Heath Estate to Upton Country Park by creating new access to Upton Wood from Palmerston Road through the Upton Heath Estate and a new road crossing and footpath/cycleway across Poole Road joining Upton Wood and Upton Country Park

Phase 3 £400000

£200000 PDC

14 West Moors Plantation

Improvements to access and attractiveness of open space connected to Castleman Trailway

Increase usage 129 ha

5000m £27000 £21000 FC

15 Woolslope Farm (phase 1) West Moors

Acquisition of 13ha site from current owners (Heron Homes) to be combined with adjacent land owned by DCC and Wessex Water to create 15ha sustainable open space. To carry out initial site safety works to enable public access, introduce base line monitoring measures and provide an all weather surfaced route allowing access from West Moors, Ferndown and the Castleman Trailway. As a completely new open space resource this site offers the opportunity to really change recreational habits within the local area away from a large number of Heathland sites by providing a very large area of well designed, safe, easy to use and attractive SANG

13 ha 2 km all weather paths

5000m £450000 £350000 EDDC

16 Woolslope Farm (phase 2)

Further development of site to include increased path network allowing circular routes, secure perimeter

Further 2km of all weather

5000m £250000 £250000 EDDC



West Moors fencing, play equipment, allotments and educational resources and car park to make the site more attractive as SANG and increase user catchment.

paths and parking for approx 15 cars

17 Muscliff Bank stabilization to maintain important access point to Stour Valley

n/a 5000m £37,080 £37,080 BBC

18 Christchurch Harbour

Bank Stabilisation works to key access through Hengistbury Head

n/a 5000m £21,000 £21,000 BBC

TOTAL

£4,117,930

£2,589,780

B. Reserve Projects 19

Arrowsmith Coppice, Poole

Acquire site (cost dependant on method) Improve access and attractiveness for visitors as alternative to Canford Heath and Dunyeats Hill

13.5 ha 5000m £76950 - £416812 £65000

£76950 - £416812 £65000

BoP

20

Coopers Lane Meadow Verwood

To acquire and enhance a meadow area adjacent to Stephens Castle. The area lies across the main access route to Stephens Castle and as such would act as an interceptor site for much of the recreational activity that takes place there. To provide secure boundary fencing, benches and attractive access points.

1.5 ha 1500m £50000 £50000 EDDC

21

Delph Woods, Phase 3, Poole

Acquisition of area of land adjacent to council owned area to increase size of site. Works to improve access and connections with rest of woodland and Castleman Trailway, and improve attractiveness of whole area as alternative to Canford Heath and Dunyeats Hill.

10 ha 5000m £57000 - £308750 £49700

£57000 - £308750 £49700

BoP

TOTAL £298,650 - £890,262

£298,650 - £890,262



Access and fire management projects

A. Preferred projects Ref Project Description Catchment

area Budget HOF

contribution Proposer

22 Dorset Dogs Further development of project to encourage responsible access by people with dogs and to encourage use of alternative areas. Work to include improvements to website, programme of dog friendly events, information leaflets about suitable dog walking areas, an annual Doggy Festival.

5000m £40000 £30000 UHP/ DUHGAP

23 Ferndown Common Fire/Visitor Access Management

Implementation of review of fire access and management plans with DFRS, to include improvements to signage, entrances, waymarked routes, information boards etc

1500m £3820 £3820 ARC

24 Hengistbury Head boardwalk extension

Extend existing boardwalk through the rest of the dune system at Whitepits to complete surfacing work for route of the West Trail. The trail is encouraging use of the less sensitive area of Hengistbury Head to the west of the SAC.

5000m £21000 £21000 BBC

25 Parley Common Fire/Visitor Access Management

Implementation of review of fire access and management plans with DFRS, to include improvements to signage, entrances, waymarked routes, information boards etc

1500m £4920 £4920 ARC

26 Talbot Heath Install fire hydrant on heath to combat risk and damage caused by heath fires.

1500m £20000 £20000 BoP

27 Upton Heath fire risk management

Multi faceted project to lessen fire risk on Upton Heath. To include; signage onto and around the Heath, improving access onto and around Heath, setting up of a Heathwatch group, implementation of fire management measures from DFRS review of 2011 fire.

5000m £105000 £89250 BoP/DWT

TOTAL £194740 £168990 B. Reserve projects 28 Integrated fire

planning for natural Production of integrated fire planning for all open land holdings including heaths. Development and implementation of single GIS based

5000m £10250 £6000 FC



spaces in Purbecks methodology for fire plans with DFRS TOTAL £10,250 £6,000

Revenue Projects UHP costs 2012 -2014 Wardening, education and strategic coordination of access management (includes 6

seasonal wardens per year) £557619 DCC

Area wide monitoring programme 2012 -2014

Implementation of area wide monitoring strategy £166,656 DCC

TOTAL £724,275

Total heathland obligations funds contributions Projects to divert users from heaths A

B £2,589,780

£298,650 - £890,262 Access and fire management projects A

B £168990

6000 Wardening, education, monitoring etc £724,275

TOTAL £3,787,645 - £4,379,257



Location of mitigation projects for 2012-2014

KEY

Proposed project Completed/ongoing project Local authority boundary

North Dorset District Council

East Dorset District Council

West Dorset District Council Purbeck

District Council

Borough of Poole

Bournemouth Borough Council

Christchurch Borough Council

Heathland District boundaries

Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Borough of Poole Licence No. 100024248 2010

N

Appendix B: Dorset Heathland designated as European Wildlife Sites

Appendix C

400m Consultation Area The five south east Dorset Local Authorities of Borough of Poole, Bournemouth Borough Council, Christchurch Borough Council, East Dorset District Council and Purbeck District Council were provided with a formal requirement under the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 Statutory Instrument 1995 No 419 to consult English Nature (now Natural England ) in the mapped Consultation Areas on 12 July 2006. The Consultation Area is around the Sites of Special Scientific Interest in south east Dorset which are also protected as Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Areas for Birds (SPA) or classified as Ramsar for their lowland heathland features. The SSSI and European/international boundaries are in most cases co-located. The Consultation Areas are mapped in the following way, with the current Master Map base mapping from Ordnance Survey using the most up to date software MapInfo V. 9.5 a Geographic Information System (GIS). The software is set to measure metric distance units in a Cartesian projection. The component SSSI is selected and then a 400m straight line buffer is applied which has a smoothness value of 20. This gives a surrounding area of 400m as the crow flies see below. Information on the Dorset Heathlands including Natural England’s consultation area maps can be found at http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/regions/south_west/ourwork/heathlands/default.aspx

Map 1 The SSSI land is edged red and the buffer is shown in green against a 1:10,000 OS base map for clarity.




The final boundary of the Consultation Area is selected as follows. In the open countryside where there is no residential development the original buffer is used and crosses fields as an arc shown in green (SSSI boundary in red). Map 2

Where the buffer crosses residential areas English Nature (now Natural England) has included within the 400m Consultation Area the curtilage of each property which the buffer intersects. The red line is the SSSI boundary, green line is the buffer and purple the 400m Consultation Area. Map 3 Map 4


Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with thepermission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Borough of Poole Licence No. 100024248 2010

Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with thepermission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. © Crown copyright.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Borough of Poole Licence No. 100024248 2010



The final 400m Consultation Area now looks as shown below:

Map 5

The Local Authorities are required to consult Natural England on all residential applications within the 400m Consultation Area which lies to the left side of the purple line in this case.

Based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with thepermission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Borough of Poole Licence No. 100024248 2010



Appendix D

Natural England Advice for Use Class C2 proposals

A. Within 400m of protected heathland Developments within the C2 class (ie residential care homes, hospitals, nursing homes, boarding schools, residential colleges and training centres) will be considered on a case by case basis and Natural England will advise whether an appropriate assessment would be required, taking into account the potential ‘in combination effect. In general, developments such as hospitals and nursing homes would not be considered to have a likely significant effect with regard to recreational impacts. The types of C2 residential accommodation that could be considered acceptable within 400m of protected heaths are as follows: 1. Purpose built schemes for the frail elderly where there is an element of close care provided on

site 24 hours a day. This level of care is above that of provision of an on site wardening service provided for sheltered accommodation. It would be expected that there would normally be an age restriction of 60+years for the occupants of the units and that the planning permission would be conditioned in such a way that the units could not become open market housing. Experience from schemes of this nature indicates that in order to provide 24 hour care the minimum number of units is generally around 40 and the scheme will also have communal facilities. Authorities should consider requiring a covenant restricting pet ownership where it is in their view an effective measure in reducing the risk of adverse effects of predation and disturbance

2. Purpose built schemes for the accommodation of the disabled, for example a care home for

people with dementia, where by the nature of the residents’ disabilities, they are unlikely to have any impact on the adjacent protected heaths.

The above categories would not generally be required to provide a financial contribution through the Heathland SPD if located within or beyond 400m from protected heathland. The planning authority will need to be mindful of the net change in residential occupancy in relation to carers residing on the site. The use of pet covenants or other suitable legally binding agreements by authorities is considered acceptable by Natural England in these specific situations as: 1. The nature of the establishment is such that pressure from residents to own pets is likely to be

very low creating an acceptable risk. 2. In the context of a residential care home with 24 hour wardening, enforcement is seen as

being achievable in terms of time taken to detect infringements and resources on site to achieve enforcement outcomes.

Natural England advice to local authorities is that planning conditions should be attached to permissions as follows:



1. The applicant/management body will provide a biannual written confirmation to the LPA

detailing the compliance with the pet covenant, the number of residents and their age.

2. The applicant/management body will prevent, through design and enforcement measures, the use of onsite car parking for public use for accessing nearby heathlands.

Natural England advises the local authorities to be aware that this advice does not relate to other significant effects on the international sites such as considerations related to surface water discharge from the application sites. These will require case by case consideration in consultation with Natural England. Natural England advises the authority to be aware that this advice does not apply to matters related to species protected by law. B: Between 400m and 5km Use Class C2 applications in the 400m to 5km area that would not fall into the categories identified in A above, this may include retirement homes where the occupants are still active, will need to be assessed on a case by case basis to assess the potential impact of such development. Where significant adverse effects are identified then development will be expected to demonstrate how it will avoid or mitigate such effects or alternatively may apply the financial contribution mechanism set out within the main body of this SPD. It may be reasonable for local authorities to conclude that such units of accommodation are comparable to additional residential flats. Mitigation contributions should also be secured where there are additional on site staff accommodation provided.



Appendix E

Guidelines for the establishment of Suitable Accessible Natural Greenspace

(SANG) Quality Standards for the Dorset Heaths

INTRODUCTION ‘Suitable Accessible Natural Green Space’ (SANGS) is the name given to green space that is of a quality and type suitable to be used as mitigation for applications likely to affect the Dorset Heathlands European and internationally protected sites. The provision of SANGs is one of a range of mitigation measures, a number of which are detailed in the Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework SPD, which the south east Dorset Planning Authorities and Natural England consider offer an effective means of avoiding or mitigating harm from a number of urban effects. Its role is to provide alternative green space to divert visitors away from the Dorset Heathlands Special Protection Area (SPA), the two Dorset Heaths SACs and the Dorset Heathlands Ramsar (collectively called the ‘Dorset Heathlands’ in these guidelines). SANGS are intended to provide mitigation for the likely impact of residential type developments on the Dorset Heathlands by preventing an increase in visitor pressure. The effectiveness of SANGS as mitigation will depend upon its location and design. These must be such that the SANGS is more attractive than the Dorset Heathlands to visitors of the kind that currently visit them.

These guidelines describe the features which have been found to draw visitors to the Dorset Heathlands, which should be replicated in SANGS: • the type of site which should be identified as SANGS • measures which can be taken to enhance sites so that they may be used as SANGS These guidelines relate specifically to the means to provide mitigation for development of a residential nature within or close to 5km of the Dorset Heathlands. They do not address nor preclude the other functions of green space (e.g. provision of disabled access). Other functions may be provided within SANGS, as long as this does not conflict with the specific function of mitigating visitor impacts on the Dorset Heathlands.

SANGS may be created from: • existing open space of SANGS quality with no existing public access or limited public access,

which for the purposes of mitigation could be made fully accessible to the public • existing open space which is already accessible but which could be changed in character so

that it is more attractive to the specific group of visitors who might otherwise visit the Dorset Heathlands

• land in other uses which could be converted into SANGS The identification of SANGS should seek to avoid sites of high nature conservation value which are likely to be damaged by increased visitor numbers. Such damage may arise, for example, from increased disturbance, erosion, input of nutrients from dog faeces, and increased incidence of fires. Where sites of high nature conservation value are considered as SANGS, the impact on



their nature conservation value should be assessed and considered alongside relevant policy in the core strategy/local plan.

THE CHARACTER OF THE Dorset Heathlands AND ITS VISITORS The Dorset Heathlands are made up of 42 Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and consists of a mixture of open heathland and mire with some woodland habitats. The topography is varied with some prominent viewpoints. Many sites contain streams, ponds and small lakes and though some have open landscapes with few trees others have scattered trees and areas of woodland. Most sites are freely accessible to the public though in some areas access is restricted by army, or other operations. Surveys have shown that about half of visitors to the Dorset Heathlands arrive by car and about half on foot. Where sites are close to urban development around Poole and Bournemouth, foot access tends to be most common. On rural sites in Purbeck and East Dorset, more visitors come by car. Some 75% of those who visited by car had come from 5.3km of the access point onto the heathlands. A very large proportion of the Dorset Heathland visitors are dog walkers, many of whom visit the particular site on a regular (i.e. multiple visits per week) basis and spend less than an hour there, walking on average about 2.2km. Further detailed information on visitors can be found in the reports referenced at the end of this document. GUIDELINES FOR THE QUALITY OF SANGS The quality guidelines have been sub-divided into different aspects of site fabric and structure. They have been compiled from a variety of sources but principally from visitor surveys carried out at heathland sites within the Dorset Heathlands and the Thames Basin Heaths. These are listed as references at the end of this appendix. The guidelines concentrate on the type of SANGS designed principally to cater for heathland dog walkers. Other important heathland mitigation measures, for example facilities designed to attract motor cycle scramblers or BMX users away from heathlands, or facilities for adventurous play for children, are not covered specifically and will need to be considered on a case by case basis. The principle criteria contained in the Guidelines have also been put into a checklist format which can be found in a table at the end of this appendix. It is important to note that these Guidelines only cover the Quality of SANG provision. There are a number of other matters that will need to be agreed with Natural England and the Local Planning Authority including; Provision of In Perpetuity Management of the SANG; SANG Capacity; Other Avoidance and Mitigation Measures as necessary.

Accessibility - reaching the SANG Most visitors reach the Dorset Heathlands either by foot or by car and the same will apply for SANGS. Thus SANGS may be intended principally for the use of a local population living within a 400 metre catchment around the site; or they may be designed primarily to attract visitors who arrive by car (they may also have both functions). SANG design needs to take into account the anticipated target group of visitors. For example, where large populations are close to the Dorset Heathlands the provision of SANGS may need to be attractive to visitors on foot.



If intended to attract visitors arriving by car, the availability of adequate car parking is essential. Car parks may be provided specifically for a SANG or a SANG may make use of existing car parks but some existing car parks may have features incompatible with SANG use, such as car park charging. The amount and nature of parking provision should reflect the anticipated numbers and mode of arrival by visitors to the site and the catchment size of the SANGS. It is important that there is easy access between the car park and the SANG i.e. this is not impeded by, for example, a road crossing. Thus such SANGS should have a car park with direct access straight on to the SANG with the ability to take dogs safely from the car park to the SANG off the lead. Similarly, the nature of foot access between urban development and a SANG is important and green corridors reaching into the urban area can be an important part of facilitating access to the SANG. Key points:

1. Sites must have adequate parking for visitors, unless the site is intended for local pedestrian use only, i.e. within easy walking distance (400m) of the developments linked to it. The amount of car parking space should be determined by the anticipated numbers using the site and arriving by car

2. Car parks must be easily and safely accessible by car, be of an open nature and should be

clearly sign posted. 3. There should be easy access between the car park or housing and the SANG with the facility

to take dogs safely from the car park to the SANG off the lead.

4. Access points should have signage outlining the layout of the SANGS and the routes available to visitors.

Paths, Tracks and other SANG infrastructure SANGS should aim to supply a choice of circular walking routes that provide an attractive alternative to those routes on heathlands in the vicinity (i.e. those heaths that the SANG is designed to attract visitors away from). Given the average length of walks on heathland, a circular walk of 2.3-2.5km in length is necessary unless there are particular reasons why a shorter walk is considered still appropriate. Where possible a range of different length walks should be provided; a proportion of visitors walk up to 5km and beyond so walking routes longer than 2.5 km are valuable, either on-site or through the connection of sites along green corridors.

Paths do not have to be of any particular width, and both vehicular-sized tracks and narrow paths are acceptable to visitors although narrow corridors where visitors/dogs may feel constrained should be avoided. The majority of visitors come alone and safety is one of their primary concerns. Paths should be routed so that they are perceived as safe by the visitors, with some routes being through relatively open (visible) terrain (with no trees or scrub, or well spaced mature trees, or wide rides with vegetation back from the path), especially those routes which are 1-3 km long.

A substantial number of visitors like to have surfaced but not tarmac paths, particularly where these blend in well with the landscape. This is not necessary for all paths but there should be some visitor-friendly, all weather routes built into the structure of a SANGS, particularly those routes which are 1-3 km long. Boardwalks may help with access across wet areas but excessive use of boardwalks, as may be necessary on sites which are mostly wet or waterlogged such as flood plain and grazing marsh, is likely to detract from the site natural feel.



Other infrastructure specifically designed to make the SANG attractive to dog walkers may also be desirable but must not detract from a site’s relatively wild and natural feel. Measures could include accessible water bodies for dogs to swim/drink; dog bins, fencing near roads/car-parks etc to ensure dog safety, clear messages regarding the need to ‘pick-up’, large areas for dogs to be off lead safely:

5. Paths must be easily used and well maintained but most should remain unsurfaced to avoid the site becoming too urban in feel. A majority of paths should be suitable for use in all weathers and all year around. Boardwalks may be required in wet sections.

6. All SANGS with car parks must have a circular walk which starts and finishes at the car park.

7. It should be possible to complete a circular walk of 2.3-2.5km around the SANGS, and for larger SANGS a variety of circular walks

8. SANGS must be designed so that visitors are not deterred by safety concerns.

Advertising - making people aware of the SANG The need for some advertising is self evident. Any advertising should make clear that the site is designed to cater specifically for dog walkers: 9. SANGS should be clearly sign-posted and advertised. .

10. SANGS should have leaflets and/or websites advertising their location to potential visitors. It

would be desirable for leaflets to be distributed to new homes in the area and be made available at entrance points and car parks.

Landscape and Vegetation

The open or semi wooded and undulating nature of most of the Dorset Heathland sites gives them an air of relative wildness, even when there are significant numbers of visitors on site. SANGS must aim to reproduce this quality but do not have to contain heathland or heathy vegetation. Surveys in the Thames Basin heath area show that woodland or a semi-wooded landscape is a key feature that people who use the SPA there appreciate. Deciduous woodland is preferred to coniferous woodland.

In these circumstances a natural looking landscape with plenty of variation including both open and wooded areas is ideal for a SANG. There is clearly a balance to be struck between what is regarded as an exciting landscape and a safe one and so some element of choice between the two is desirable.

Hills do not put people off visiting a site, particularly where these are associated with good views, but steep hills are not appreciated. An undulating landscape is preferred to a flat one. Water features, particularly ponds and lakes, act as a focus for visitors for their visit, but are not essential. The long term management of the SANG habitats should be considered at an early stage. Particularly for larger SANGS, and those with grasslands, grazing management is likely to be necessary.



A number of factors can detract from the essential natural looking landscape and SANGS that have an urban feel, for example where they are thin and narrow with long boundaries with urban development or roads, are unlikely to be effective:

11. SANGS must be perceived as natural spaces without intrusive artificial structures, except in the immediate vicinity of car parks. Visually-sensitive way-markers and some benches are acceptable.

12. SANGS must aim to provide a variety of habitats for visitors to experience (e.g. some of : woodland, scrub, grassland, heathland, wetland, open water).

13. Access within the SANGS must be largely unrestricted with plenty of space provided where it is possible for dogs to exercise freely and safely off lead.

14. SANGS must be free from unpleasant visual, auditory or olfactory intrusions (e.g. derelict buildings, intrusive adjoining buildings, dumped materials, loud intermittent or continuous noise from traffic, industry, sports grounds, sewage treatment works, waste disposal facilities).

REFERENCES

LILEY, D., SHARP, J. & CLARKE, R. T. (2008). Access Patterns in South-east Dorset. Dorset Household Survey and Predictions of Visitor Use of Potential Greenspace Sites. Dorset Heathlands Development Plan Document. Unpublished report, Footprint Ecology. CLARKE, R.T., LILEY, D., UNDERHILL-DAY, J.C., & ROSE, R.J. (2005). Visitor access patterns on the Dorset Heaths. English Nature Research Report. LILEY, D., JACKSON, D., & UNDERHILL-DAY, J. C. (2006) Visitor access patterns on the Thames Basin Heaths. English Nature Research Report. LILEY, D., MALLORD, J., & LOBLEY, M. (2006) The “Quality” of Green Space: features that attract people to open spaces in the Thames Basin Heaths area. English Nature Research Report.



Site quality checklist

Criteria Current Future 1 Parking on all sites unless the site is

intended for use within 400m only

2 Car parks easily and safely accessible by car, open in nature and sign posted

3 Easy access between development or car park and SANG; able to safely let dog out of car into SANG

4 Access points with signage outlining the layout of the SANGS and routes available to visitors

5 Paths easily used and well maintained but mostly unsurfaced

6 Circular walk start and end at car park

7 Circular walk of between 2.3 - 2.5 km

8 SANG design so that they feel safe for visitors

9 Clearly sign posted or advertised in some way

10 Leaflets or website advertising their location to potential users

11 Perceived as semi natural space, without too much urban intrusion

12 Contains a variety of different habitats

13 Access unrestricted – plenty of space for dogs to exercise freely and safely off the lead

14 Site is free from unpleasant intrusions



Appendix F

Gypsies and Travellers

Natural England has provided advice to the local authorities through the draft Dorset wide Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document Issues and Options consultation which closed in February 2012 on developments of this type. It is the view of Natural England that there is no evidence to demonstrate that the occupants of permanent or transit sites for gypsies and travellers would be likely to have any level of recreational access need which is substantially different to residents in Use Class C3 dwellings. Therefore it is the view of Natural England that effects from development proposals of this type would act in combination with effects from Use Class C3 residential development and in these circumstances: i. Applications within 400m of European/internationally protected heathland should be treated in

the same way as applications for Use Class C3 development; and ii. Applications in the 400m to 5km area should provide a level of avoidance/mitigation

proportionate to the likely adverse effects arising.



Appendix G

Self catering, touring and holiday accommodation applications

Within 400m

Natural England advice for self catering and touring proposals in close proximity to European/international heathlands is as follows:

i. Applications within 400m of the heathlands are considered to have a likely significant effect on

the sites arising from effects relating to the increased residential occupancy and recreational pressure from development. These effects are broadly similar to those arising from residential development and therefore would act in combination with these.

Outside 400m Whilst individual applicants may seek to reduce impacts eg by restricting pets Natural England consider that there is considerable uncertainty about whether, over time, such agreements would be effective. In the light of the appeal decisions and a number of applications considered by competent authorities in south east Dorset Natural England has considered how best to enable applicants to provide mitigation: i. In the case of very large scale applications the provision of bespoke mitigation such as

Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace can be considered as part of a package of avoidance and mitigation measures on a case by case basis

ii. where applications are for small numbers of additional units Natural England advise that the authorities may use the contribution policy offered by the SPD.

Authorities will need to take a proportionate approach and may seek to reduce the contribution level to account for the lower rate of occupancy of self catering or touring units. The local authorities are advised to bear in mind that neither the degree of harm or the level of occupancy may be constant through the year. Occupancy rates have been calculated as a 3-4 year average from the monthly occupancy rates available in the tables on page 3 of the report, Regional Occupancy Data Self Catering and Touring, Q1-3 Data 2010, Research Team, South West Tourism (www.swtourismalliance.org.uk/research-facts-and-figures/regional-tourism-data/). As further data becomes available Natural England advise the authorities that the rate may change accordingly. The calculations are shown over the page below:

http://www.swtourismalliance.org.uk/research-facts-and-figures/regional-tourism-data/



N.B. Data is not available for the last three months of 2010.

Relevant Appeal and other cases: Appeal decision, Harkwood Acres, Three Legged Cross, Wimborne, BH21 6RP. APP/U1240/C/04/1145349 (11 January 2005). Appeal decision Naughty Boy Studio, Cripplestyle, Fordingbridge SP6 3DU. APP/U1240/A/11/2156465. 14 December 2011. Conversion of an artist’s studio/gallery into two units of holiday accommodation. Appeal decision Tanglewood Holiday Park, Organford Road, Holton Heath PooleBH16 6JY. APP/B1225/A/10/2134180, (9 Nov 2010). Application for a 5 caravan certificate; land adjacent to 4 Heath Cottages, Sandford, Wareham, Dorset.

South West Self-Catering Unit % Occupancy 2010

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2007 20 33 39 45 57 66 79 90 66 43 27 31 2008 16 28 35 43 55 61 80 88 75 54 24 36 2009 18 32 33 60 62 67 77 87 70 46 18 28

2010 13 26 31 49 53 60 66 87 69 0 0 0 Total occupancy for year Divided by 1200

SPD rate

Mean 16.75 29.75 34.5 49.25 56.75 63.5 75.5 88 70 35.75 17.25 23.75 560.75 0.467 47%

South West Touring Pitch % Occupancy 2010

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 0 0 0 27 37 42 60 81 41 23 11 11 2008 2 5 19 21 43 40 54 72 47 16 3 5 2009 8 12 9 30 51 53 62 86 43 29 13 19


SPD rate

Mean 6 10 12.75 26.5 41.5 47.5 57 80.5 40.75 17 6.75 8.75 355 0.296 29.60%



Appendix H

Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) and student accommodation

Natural England advice to the local authorities is that for HMOs and student accommodation is likely to give rise to significant adverse effects on European/internationally protected heathlands arising from increased levels of residential occupancy and consequent access onto the heaths. Recent guidance from Communities and Local Government (Notes and definitions for the Housing Flows Reconciliation (HFR) form) confirms the view that “purpose built separate homes for students should be included. Each self-contained unit should be counted as a dwelling.” Natural England is not aware of any evidence which demonstrates that these residents, students or otherwise, would not be expected to access nearby open space including heathland in any significantly different manner to residents in C3 dwellings. In these circumstances proposals for these types of dwellings need to provide avoidance/mitigation where applications fall within the 400m to 5km area. The local authorities should apply a suitable tariff rate to secure an appropriate level of mitigation under the SPD and this would normally be that that is applied to Use Class C3 dwellings. As set out in the framework this should be on the basis of a net change in units allowing existing dwellings to be discounted. Natural England has advised potential applicants that proposals for the conversion of residential dwellings to independently managed student accommodation within 400m of European/internationally protected heathlands may increase pressure on these heathlands if this leads to an increase in the number of units. Effects from managed student halls of residence on University campus are likely to be different from those of C3 residential development to the extent that there may not be significant effects on protected heathlands. There may be an increased risk which is associated with private sector managed units, arising due to changes in the type of occupants within the Use Class C4 compared to facilities on a campus. The self contained facilities available on campus and the close management of student halls may therefore provide a degree of certainty that the risk of adverse effects is low. Where applications are in or very close to the 400m Consultation Area Natural England would anticipate formal consultation and may in some cases advise on the need for an Appropriate Assessment.


Consultation Draft


Photograph: David Tipling/RSPB/PA

January 2015

Borough of Poole, Bournemouth Borough Council, Christchurch Borough Council, Dorset County Council, East Dorset District Council, Purbeck District Council

Contents Page Consultation Note i 1. Introduction 1 2. Relationship with Development Plans 2 3. Context 3 4. The Scale of the Problem 6 5. Enabling Development: The Dorset Heathlands Avoidance and

Mitigation Strategy 7 6. Paying for the Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy 9 7. The Level of Contributions for Strategic Access Management and

Monitoring 10 8. Model Clauses for Planning Obligations 14 9. Administration and Audit Trail 15

Appendix A List of Mitigation projects proposed for 2015 – 2020 16 Appendix B Dorset Heathland designated as European Wildlife Sites 22 Appendix C 400m Consultation Area 23 Appendix D Natural England Advice for Use Class C2 proposals within 400m of protected heaths 27 Appendix E Proposed Suitable Accessible Natural Greenspace (SANG)

Quality Standards for the Dorset Heaths 29 Appendix F SANGs Planning Application Principles 34 Appendix G Gypsies and Travellers 36 Appendix H Self catering, caravan and touring holiday accommodation

applications 39 Appendix I Houses in multiple occupation (HMO) and student

accommodation 39 Appendix J Recent Changes to the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) and relevance to the Habitats Regulations 40

Consultation Note The Local Authorities party to ‘The Dorset Heathlands Supplementary Planning Document 2015 – 2020 have issued this draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for public consultation. It sets out the detailed approach to the avoidance and mitigation of adverse effects of development on the Dorset Heathlands. Once adopted, the SPD will run to 31 March 2020, and will be used by each of the Local Planning Authorities with responsibility for determining residential planning applications and preparing Local Plans. The draft SPD retains as its guiding principle that there is no net increase in urban pressures on internationally important heathland as a result of additional development. The draft SPD is published for public consultation for a 6 week period commencing Wednesday 7th January 2015 and ending Wednesday 18th February 2015. The public consultation document is available on the websites of the relevant local authorities as follows: Bournemouth, http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/PlanningBuildings/Planning/Policy/Local-Plan/Heathlands/Heathlands.aspx Poole (www.poole.gov.uk/dorsetheathlandconsultation) Christchurch, Dorset, East Dorset and Purbeck (https://consultationtracker.dorsetforyou.com/) Paper copies of the consultation document are available in local libraries. The Borough of Poole is co-ordinating the consultation arrangements on behalf of the local authorities. Following the consultation, the local authorities will review the draft SPD in light of comments received, and will publish a report on the consultation on the websites of each local authority.

i

http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/PlanningBuildings/Planning/Policy/Local-Plan/Heathlands/Heathlands.aspx

http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/PlanningBuildings/Planning/Policy/Local-Plan/Heathlands/Heathlands.aspx

http://www.poole.gov.uk/dorsetheathlandconsultation

https://consultationtracker.dorsetforyou.com/

1. Introduction 1.1 The Dorset Heathlands cover an extensive area of South East Dorset

fragmented by urban development and other land uses. It is the view of Natural England that the cumulative effect of a net increase of dwellings up to 5 kilometres from protected heathland in Dorset1 would have a significant effect on Dorset’s lowland heaths that are covered by several international designations.2 Avoidance measures or mitigation will be required otherwise Local Authorities will not be able to grant permission for residential development within 5 kilometres of these designated sites.

1.2 Local authorities in South East Dorset whose administrative area is within 5 kilometres of protected heathland and which have responsibility for the determination of residential planning applications, have been operating a strategy for the protection of heathland since 2007. During this time the local authorities and Urban Heath Partnership have been gathering evidence into the effects of urban pressures on the protected heaths to inform the future strategy for avoiding and mitigating the significant adverse effects of development.

1.3 This Supplementary Planning Document replaces the 2012 to 20143 version and will be a Local Development Document within each of the local authorities planning frameworks. It is intended that the SPD be based on a programme to April 2020 that enables the targeting of resources to specific projects having regard to the operational arrangements agreed between the local authorities and in agreement with Natural England.

1.4 It is the purpose of this document to set out the approach that, together, the local authorities in South East Dorset will follow. This forms a basis for how harm to the heathlands can be avoided, based upon identified measures set out in Appendix A to this document together with a map of the South East Dorset sub region. The document has been agreed by all the local authorities in South East Dorset for consultation i.e. Borough of Poole, Bournemouth Borough Council, Christchurch Borough Council, East Dorset District Council and Purbeck District Council. Dorset County Council is also party to the document due to its implementation role but has no responsibility for the determination of residential planning applications.

1 The Dorset heathlands are found in the local authority areas of Bournemouth, Christchurch, East Dorset, Poole, Purbeck and West Dorset. 2 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 In Purbeck, the 2012-14 SPD has been extended until 4 June 2017 for use with Section 73 planning permissions only, where existing permissions are renewed, CIL is not applicable, and Section106 agreements have to be renewed. Purbeck District Council will continue to use the 2012-14 SPD, for this purpose only, until 4 June 2017.

1

2. Relationship with Development Plans 2.1 Supplementary Planning Documents provide guidance on local

planning matters. They should build upon and provide more detailed advice or guidance on the policies in the Local Plan. The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF) recognises the value of our natural environment stating that the ‘planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment’4, and importantly that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where development requiring appropriate assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directives is being considered, planned or determined.5

2.2 This SPD accords with the principles of the NPPF and it is a result of the co-operative approach to partnership working between the local authorities in South East Dorset and statutory and third party stakeholders as prescribed by the Localism Act 2011.

2.3 All the local authorities in South East Dorset have adopted Core Strategies or Local Plans which contain a similarly worded policy that addresses the Dorset Heathland issue. Poole adopted its Core Strategy in February 2009, Bournemouth and Purbeck adopted their Local Plans in 2012 and East Dorset and Christchurch adopted their Core Strategy in April 2014. This document will therefore provide guidance and advice to developers, landowners and the wider community on matters to avoid or mitigate the adverse effects of urban development on the Dorset Heathlands.

2.4 The Local Plan policies focus on residential development which gives rise to adverse effects which may be dealt with at a strategic level. This focus should not be considered in any way a restriction on the scope of the policy protection afforded European or internationally protected sites. The policy and legal frameworks are clear that harm to the designated heathlands must be avoided. Other forms of development may cause harm and will be considered on a case by case basis as plans or projects under the Habitats Regulations 2010.

4 NPPF para 109 5 NPPF para 119

2

3. Context 3.1 European wildlife sites are protected by the EC Birds and Habitats

Directives, specific provisions of which are applied in the UK by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the Habitats Regulations). They place particular responsibilities on a decision maker in relation to such sites. As competent authorities, Local Authorities must have regard to these requirements, as advised in Circular 06/20056, which provides the procedure that should be followed in deciding whether to approve a proposal (a plan or project) that will potentially affect a European wildlife site.

3.2 Regulations 68 (grant of planning permission) and 102 (Assessment of implications for European sites and Marine sites) of the Habitats Regulations require that any application for development or strategic plan or policy which is likely to significantly affect a European site is subject to an appropriate assessment of the implications of the proposal for the site’s conservation objectives. The planning authority must ascertain that the plan or project will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the site, alone or in combination with other plans or projects, either directly or indirectly, taking account of any conditions or restrictions that would help ensure no adverse effect, before granting permission or adopting a plan or policy.

3.3 Natural England locally is concerned at the intensification of residential development in South East Dorset and the resultant pressures placed upon protected heathland by new occupants of these developments living in close proximity to the heathlands. These are similar to the impacts being observed within the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area. Various studies7 have found that public access to lowland heathland, from nearby development, has led to an increase in wild fires, damaging recreational uses, the introduction of incompatible plants and animals, loss of vegetation and soil erosion and disturbance by humans and their pets amongst other factors have an adverse effect on the heathland ecology.

3.4 These effects, see Table 18, are most marked for development within 400m of heathland where Natural England advise that additional residential development is likely to have a significant adverse effect upon the designated site, either alone or in combination with other developments. The implication of this is that in most cases it will not be possible for a local planning authority undertaking an appropriate assessment of a proposal for residential development (Use Class C3: Dwelling Houses9) to be certain that any adverse effects could be avoided or alleviated. Further, other forms of residential use that are likely to have the same effect include: • Residential Development within Use Class C4 (Appendix I) • Residential Institutions within Use Class C2 where the residents are

not severely restricted by illness or mobility (Appendix D)

6 Circular 06/2005: DEFRA Circular 01/2005 to Accompany now superseded PPS9 7 de Molinaar 1998, Haskins 2000, Underhill-Day 2005 8 De Molenaar (1998) and Haskins (2000) 9 Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 as amended

3

• Private student accommodation of no class, sui generis i.e. accommodation that is not managed by a university or run on their behalf by an accommodation provider (Appendix I)

• Self catering, caravan and touring holiday accommodation (see Appendix H)

• Permanent and transit Gypsy & Traveller sites (Appendix G) • Hotels within 400m depending on specific circumstances e.g. with

car parks available for public use Table 1:The Main Urban Effects on Lowland Heaths in Dorset

Reduction in area

Mid 18C c36,000 ha to 1996 7373 ha (Webb and others 2000).

Fragmentation of heaths

Fragmentation of heaths 768 fragments, 88% < 10ha (Webb & Haskins 1980).

Supporting habitats

Less semi-natural habitat adjoining heaths.

Predation Cat/rat predation on ground nesting birds and reptiles.

Disruption to hydrology

Diversion of pre-existing natural water sources away from heathland catchments. Rapid run-off onto heaths from urban areas.

Pollution Changes in pH of water supplies to heathland. Enrichment and pollutants from urban run-off. Pollutants from overflows, spills, accidents

Sand and gravel working with land-fill after use

Mineral working destroying habitat and disrupting hydrology. Polluted water can leak from landfill.

Enrichment Dog excrement causes vegetation change along sides of paths. Rubbish dumping by roads and from gardens.

Roads Increased fire risk from car thrown cigarettes. Pollution/enrichment causing vegetation change from vehicles in transport corridor. Roads forming barriers to species mobility. Road kills increasing mortality rates. Noise and light pollution from traffic.

Service infrastructures both over and under

Disturbance during construction and maintenance. Leakage from underground pipes and sewers. Changes to heathland hydrology. Poles providing bird predator look-out posts.

4

heathland

Disturbance Changes in breeding bird and animal distributions. Reduction in breeding success of birds/animals.

Trampling Changes to vegetation. Creation of bare areas and subsequent soil erosion. Damage to bare ground reptile and invertebrate habitats and populations. Increases in path and track networks. Damage to archaeological features.

Fire Increased frequency of fires with majority in spring and summer. Long term vegetation changes. Increased mortality of heathland animals/birds. Fragmentation/reduction of habitat on heaths.

Vandalism Vandalism Damage to signs and fences.

Public hostility to conservation management

Opposition to management e.g. tree felling, fencing and grazing.

Management costs

Greatly increased management costs on urban heaths.

3.5 In the area between 400m and 5 km measured as a straight line from

the boundary of a protected heath, see plan attached at Appendix B and Appendix C 400m Consultation Area, Natural England considers that local authorities undertaking appropriate assessment will still identify a significant adverse effect in combination with other proposals, but that avoidance or mitigation measures can allow development to be approved. Mitigation of this effect will encompass bringing forward Heathland Infrastructure Projects e.g. Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANGs), measures to divert recreational pressure away from heathland, access management measures and resources to enable the aforementioned to be implemented. It is in this area between 400m and 5km that the SPD applies.

5

4. The Scale of the Problem 4.1 The housing figures for each of the local authorities have been tested

and incorporated into adopted development plans. The housing requirements and outstanding numbers for each authority are set out in the table below.

4.2 Poole and Purbeck are currently undertaking reviews of their Local Plans, and this may lead to a change in the housing requirements set out in Table 2. Any such changes will be considered through the Local Plan review process, and will be subject to public consultation and independent examination. Impacts on the Dorset Heathlands will be fully considered as part of this process. This SPD will be reviewed and revised, if necessary, following the adoption of any revised Local Plans by any of the Local Authorities.

Table 2: Local Plan Housing Numbers

Local Authority

Plan requirement

Start/End date Outstanding requirement from

1 April 201410 Bournemouth 14,600 2006-2026 6,815

Christchurch & East Dorset

8,490 2013-2028 8,024

Poole 10,000 2006-2026 5,715

Purbeck 2,520 2006-2027 1,432

Total 35,610 21,986

4.3 In addition to impacts from housing, the Dorset Heathlands avoidance

and mitigation measures will also need to cover the impacts generated from the other uses identified in paragraph 3.4, although it is recognised that the numbers coming forward relative to the overall housing requirement is likely to be small.

4.4 Each of the local authority’s adopted Plans is accompanied by a Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) which sets out the measures that need to be provided to enable development to be delivered in South East Dorset. Together the HRAs provide both a consistent record of the approach to avoidance and mitigation and in varying levels of detail to the type and nature of projects required.

4.5 The measures needed to allow development need to be in place whilst the adverse effects are arising. At this time Natural England advise that for residential development this means “in-perpetuity” and hence resources are secured accordingly. However, the element of monitoring established allows for the adjustment of measures in the future based upon the evidence gathered.

10 Outstanding requirement is calculated by subtracting the number of new units completed and those under construction from the plan requirement figure.

6

5. Enabling Development: The Dorset Heathlands Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy

5.1 Since January 2007 the local authorities in South East Dorset have been operating a strategy based on delivering a range of measures to mitigate the significant adverse effects of residential development while bringing forward individual Local Plans/Core Strategies. Each of the local authorities now has an up to date plan which sets out a consistent policy approach across the wider area. This document sets out the approach to enabling development through the implementation of measures to avoid likely significant effects on the Dorset Heathlands in South East Dorset. The strategy is a long term approach with the SPD setting out a five year rolling programme of measures.

5.2 The strategy consists of: • Heathland Infrastructure Projects (HIPs) • Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM)

Heathland Infrastructure Projects (HIPs)

5.3 HIPs are projects that provide facilities to attract people away from protected heathland sites. Projects are tailored to the specific needs that have been identified through the HRAs of the local authority’s local plans as being requirements for the avoidance or mitigation of adverse effects from development. Of these projects SANGs (Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces) are the most significant element of provision, having a key role in attracting residents away from the Dorset Heaths. Other projects are likely to be more bespoke to local areas and for example may consist of creating linkages between open green spaces, recreational facilities such as BMX tracks or fire access measures.

5.4 HIPs will be delivered by either the local authorities from contributions collected through Community Infrastructure Levy payments and/or directly by developers through on site provision. Third parties may bring forward proposals for consideration by the local authorities and Natural England. Given the size and importance given to delivering SANGs, guidance for their provision is set out in Appendix E and at Appendix F is an advice note to applicants on SANGs when making a planning application.

5.5 For large sites of approximately 50 or more dwellings provision of SANGs should form part of the overall infrastructure provision of that site, particularly where urban extensions or development on greenfield sites are proposed. Within the built up area brownfield sites are unlikely to be able to accommodate the scale of space required for a SANG and would therefore make a contribution through either s106 or CIL towards HIP provision. It is expected that HIP provision should be delivered in advance of occupation of dwellings, as is reasonably possible, to ensure that there is no likely significant effect on the Dorset Heaths. For larger proposals mitigation may be structured so as to tie in with development phasing.

7

5.6 Natural England and the local planning authorities seek early engagement with applicants to allow full consideration at the pre-application stage.

Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) 5.6 SAMM forms the second strand of the strategy for avoidance and

mitigation of adverse effects on the Dorset Heathlands. In order to secure SAMM for the lifetime of the development contributions will be required from all development, through either s106 or CIL, where there is a net increase in dwellings, or potentially other uses as set out in paragraph 3.4, regardless of whether HIPs are on site or provided by the local authorities or other landowner by way of contribution.

5.7 Given that the Dorset Heaths are found across South East Dorset and within and across authorities’ boundaries a strategic approach to access management is required to ensure that displacement does not occur from one area to another. Inevitably, and as the evidence demonstrates, there are pressures from development within one local authority which are exported to heathland in a neighbouring authority’s area. Since 2007 there has been a joint approach to strategic access management and this will continue with each of the local authorities contributing to the Urban Heaths Partnership which will operate as the strategic co-ordinating element of SAMM. Each authority will then be responsible for making arrangements for day to day management measures within their areas.

8

6. Paying for the Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy 6.1 The introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) has broken

the direct link between development and mitigation. However, for development that would otherwise lead to significant adverse effects to the Dorset Heathlands, a relationship needs to be established between otherwise harmful development and necessary avoidance and mitigation measures to ensure development is Habitats Directive compliant.

6.2 The local authorities have either implemented, or are, progressing with the implementation of CIL. Poole and Purbeck, the two authorities to have introduced CIL, have to date taken the line that all measures will be paid for through CIL with the two authorities ‘top slicing’ their CIL income for heathland avoidance and mitigation. The other authorities i.e. Bournemouth, Christchurch and East Dorset are at different stages in developing their CIL schedules but all are likely to have it operating by late 2015. However, there is a view among some authorities that the SAMM element does not fall within the definition of infrastructure and therefore should not be delivered through CIL.

6.3 Purbeck District Council has recently adopted its CIL Charging Schedule and Priorities for Spending (March 2014). The Purbeck Regulation 123 list, which was examined as part of the CIL Charging Schedule, identifies that visitor access management, wardening, education, and monitoring will be funded via CIL, and hence contributions towards this will not be sought through s106. Purbeck will therefore be using CIL to pay for all eligible elements of Heathland mitigation, including SAMM. Further, in Purbeck there is the expectation that private landowners, developers or other suitable bodies retain SANGs and cover the lifetime cost of their management and maintenance and not transfer these to the local authority.

6.4 The Bournemouth, Christchurch, East Dorset and Poole Councils consider that given the uncertainty surrounding the relationship between SAMM and CIL it is prudent to separate SAMM out from CIL. Therefore, for these authorities, monies collected through CIL will be used to provide the HIPs element of the strategy and s106 planning obligations will be used to pay for SAMM. All dwellings requiring permission where there is a net increase, including those requiring prior approval, will be subject to the SAMM charge (Appendix J).

9

7. The Level of Contributions for Strategic Access Management and Monitoring

7.1 Contributions for SAMM will be required within Bournemouth, Christchurch, East Dorset and Poole through a s.106 planning obligation. There will be no additional SAMM charge in Purbeck. To provide certainty to those considering or making applications for residential development and to ensure transparency and accountability a formulae approach has been adopted that sets out a mechanism for the calculation of the planning obligation. A standard charge is proposed that will provide the clarity required by developers, the owners of land and the general public thus avoiding unnecessary delay in the negotiation of planning obligations. The SPD has been prepared having regard to the tests set out in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and subsequent amendments, in particular Regulation 122 which transposes into law three tests previously found in Circular 05/2005 i.e. that the contribution is necessary, directly related and fairly and reasonable related in scale and kind to the development.

7.2 The cost of SAMM is made up of two elements: 1. The funding of a core team to provide a co-ordinating role for

SAMM, educational activities, wardening, volunteer arrangements and monitoring

2. Cost of employing wardens 7.3 For elements 1 and 2 these costs will be apportioned across the five

local authorities with Purbeck’s element deducted from the base costs used to calculate the s106 cost (Table 3). The total cost over the 14 year period is calculated at £4.3m. The cost of SAMM varies between authorities depending upon the level of mitigation that is required (Table 4) and therefore influences the standard charge to be applied.

Table 3: Combined Strategic Access, Management and Monitoring Costs

Year 1 Cost (£) 14 year Cost (£) Core Team 132,937 2,215,601*

Monitoring 12,296 172,144

SPA Bird Surveys 8,400 117,600

Wardening 108,423 1,790,149*

Total 262,057 4,295,494 N.B. Figures exclude Purbeck District Council’s contribution *Cost includes provision for inflation

10

Table 4: Costs by Local Authority

Bournemouth Poole CBC/EDDC Year 1 cost (£) 104,666 83,770 73,621

14 Year costs (£) inc. inflation

1,730,629 1,365,458 1,199,377

No. of dwellings over 14 years11

6,940 5,525 7,097

SAMM cost per dwelling (£)

249 247 169

N.B. These figures cover base costs for delivering SAMM only 7.4 The contribution is based upon a standard charge for Bournemouth

and Poole and a separate rate for Christchurch and East Dorset. This will cover the SAMM costs set out in Tables 3 and 4 above for each authority with adjustment for the different occupancy rate for houses and flats. It is calculated based on the forecast increase in population12 over the period 2014/15 to 2027/2813 and will only apply to dwellings, including houses, flats and maisonettes. Other accommodation types listed in paragraph 3.4 which fall within a separate planning use class will be subject to assessment outside of the mechanism established in this document. Guidance for certain development types can be found in Appendices D, G, H and I. The obligation will be calculated on the basis of a net increase in dwellings i.e. discounting the cost of the existing residential unit on site, for example, if a dwellinghouse is to be replaced by 10 flats then the calculation would be:

10 x cost of a flat minus the cost of 1 house

7.5 The standard charge will ensure that it covers the SAMM costs on a

yearly basis. It also has regard to future ‘in perpetuity’ costs that may arise as a result of development. Any additional funding that may be required to cover in-perpetuity costs will be addressed by each local authority as and when it arises. The charge has a 20% premium added to help meet future costs and to help smooth out housing delivery rates over time.

11 Numbers taken from Table 2, deduction of a percentage non implementation rate (BBC 10%; Poole 0%; CBC/EDDC 5%) and addition of 2 years average supply for BBC and Poole to cover 2036-28 12 ONS 2012 sub national population projections 13 This is the plan period for the recently adopted Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan. For the other authorities additional housing requirement has been added to the outstanding housing requirement within their plan periods to give a 14 year housing requirement across the four authorities

11

Table 5:Assumed income

Bournemouth Poole CBC/EDDC Min. cost/dw to cover all costs £249 £247 £169

Adjusted rates based on occupancy: House @ 2.42 Flat @ 1.65

£296 £202

£201 £137

Assumed % House/flat split

15% Houses 85% Flats

50% Houses

50% Flats

60% Houses 40% Flats

Income for all dwellings adjusted based on occupancy

1,499,739 1,389,420 1,244,801

Income per year (divided by 14 years) 107,124 99,240 88,914

20% uplift to allow for under performance and future years costs: House: Flat:

£355 £242

£241 £164

Total Income 1,797,113 1,649,213 1,491,774

Income per year 128,365 117,801 106,555

7.6 The standard charge will be:

• For Bournemouth and Poole: £355 per house : £242 per flat

• For Christchurch and East Dorset: £241 per house

: £164 per flat

N.B. These charges will be index linked and adjusted on the anniversary of commencement of the SPD.

7.7 Any contribution will need to be contained within a Section 106 planning obligation whether this is through an agreement or unilateral undertaking. An additional administrative charge14 to cover the cost of collection and distribution of the obligation will be applied at a standard rate reflecting the work involved in administering the obligation payable at the following rate (The charge excludes any legal costs that are

14 The administrative charge excludes the recovery of individual local authority legal costs where these are incurred

12

incurred in respect of the completion of the deed that secures the planning obligation.): • 5% of the total contribution payable on commencement of

development • Administrative payments are subject to a minimum charge of £75

and capped to a limit of £1,000 per contribution type 7.8 Contributions will be spent in a timely manner to ensure that mitigation

is delivered as close as possible to occupation of new residential development.

13

8. Model Clauses for Planning Obligations 8.1 The use of a standard clause for either an agreement or unilateral

undertaking by the four local authorities (Bournemouth, Christchurch, East Dorset and Poole) will be in the interest of all involved and will help speed up delivery. For the purposes of the obligation the s106 clause could be worded: “the Dorset Heathland contribution” means the sum of ( ) thousand ( ) hundred and ( ) Pounds increased by the percentage (if any)by the Retail Price Index shall have increased between the date of publication prior to the date of this Deed and the date of payment together with an administrative fee of £(pounds) towards measures which avoid or mitigate against any adverse effect of the Development on the Dorset Heathlands in accordance with the Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document 2015 - 2020. For the avoidance of doubt such sum or any part of thereof shall not be reimbursed to the party or to any other party.

8.2 The obligation could then be worded: “The Owner hereby Covenants with the Council that he will not cause or permit the commencement of the development on the land until the Dorset Heathland Contribution has been paid to the Council.”

8.3 For strategically significant sites delivering large numbers of residential units the obligation may be worded differently to reflect payment of the contribution on a phased basis.

14

9. Administration and Audit Trail a. The SPD will be adopted by the South East Dorset local

authorities. b. Each authority will be responsible for the delivery of mitigation in

their areas through provision of HIPs and SAMM. A proportion of funds collected in each authority will be pooled to ensure that the SAMM element is coordinated across boundaries to ensure efficient and effective mitigation. It is also possible for authorities to agree to fund HIPs outside their area if they consider this, in agreement with Natural England, to be the best way to provide mitigation.

c. The Dorset Heaths Advisory Group (The Group) will be a vehicle for joint working, liaison and information sharing between local authorities and other partners with an interest in the Dorset Heaths International sites. The Group will make recommendations to the local authorities on appropriate measures to avoid or mitigate the adverse effects of urban pressure on the Dorset Heathlands international sites that result from planning decisions. This Group will be supported by an officer group. The Group provides an overview of the avoidance and mitigation scheme to ensure that each authority is undertaking the necessary works and it is effectively working across the whole area. Progress on implementation will be reported in the Annual Monitoring Reports of the local authorities.

d. In Bournemouth, Christchurch, East Dorset and Poole contributions will be required from all qualifying developments from adoption of the new SPD unless avoidance and mitigation measures have been agreed as overcoming any significant effects of a proposed development. In Purbeck, eligible Heathland mitigation (including Strategic Access Management and Monitoring) will be funded through CIL. The proposed mitigation at Appendix A may be varied through the on-going review process, but crucially Natural England will need to be satisfied that the necessary overall level of mitigation is achieved.

e. Each of the partner local authorities is responsible for the collection of contributions through their role as local planning authority. The financial responsibilities of local authorities also require them to administer the contributions in an accountable and transparent way.

f. Funding of the strategic team will be via direct payment to Dorset County Council, the employing body of the Urban Heaths Partnership.

15

Appendix A: List of Mitigation Projects Proposed

Heathland Infrastructure Projects

Ref Project Description Area (ha) new access created

Catchment area

Bournemouth 1 Stour Valley Masterplan -New

Connections

The Habitat Regulations Assessment of the Local Plan Core Strategy concludes that the mitigation identified in Core Strategy Policy CS36 ‘Stour Valley Project’ will be required to mitigate adverse effects. Implementation of the policy is identified as a key strategic project in the South East Dorset Green Infrastructure Strategy. (a) Raise awareness of the Stour Valley as a Suitable Alternative

Green Space. Produce an integrated branding and interpretation plan. Benchmarking of route knowledge. Create a Stour Valley Way digital portal, with web site, digital interaction hot spots, downloadable routes, smart phone links to digital information, including Dorset Dogs website. Design branded waymarking and signage, interpretation boards, educational content and themed leaflets to create a cohesive awareness of the Stour Valley Trail.

Improved access to the Stour Valley Way within Bournemouth – 18.7km linear trail

>5km South East Dorset

2 Stour Valley Masterplan – Hengistbury Head to Tuckton

(b) New and upgraded routes through Hengistbury Head to Tuckton Bridge via Solent Meads and Wick. Create circular routes via Solent Beach and Whitepits. Introduction of Accessible for all routeways, gateways and viewing points, seating and signage.

1.3km of new routes 2.5km of upgraded routes Improved access to 20 hectares


3 Stour Valley Masterplan – Iford Meadows & playing fields

(c) New and upgraded routes through Iford Playing Fields and Iford Meadows LNR. Introduction of Accessible for all routeways, gateways and viewing points, seating and signage.

2.8km of new routes 1.5km of upgraded routes Improved access to 32 hectares

>5km Bournemouth and Christchurch

4 Stour Valley Masterplan – Berry Hill To Pig Shoot Lane

(d) New and upgraded routes from Berry Hill to Pig Shoot Lane via Throop weir. Improved connections between Christchurch and

2.0km of new / improved routes

>5km Bournemouth,

16

Bournemouth Introduction of Accessible for all routeways, gateways and viewing points, seating and signage.


East Dorset and Christchurch

5 Stour Valley Masterplan – North Bournemouth LNR

(e) New and upgraded routes through Millhams Mead, Stour Valley and Redhill Common Local Nature Reserves. Installation of accessible for all routeways, gateways and viewing points, seating and signage.

Potential to create 13.6km of new / improved routes Improve access to 79 Hectares

>5km Bournemouth and East Dorset

6 Stour Valley Masterplan – Sheepwash (f) New and upgraded routes through and along Stour banks between Christchurch and Bournemouth around Sheepwash

Introduction of Accessible for all routeways, gateways and viewing points, seating and signage.

Potential 32 Hectares 3 km of new/ improved routes

>5km Bournemouth and Christchurch

7 Stour Valley Masterplan – North Bournemouth Gateways

(g) North Bournemouth Gateways – Cherry Tree Nursery, Stour Acre Barn, Hicks Farm.

Contribute towards the development of major & minor gateways on the northern reaches of the Stour. Installation of entrance gates, benches, car parking, cycle racks, signage and way finding features.



8 Stour Valley Masterplan – River Crossing

(h) Create pedestrian / cycleway crossing to link Stour valley trails north and south of the river at Ensbury / Parley boundary.


>5km Bournemouth and East Dorset

Christchurch 8 Chewton Common Delivery of Phase 1 of access and capacity improvements to provide

SANG, including fencing, clearing, planting, signage, small car park, seating and interpretation display.

10.6ha (Phase 1, Area A)

Highcliffe, Hinton, Wingfields, Chewton, Naish + Bransgore

East Dorset 9 Woolslope Farm Phase 2 Further development of SANG to 'furnish' the site to increase

attractiveness. Works include the provision of new (min) 25 space car park; access link to connect car park to path network and Station Rd; visibility improvements to facilitate car park work; provision of multi-use litter bins; on site security improvements to prevent traveller incursion. There is a possibility of Phase 3 works to include a new ‘Highway’ crossing over Station Road to link west and east

15.5h of existing open space already designated as SANG associated

Ferndown; West Moors; Ashley Heath; (total estimated population

17

West Moors; links to Ferndown & the Castleman Trailway beyond. Meyrick development on adjacent land would add a wet woodland . Potentially there would have to be network paths included in future open space development

10 Ferndown BMX Area at King George VI playing fields

Contribution to FTC to further develop BMX facilities to reduce impacts of BMX on adjacent SSSIs. This contributes towards the scheme being developed by Ferndown Town Council.

0.65h, associated with other indoor & outdoor recreational activities (Car parking at Leisure Centre

Ferndown, West Parley & parts of West Moors

11 Springdale Road, Corfe Mullen Purchase land to secure (in perpetuity) access onto Upton Common from existing car park.

Area of 4.085h leased by EDDC from owner (Canford Estates)

Corfe Mullen, Beacon Hill, Sturminster Marshall

Poole 12 Upton Park SANG Delivery of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace 30 >5km South

East Dorset 13 Delph Woods Phase 3 Extend and improve access for the general public 9.1 <5km Poole’s

north western and central wards

14 Bourne Valley Dog Activity Area To provide alternative location for dog owners to exercise their dogs 0 1km 15 Turlin Moor Dog Activity Area To provide alternative location for dog owners to exercise their dogs 0 1km Purbeck 16 Strategic SANG at Swanage HRA identifies a need for a strategic SANG to the north of Swanage.

Short - medium term. 30ha 5km

17 Upton Woods cycle crossing Create cycle crossing to link up with cycle network and divert users from heath. Short – medium term.

1500m

18 Strategic SANG in the north of the District

HRA identifies a need for a strategic SANG in the north of the District. Medium – long term.

30ha 5km

19 Strategic SANG to the south west of Wool

HRA identifies a need for a strategic SANG to the south west of Wool. Medium – long term.

30ha 5km

18

Access and Fire Management Projects

Ref Project Description Catchment

area Local Authority area

Bournemouth 1 Access

Improvements to Bournemouth Green Spaces - Historic Parks

Heathland Mitigation can be achieved by improving access within and between the boroughs Green Spaces and creating connections to Green Infrastructure in adjoining Local Authority areas. This project may be achieved through the use of matched funding. Location of improvements to include;

Connecting Historic Parks; Access improvements to Kings Park, Queens Park, Littledown and Strouden Creation of wildlife viewing opportunities. Creation of dog friendly areas. Creation of improved recreation facilities.

Potential to link 131 Hectares and create 9km of new routeways

1km - Bournemouth Eastern wards

2 Access Improvements to Bournemouth Green Spaces - Chines,

Stream & Coast


Create circular routes between coastal paths and Bourne Valley through Branksome, Alum, Middle and Durley Chines.

Improved access to 7km of routeways

1km – Bournemouth’s Western wards & Poole’s Eastern wards

3 Access Improvements to Bournemouth Green Spaces - Horseshoe

Common


New routes through the northern section of Horseshoe Common. Creation of dog friendly areas. Provision of fitness trails.

Create 700m of new routes Improved access to 3.2 hectares

1km - Bournemouth Central wards

4 Access Improvements to Bournemouth Green Spaces - Slades Farm

Recreation Area


Improvements to recreation facilities at Slades Farm and Talbot Wood, including enhancement to BMX & Skateboard facilities. Enhancement of wildlife viewing opportunities by creation of wildlife pond, wildflower meadows and woodland walks.

Potential to improve access to 25 hectares recreation space and 3.3km of improved routeways

1km – Bournemouth North & West wards and Poole East wards

5 Access Heathland Mitigation can be achieved by improving access within and between the Potential to 1km –

19

Improvements to Bournemouth Green Spaces - Duck Lane

Recreation Area

boroughs Green Spaces and creating connections to Green Infrastructure in adjoining Local Authority areas. These projects may be achieved through the use of matched funding. Location of improvements to include;

Creation of BMX & skateboard facilities at Duck Lane Enhancement of wildlife viewing opportunities by creation of new landscaped areas for wildlife.

improve access to 1.5 hectares of recreation space and 500m of improved routeways

Bournemouth North & West wards and Poole East wards

Christchurch 6 Stour Valley Way

Stage 1 Improve access links adjacent to Stour Valley, providing linkages to Bournemouth and East Dorset conurbation (Includes the Iford project (24) originally identified for the Stour Valley greenway scheme). Stage 1 comprises the section at Hurn and linkages to arterial routes to/from Stour Valley Way West Moors via Woolslope/Ford Lane, Tricketts Cross & Eco to Chapel Gate. Elements of scheme inc, perimeter pathway to rear of Airport complex & toucan cross over Parley Lane Strategy links from Xch Quay to the borough boundary.

4.9h of public open space at River Way and Iford + associated open space (77.5h owned by CBC) with path networks to Stour Valley Way, Sheepwash (BBC) and Holdenhurst Village (BBC)

West Christchurch inc St Catherine’s Hill & Hurn; Bournemouth (esp Holdenhurst Village, Iford, Littledown, Boscombe East, Queens Park, Muscliffe, Redcliffe, Townsend & Throop)

7 Interactive Visitor Engagement Strategy

Provision of QR references, mapping, web based access information.

Cumulative total would but include all open space areas within EDDC & CBC

Christchurch borough

8 Coastal Access Link

Creation of new shared cycle / footpath and better linkages to Highcliffe Castle.

58h inc access to Highcliffe Castle, Steamer Point Woodland (LNR)

Mudeford, Friars Cliff, Steamer Point, Highcliffe Castle, Highcliffe, Chewton, Naish

9 Mude Valley Link Stage 1 (Mudeford Wood)

Mudeford Wood Access Improvements (As part of Mude Valley Link). 10.8.h inc MudeValley green space, playing pitches and associated public open

Friars Cliff, Mudeford, Somerford, Hoburne, Hawthornes

20

space East Dorset 10 Interactive Visitor

Engagement Strategy

Provision of QR references, mapping, web based access information.

Cumulative total would but include all open space areas within EDDC & CBC

East Dorset District

Poole 11 Arrowsmith

Coppice Access works and improvements to coppice to make it more attractive for general public. Linked to Great Heath project

0 5km north western and central wards

12 Sherborn Open Space

Improvements to access and attractiveness to enable site to become an interceptor of trips to Canford Heath

0 1km Canford Heath wards

Purbeck 13 Visitor

management at Arne /Stoborough/ Hartland heathland complex

Following Nature Improvement Area visitor survey and recreation strategy for the area, PDC is working with RSPB, National Trust and Natural England to look at on-site and access management projects. Short – medium term.

5km +

Purbeck

14 Access management at Winfrith Heath

PDC to work with DWT to minimize opportunities for diffuse car parking. Short – medium term.

1500m Purbeck

15 Access management at Studland

PDC to discuss options with National Trust about access management at Ferry Road. Medium – long term.

5km Purbeck

Revenue Funding

1. Costs of providing Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (including

contributions towards core team costs, and costs of wardening and monitoring). All Councils

21

Appendix B: Dorset Heathland designated as European Wildlife Sites

23

Appendix C

400m Consultation Area

Applications or consultations for additional residential development within 400m of the Dorset Heathlands SPA, Ramsar and Dorset Heaths SAC A recent Legal Opinion has considered the approach taken in Dorset, this note sets out advice to officers and applicants on the consideration of proposals in this area.

1. The existing 400m Consultation Area remains a valid area on which authorities should continue to consult Natural England about additional residential units as this is the most sensitive area.

2. The factors to be considered include: • General context of the proposal, urban/rural and the nature of the land between the

site and the protected heathland • Consideration of the proposals access arrangements • Alternative greenspace opportunities • Rights of Way

3. The location/size of the actual dwelling relative to the 400m straight line area will not be a consideration.

Principle objective: No net increase in residential units including their curtilage within the straight line 400m area. Some examples are presented below to assist in the consideration of proposals. The application sites, edged blue, all fall in the 400m Consultation Area, edged black, so the local planning authority will need to consult Natural England. The straight line 400m area is edged red. Example 1: The access point, hence curtilage, for the new dwellings brings residents into the 400m straight line area, closer to the protected heathland and would be considered contrary to local plan policy.

Figure 1: The heathland lies to the left side of the plan and the two properties fall within the Consultation Area, the site is accessed into the 400m area.

24

Example 2. In this case there is no net increase in dwellings in the 400m straight line area and access does not lead into this area. The existing and proposed dwellings will be within the 400m Consultation Area but the proposed dwelling would fall outside the 400m straight line area and is therefore in accordance with local plan policy.

Example 3: The net effect of this proposal is an increase in dwellings in the 400m straight line area and it would be considered to be contrary to local plan policy.

Figure 2: The heathland lies to the left side of the plan the existing property lies in the 400m Consultation Area, the site is accessed away from the 400m area.

Figure 3: The heathland lies to the bottom of the plan, the existing property lies in the 400m Consultation Area, the site is accessed away from the 400m area.

25

Example 4: The existing large plot is in the 400m Consultation Area but a new plot is located and accessed wholly outside the 400m straight line area. This will not lead to an increase in dwellings in the 400m straight line area is therefore in accordance with local plan policy.

Figure 4: The heathland lies to the top of the plan, the existing large property lies in the 400m Consultation Area, the site is accessed away from the 400m area.

26

Appendix D

Natural England Advice for Use Class C2 proposals

A. Within 400m of protected heathland Developments within the C2 class (i.e. residential care homes, hospitals, nursing homes, boarding schools, residential colleges and training centres) will be considered on a case by case basis and Natural England will advise whether an appropriate assessment would be required, taking into account the potential ‘in combination effect. In general, developments such as hospitals and nursing homes would not be considered to have a likely significant effect with regard to recreational impacts. The types of C2 residential accommodation that could be considered acceptable within 400m of protected heaths are as follows: 1. Purpose built schemes for the frail elderly where there is an element of close care provided on

site 24 hours a day. This level of care is above that of provision of an on-site wardening service provided for sheltered accommodation. It would be expected that there would normally be an age restriction of 60+years for the occupants of the units and that the planning permission would be conditioned in such a way that the units could not become open market housing. Experience from schemes of this nature indicates that in order to provide 24 hour care the minimum number of units is generally around 40 and the scheme will also have communal facilities. Authorities should consider requiring a covenant restricting pet ownership where it is in their view an effective measure in reducing the risk of adverse effects of predation and disturbance

2. Purpose built schemes for the accommodation of disabled people, for example a care home for people with dementia, where by the nature of the residents’ disabilities, they are unlikely to have any impact on the adjacent protected heaths.

The above categories would not generally be required to provide a financial contribution through the Heathland SPD if located within or beyond 400m from protected heathland. The planning authority will need to be mindful of the net change in residential occupancy in relation to carers residing on the site. The use of pet covenants or other suitable legally binding agreements by authorities is considered acceptable by Natural England in these specific situations as: 1. The nature of the establishment is such that pressure from residents to own pets is likely to be

very low creating an acceptable risk. 2. In the context of a residential care home with 24 hour wardening, enforcement is seen as

being achievable in terms of time taken to detect infringements and resources on site to achieve enforcement outcomes.

Natural England advice to local authorities is that planning conditions should be attached to permissions as follows: 1. The applicant/management body will provide a biannual written confirmation to the LPA

detailing the compliance with the pet covenant, the number of residents and their age. 2. The applicant/management body will prevent, through design and enforcement measures, the

use of onsite car parking for public use for accessing nearby heathlands. Natural England advises the local authorities to be aware that this advice does not relate to other significant effects on the international sites such as considerations related to surface water discharge from the application sites. These will require case by case consideration in consultation with Natural England. Natural England advises the authority to be aware that this advice does not apply to matters related to species protected by law.

27

B: Between 400m and 5km Use Class C2 applications in the 400m to 5km area that would not fall into the categories identified in A above, this may include retirement homes where the occupants are still active, will need to be assessed on a case by case basis to assess the potential impact of such development. Where significant adverse effects are identified then development will be expected to demonstrate how it will avoid or mitigate such effects or alternatively may apply the financial contribution mechanism set out within the main body of this SPD. It may be reasonable for local authorities to conclude that such units of accommodation are comparable to additional residential flats. Mitigation contributions should also be secured where there is additional on-site staff accommodation provided.

28

Appendix E

Guidelines for the establishment of Suitable Accessible Natural Greenspace (SANG) Quality Standards for the Dorset Heaths

INTRODUCTION ‘Suitable Accessible Natural Greenspace’ (SANG) is the name given to green space that is of a quality and type suitable to be used as mitigation for applications likely to affect the Dorset Heathlands European and internationally protected sites. The provision of SANGs is one of a range of mitigation measures, a number of which are detailed in the Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework SPD, which the south east Dorset Planning Authorities and Natural England consider offer an effective means of avoiding or mitigating harm from a number of urban effects. Its role is to provide alternative green space to divert visitors away from the Dorset Heathlands Special Protection Area (SPA), the two Dorset Heaths SACs and the Dorset Heathlands Ramsar (collectively called the ‘Dorset Heathlands’ in these guidelines). SANGs are intended to provide mitigation for the likely impact of residential type developments on the Dorset Heathlands by preventing an increase in visitor pressure. The effectiveness of SANGs as mitigation will depend upon its location and design. These must be such that the SANGs is more attractive than the Dorset Heathlands to visitors of the kind that currently visit them. These guidelines describe the features which have been found to draw visitors to the Dorset Heathlands, which should be replicated in SANGs: • the type of site which should be identified as SANGs • measures which can be taken to enhance sites so that they may be used as SANGs These guidelines relate specifically to the means to provide mitigation for development of a residential nature within or close to 5km of the Dorset Heathlands. They do not address nor preclude the other functions of green space (e.g. provision of disabled access). Other functions may be provided within SANGs, as long as this does not conflict with the specific function of mitigating visitor impacts on the Dorset Heathlands. SANGs may be created from: • existing open space of SANGs quality with no existing public access or limited public access,

which for the purposes of mitigation could be made fully accessible to the public • existing open space which is already accessible but which could be changed in character so

that it is more attractive to the specific group of visitors who might otherwise visit the Dorset Heathlands

• land in other uses which could be converted into SANGs The identification of SANGs should seek to avoid sites of high nature conservation value which are likely to be damaged by increased visitor numbers. Such damage may arise, for example, from increased disturbance, erosion, input of nutrients from dog faeces, and increased incidence of fires. Where sites of high nature conservation value are considered as SANGs, the impact on their nature conservation value should be assessed and considered alongside relevant policy in the core strategy/local plan. THE CHARACTER OF THE DORSET HEATHLANDS AND ITS VISITORS The Dorset Heathlands are made up of 42 Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and consists of a mixture of open heathland and mire with some woodland habitats. The topography is varied with some prominent viewpoints. Many sites contain streams, ponds and small lakes and though some have open landscapes with few trees others have scattered trees and areas of woodland. Most sites are freely accessible to the public though in some areas access is restricted by army, or other operations. Surveys have shown that about half of visitors to the Dorset Heathlands arrive by car and about half on foot. Where sites are close to urban development around Poole and Bournemouth, foot access tends to be most common. On rural sites in Purbeck and East Dorset, more visitors come

29

by car. Some 75% of those who visited by car had come from 5.3km of the access point onto the heathlands. A very large proportion of the Dorset Heathland visitors are dog walkers, many of whom visit the particular site on a regular (i.e. multiple visits per week) basis and spend less than an hour there, walking on average about 2.2km. Further detailed information on visitors can be found in the reports referenced at the end of this document. GUIDELINES FOR THE QUALITY OF SANG The quality guidelines have been sub-divided into different aspects of site fabric and structure. They have been compiled from a variety of sources but principally from visitor surveys carried out at heathland sites within the Dorset Heathlands and the Thames Basin Heaths. These are listed as references at the end of this appendix. The guidelines concentrate on the type of SANGs designed principally to cater for heathland dog walkers. Other important heathland mitigation measures, for example, facilities designed to attract motor cycle scramblers or BMX users away from heathlands or facilities for adventurous play for children are not covered specifically and will need to be considered on a case by case basis. The principle criteria contained in the Guidelines have also been put into a checklist format which can be found in a table at the end of this appendix. It is important to note that these Guidelines only cover the Quality of SANG provision. There are a number of other matters that will need to be agreed with Natural England and the Local Planning Authority including; Provision of In-Perpetuity Management of the SANG; SANG Capacity; and other Avoidance and Mitigation Measures as necessary. ACCESSIBILITY - REACHING THE SANG Most visitors reach the Dorset Heathlands either by foot or by car and the same will apply for SANGs. Thus SANGs may be intended principally for the use of a local population living within a 400 meter catchment around the site; or they may be designed primarily to attract visitors who arrive by car (they may also have both functions). SANG design needs to take into account the anticipated target group of visitors. For example, where large populations are close to the Dorset Heathlands the provision of SANGs may need to be attractive to visitors on foot. If intended to attract visitors arriving by car, the availability of adequate car parking is essential. Car parks may be provided specifically for a SANG or a SANG may make use of existing car parks but some existing car parks may have features incompatible with SANG use, such as car park charging. The amount and nature of parking provision should reflect the anticipated numbers and mode of arrival by visitors to the site and the catchment size of the SANGs. It is important that there is easy access between the car park and the SANG i.e. this is not impeded by, for example, a road crossing. Thus such SANGs should have a car park with direct access straight on to the SANG with the ability to take dogs safely from the car park to the SANG off the lead. Similarly, the nature of foot access between urban development and a SANG is important and green corridors reaching into the urban area can be an important part of facilitating access to the SANG. Key points: 1. Sites must have adequate parking for visitors, unless the site is intended for local pedestrian

use only, i.e. within easy walking distance (400m) of the developments linked to it. The amount of car parking space should be determined by the anticipated numbers using the site and arriving by car

2. Car parks must be easily and safely accessible by car, be of an open nature and should be clearly sign posted.

3. There should be easy access between the car park or housing and the SANG with the facility to take dogs safely from the car park to the SANG off the lead.

4. Access points should have signage outlining the layout of the SANGs and the routes available to visitors.

Paths, Tracks and other SANG infrastructure SANGs should aim to supply a choice of circular walking routes that provide an attractive alternative to those routes on heathlands in the vicinity (i.e. those heaths that the SANG is designed to attract visitors away from). Given the average length of walks on heathland, a

30

circular walk of 2.3-2.5km in length is necessary unless there are particular reasons why a shorter walk is considered still appropriate. Where possible a range of different length walks should be provided; a proportion of visitors walk up to 5km and beyond so walking routes longer than 2.5 km are valuable, either on-site or through the connection of sites along green corridors. Paths do not have to be of any particular width, and both vehicular-sized tracks and narrow paths are acceptable to visitors although narrow corridors where visitors/dogs may feel constrained should be avoided. The majority of visitors come alone and safety is one of their primary concerns. Paths should be routed so that they are perceived as safe by the visitors, with some routes being through relatively open (visible) terrain (with no trees or scrub, or well-spaced mature trees, or wide rides with vegetation back from the path), especially those routes which are 1-3 km long. A substantial number of visitors like to have surfaced but not tarmac paths, particularly where these blend in well with the landscape. This is not necessary for all paths but there should be some visitor-friendly, all weather routes built into the structure of a SANGs, particularly those routes which are 1-3 km long. Boardwalks may help with access across wet areas but excessive use of boardwalks, as may be necessary on sites which are mostly wet or waterlogged such as flood plain and grazing marsh, is likely to detract from the site’s natural feel. Other infrastructure specifically designed to make the SANG attractive to dog walkers may also be desirable but must not detract from a site’s relatively wild and natural feel. Measures could include accessible water bodies for dogs to swim/drink; dog bins, fencing near roads/car-parks etc. to ensure dog safety, clear messages regarding the need to ‘pick-up’, large areas for dogs to be off lead safely: 5. Paths must be easily used and well maintained but most should remain unsurfaced to avoid

the site becoming too urban in feel. A majority of paths should be suitable for use in all weathers and all year around. Boardwalks may be required in wet sections.

6. All SANGs with car parks must have a circular walk which starts and finishes at the car park. 7. It should be possible to complete a circular walk of 2.3-2.5km around the SANGs, and for

larger SANGs a variety of circular walks 8. SANGs must be designed so that visitors are not deterred by safety concerns. Advertising - making people aware of the SANG The need for some advertising is self-evident. Any advertising should make clear that the site is designed to cater specifically for dog walkers: 9. SANGs should be clearly sign-posted and advertised. 10. SANGs should have leaflets and/or websites advertising their location to potential visitors. It

would be desirable for leaflets to be distributed to new homes in the area and be made available at entrance points and car parks.

Landscape and Vegetation The open or semi wooded and undulating nature of most of the Dorset Heathland sites gives them an air of relative wildness, even when there are significant numbers of visitors on site. SANGs must aim to reproduce this quality but do not have to contain heathland or heathy vegetation. Surveys in the Thames Basin heath area show that woodland or a semi-wooded landscape is a key feature that people who use the SPA there appreciate. Deciduous woodland is preferred to coniferous woodland. In these circumstances a natural looking landscape with plenty of variation including both open and wooded areas is ideal for a SANG. There is clearly a balance to be struck between what is regarded as an exciting landscape and a safe one and so some element of choice between the two is desirable. Hills do not put people off visiting a site, particularly where these are associated with good views, but steep hills are not appreciated. An undulating landscape is preferred to a flat one. Water features, particularly ponds and lakes, act as a focus for visitors for their visit, but are not essential. The long term management of the SANG habitats should be considered at an early stage. Particularly for larger SANGs, and those with grasslands, grazing management is likely to be necessary.

31

A number of factors can detract from the essential natural looking landscape and SANGs that have an urban feel, for example where they are thin and narrow with long boundaries with urban development or roads, are unlikely to be effective: 11. SANGs must be perceived as natural spaces without intrusive artificial structures, except in

the immediate vicinity of car parks. Visually-sensitive way-markers and some benches are acceptable. SANGs must aim to provide a variety of habitats for visitors to experience (e.g. some of: woodland, scrub, grassland, heathland, wetland, open water).

12. Access within the SANGs must be largely unrestricted with plenty of space provided where it is possible for dogs to exercise freely and safely off lead.

13. SANGs must be free from unpleasant visual, auditory or olfactory intrusions (e.g. derelict buildings, intrusive adjoining buildings, dumped materials, loud intermittent or continuous noise from traffic, industry, sports grounds, sewage treatment works, waste disposal facilities).

REFERENCES LILEY, D., SHARP, J. & CLARKE, R. T. (2008). Access Patterns in South-east Dorset. Dorset Household Survey and Predictions of Visitor Use of Potential Greenspace Sites. Dorset Heathlands Development Plan Document. Unpublished report, Footprint Ecology. CLARKE, R.T., LILEY, D., UNDERHILL-DAY, J.C., & ROSE, R.J. (2005). Visitor access patterns on the Dorset Heaths. English Nature Research Report. LILEY, D., JACKSON, D., & UNDERHILL-DAY, J. C. (2006) Visitor access patterns on the Thames Basin Heaths. English Nature Research Report. LILEY, D., MALLORD, J., & LOBLEY, M. (2006) The “Quality” of Green Space: features that attract people to open spaces in the Thames Basin Heaths area. English Nature Research Report.

32

Site quality checklist Criteria Current Future

1 Parking on all sites unless the site is intended for use within 400m only

2 Car parks easily and safely accessible by car, open in nature and sign posted

3 Easy access between development or car park and SANG; able to safely let dog out of car into SANG

4 Access points with signage outlining the layout of the SANGS and routes available to visitors

5 Paths easily used and well maintained but mostly unsurfaced

6 Circular walk start and end at car park

7 Circular walk of between 2.3 - 2.5 km

8 SANG design so that they feel safe for visitors

9 Clearly sign posted or advertised in some way

10 Leaflets or website advertising their location to potential users

11 Perceived as semi natural space, without too much urban intrusion

12 Contains a variety of different habitats

13 Access unrestricted – plenty of space for dogs to exercise freely and safely off the lead

14 Site is free from unpleasant intrusions

33

Appendix F SANGs planning application principles

The following details will be required by Natural England and the LPA at the time at which a proposal is considered, this may be either at outline or a full application where outline has not been submitted. Natural England will need to advise the authority that full details of the mitigation proposed are considered and secured. 1. SANG maintenance and function should be secured and demonstrated to be in place for perpetuity

(effectively the development needs to maintain a level of mitigation for the duration of the plan, legal definitions of this period include 80 and 125 years).

2. Applications for developments requiring a SANG may require a CoU application for the SANG element, the applicant should agree the requirement with the LPA.

3. At the stage of considering the development element of the proposal eg outline the decision maker will need to be certain that the SANG is, suitable according to the SANG criteria, secured (ownership and management), can be managed in a suitable condition in perpetuity. This typically involves a draft S106 and a Master plan being submitted for agreement with Natural England and the LPA.

4. Where the application is at an outline stage the application should include details of SANG monitoring and its funding. Future SANG ownership and funding arrangements will need to be detailed.

5. The SANG land will have been assessed for its biodiversity features and the applicant will have confirmed that the proposal will not in principle lead to net harm to biodiversity. Where harm to biodiversity features is predicted then the capacity of the SANG will need to be adjusted.

6. A full SANG Management Plan will be required as part of a reserved matters application if not previously provided at outline stage. This will set out the implementation and maintenance of the SANG – it will record initial infrastructure (photographically) and management objectives by compartment. This will allow for future evolution of the SANG within the broad SANG criteria rather than a rigid approach.

7. If part or all of the SANG is already accessible to the public a visitor survey will need to be submitted as part of the application (outline or full where no-outline is submitted), and the SANG capacity discounted if necessary

8. Where a SANG is not co-located with a proposal Natural England will provide advice to the applicant concerning the SANG capacity/catchment on a case by case basis. Guidance is available from the Thames Basin Heaths mitigation approach.

Natural England will provide written confirmation to the relevant authority that the proposed measures (SANG, SAMM) are appropriate to secure the necessary avoidance and mitigation measures and have been secured for a duration proportionate to the timescale of the developments effects.

SANG Visitor Monitoring

Large developments may come forward in phases, monitoring should commence prior to first occupation where there is existing SANG use. It need not be when the land has no existing public access. Monitoring should be phased at two/three years after each substantive phase and also at five years after the development is completed. It may be the case that monitoring will need to include nearby heathland sites. The primary aims of visitor monitoring are to inform the SANG delivery and allow for adjustments as well as demonstrating the SANGs functionality and use by existing local residents. Effective monitoring will provide a robust baseline which can be observed in future strategic monitoring events.

From 5 years after the final phase of a development future SANG monitoring will be incorporated into the ongoing SAMM programme on a strategic basis.

SANG monitoring methodology may include visitor questionnaires, remote sensors and observational studies.

34

Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM)

The provision of SANG within walking distance of a new development provides one important element of the required long term avoidance/mitigation strategic approach in SE Dorset. The SANGs however are not intended to avoid all new residents accessing the protected sites, rather to enable a neutral level of visitor pressure with an equal proportion of existing heathland users being diverted. It is therefore necessary, as established in the Thames Basin Heaths area for applicants to secure SAMM relative to the level of residential development. As for SANGs the mitigation needs to be secured in perpetuity. The LPAs are currently facilitating the delivery of SAMM for applicants and are able to advise on the approach within each authority area.

35

Appendix G Gypsies and Travellers

Natural England has provided advice to the local authorities through the draft Dorset wide Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document Issues and Options consultation which closed in February 2012 on developments of this type. It is the view of Natural England that there is no evidence to demonstrate that the occupants of permanent or transit sites for gypsies and travellers would be likely to have any level of recreational access need which is substantially different to residents in Use Class C3 dwellings. Therefore it is the view of Natural England that effects from development proposals of this type would act in combination with effects from Use Class C3 residential development and in these circumstances: i. Applications within 400m of European/internationally protected heathland should be treated in

the same way as applications for Use Class C3 development; and ii. Applications in the 400m to 5km area should provide a level of avoidance/mitigation

proportionate to the likely adverse effects arising.

36

Appendix H Self-catering, caravan and touring holiday accommodation applications Within 400m Natural England advice for self-catering and touring proposals in close proximity to European/international heathlands is as follows: i. Applications within 400m of the heathlands are considered to have a likely significant effect on

the sites arising from effects relating to the increased residential occupancy and recreational pressure from development. These effects are broadly similar to those arising from residential development and therefore would act in combination with these.

Outside 400m Whilst individual applicants may seek to reduce impacts e.g. by restricting pets Natural England consider that there is considerable uncertainty about whether, over time, such agreements would be effective. In the light of the appeal decisions and a number of applications considered by competent authorities in south east Dorset Natural England has considered how best to enable applicants to provide mitigation: i. In the case of very large scale applications the provision of bespoke mitigation such as

Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace can be considered as part of a package of avoidance and mitigation measures on a case by case basis.

ii. Where applications are for small numbers of additional units Natural England advise that the authorities may use the contribution policy offered by the SPD. In Purbeck, in cases where CIL doesn’t apply, the preference will be for mitigation measures to be provided as part of the development package.

Each case will be addressed on a site by site basis and it may be that authorities will take a proportionate approach and may seek to reduce the contribution level to account for the lower rate of occupancy of self-catering or touring units. The local authorities are advised to bear in mind that neither the degree of harm, or the level of occupancy, may be constant through the year. Occupancy rates have been calculated as a 3-4 year average from the monthly occupancy rates available in the tables on page 3 of the report, Regional Occupancy Data Self Catering and Touring, Q1-3 Data 2010, Research Team, South West Tourism (www.swtourismalliance.org.uk/research-facts-and-figures/regional-tourism-data/). As further data becomes available Natural England advise the authorities that the rate may change accordingly. The calculations are shown over the page below:

37

http://www.swtourismalliance.org.uk/research-facts-and-figures/regional-tourism-data/

N.B. Data is not available for the last three months of 2010. Relevant Appeal and other cases: Appeal decision, Harkwood Acres, Three Legged Cross, Wimborne, BH21 6RP. APP/U1240/C/04/1145349 (11 January 2005). Appeal decision Naughty Boy Studio, Cripplestyle, Fordingbridge SP6 3DU. APP/U1240/A/11/2156465. 14 December 2011. Conversion of an artist’s studio/gallery into two units of holiday accommodation. Appeal decision Tanglewood Holiday Park, Organford Road, Holton Heath PooleBH16 6JY. APP/B1225/A/10/2134180, (9 Nov 2010). Application for a 5 caravan certificate; land adjacent to 4 Heath Cottages, Sandford, Wareham, Dorset.

South West Self-Catering Unit % Occupancy 2010

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2007 20 33 39 45 57 66 79 90 66 43 27 31 2008 16 28 35 43 55 61 80 88 75 54 24 36 2009 18 32 33 60 62 67 77 87 70 46 18 28


SPD rate

Mean 16.75 29.75 34.5 49.25 56.75 63.5 75.5 88 70 35.75 17.25 23.75 560.75 0.467 47%

South West Touring Pitch % Occupancy 2010

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 0 0 0 27 37 42 60 81 41 23 11 11 2008 2 5 19 21 43 40 54 72 47 16 3 5 2009 8 12 9 30 51 53 62 86 43 29 13 19


SPD rate

Mean 6 10 12.75 26.5 41.5 47.5 57 80.5 40.75 17 6.75 8.75 355 0.296 29.60%

38

Appendix I Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) and student accommodation

Natural England advice to the local authorities is that for HMOs and student accommodation it is likely to give rise to significant adverse effects on European/internationally protected heathlands arising from increased levels of residential occupancy and consequent access onto the heaths. Recent guidance from Communities and Local Government (Notes and definitions for the Housing Flows Reconciliation (HFR) form) confirms the view that “purpose built separate homes for students should be included. Each self-contained unit should be counted as a dwelling.” Natural England is not aware of any evidence which demonstrates that these residents, students or otherwise, would not be expected to access nearby open space including heathland in any significantly different manner to residents in C3 dwellings. In these circumstances proposals for these types of dwellings need to provide avoidance/mitigation where applications fall within the 400m to 5km area. The local authorities should apply a suitable tariff rate to secure an appropriate level of mitigation under the SPD and this would normally be that that is applied to Use Class C3 dwellings. As set out in the framework this should be on the basis of a net change in units allowing existing dwellings to be discounted. Natural England has advised potential applicants that proposals for the conversion of residential dwellings to independently managed student accommodation within 400m of European/internationally protected heathlands may increase pressure on these heathlands if this leads to an increase in the number of units. Effects from managed student halls of residence on University campus are likely to be different from those of C3 residential development to the extent that there may not be significant effects on protected heathlands. There may be an increased risk which is associated with private sector managed units which do not fall within a defined use class i.e. Sui Generis, arising due to changes in the type of occupants within these developments compared to facilities on a campus. The self-contained facilities available on campus and the close management of student halls may therefore provide a degree of certainty that the risk of adverse effects is low. Where applications are in or very close to the 400m Consultation Area Natural England would anticipate formal consultation and may in some cases advise on the need for an Appropriate Assessment.

39

Appendix J

Recent Changes to the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) and relevance to the Habitats Regulations

This note is applicable only to those authorities implementing SAMM Planning

Obligation and will not apply in Purbeck The recent changes to the GPDO (the Order) introduced by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(Amendment)(England) Order 2013 inserts into Part 3, a new Class J which now allows the change of use of a building and any land within its curtilage to a use falling within Class C3 (dwelling houses) from a use within Class B1(a) (offices) without the need for planning permission. Longstanding provisions already exist in Part 3, Class F of the 1995 Order which allow for example, the creation of up to two flats above a shop without planning permission subject to certain criteria been met. Whilst such flexibility may bring about advantages to the economy and provide much needed residential accommodation to the market, consideration must be given to the cumulative impact such development would have on the internationally protected heathland as identified in the Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework SPD. In the introduction to this document it is noted that:

“It is the view of Natural England that the cumulative effect of a net increase of dwellings up to 5 kilometres from protected heathland in Dorset would have a significant effect on Dorset’s lowland heaths that are covered by several international designations. Avoidance measures or mitigation will be required otherwise Local Authorities will not be able to grant permission for residential development within 5 kilometres of these designated sites”

The ‘uncontrolled’ approval of residential and other uses allowed by the amended order, without an appropriate assessment or any required mitigation or development is likely to have significant effect on the protected heathland. However such consideration is provided by Article 3(1) of the GPDO which imposes a ‘general condition’ governing all development allowed by Schedule 2 of the Order relating and which states:

‘3.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Order and regulations 60 to 63 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats.&c.)Regulations 1994 (a) (general development orders), planning permission is hereby granted for the classes of development described as permitted development in schedule 2.’

The 1994 Habitat Regulations have been superseded by The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (now regulations 73-76) but the wording and requirements are substantially the same. The Encyclopaedia of Planning Law and Practice (3B-2016.2) notes in regard to this section that The Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994, reg 60, (now regulations 73 – 76 of the 2010 Regulations) impose a general condition on any planning permission granted by this Order (whether before or after commencement of those Regulations) that is for development which:

(a) Is likely to have a significant effect on a European site in Great Britain (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and

(b) Is not directly concerned or necessary to the management of the site, should not be begun until the developer has received written notification of the approval from the LPA under reg 62 (now Reg 75). The Regulations also provide a procedure whereby a developer

40

may apply to the appropriate nature conservation body for their opinion whether his proposed development is likely to have such an effect reg 61 (now Reg74); and a procedure for assessment by the LPA in cases where the proposed development is likely to have a significant effect on a European site. The relevant sections of the Habitat Regulations are set out in the following link; http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/490/part/6/chapter/2/crossheading/general-development-orders/made There are therefore two ways to establish whether the development may proceed under the Order. Either; Obtain opinion of appropriate nature conservation body

(a) The developer applies to the appropriate nature conservation body for their opinion as to whether the development is likely to have a relevant effect, giving full details of the proposal,

(b) On receipt, the conservation body must consider whether it is likely to have such an effect and communicate their opinion in writing to the applicant and LPA

(c) They can request more information if necessary. (d) The opinion of the appropriate nature conservation body that the development is not likely to

have an effect ‘..is conclusive of that question for the purpose of reliance on the planning permission granted by a general development order’.

Or: Obtain approval of LPA

(a) Apply to LPA and give details of development and be accompanied by copy of any opinion already given by the nature conservation body and a fee (currently £30).

(b) For purposes of their consideration the LPA must assume development is likely to have a relevant effect

(c) LPA must send copy of the application to the conservation body and take account of representations made by them;

(d) If the opinion of conservation body is that development is not likely to have an effect, the LPA must send copy to applicant. This opinion is conclusive.

(e) In any other case in which application has been sent to the conservation body, LPA must take account of representations made by them and make an appropriate assessment of the implications of the site.

(f) LPA may approve only after ascertaining that it will not affect the integrity of the site. For the purpose of appeals, such an application is to be treated as an approval required by a condition imposed on a grant of planning permission and determination must be given within time period required to determine a planning condition i.e. 8 weeks. Summary The conditions of the GPDO combined with the provisions of the Habitat Regulations does provide a mechanism of controlling uses permitted by the Order which might otherwise result in relevant harm to the integrity of a European site and for the avoidance of doubt, the requirement is mandatory! In most cases the position could be overcome by appropriate mitigation through the submission of a Unilateral Undertaking submitted as part of the ‘Prior approval’ requirements set out in paragraph N of Part 3 of the GPDO.

41

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/490/part/6/chapter/2/crossheading/general-development-orders/made

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/490/part/6/chapter/2/crossheading/general-development-orders/made

Bournemouth Community Infrastructure Levy Draft Charging Schedule February 2015

iii

Contents

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1

2 Context ........................................................................................................................ 3

2.2 What development will be subject to a CIL charge? ....................................... 3

2.3 How will the charge be levied? ....................................................................... 4

2.4 How will CIL be spent? ................................................................................... 4

2.5 What are the benefits of a CIL charge? .......................................................... 4

2.6 How will the role of Section 106 agreements change when a CIL charging regime is adopted? .................................................................................................... 5

2.7 Setting the charge .......................................................................................... 5

2.8 Infrastructure requirements in Bournemouth Borough .................................... 5

2.9 Economic Viability .......................................................................................... 7

2.10 The Proposed CIL Charges ............................................................................ 7

2.11 Exemptions and Relief from CIL ..................................................................... 8

2.12 Payment in Kind ............................................................................................. 8

2.13 Instalments Policy .......................................................................................... 8

2.14 Implementation, Monitoring and Review ......................................................... 8

3 How to respond to this consultation……………………………………………………..9

Appendices

Appendix 1: Bournemouth AAP Boundary……………………………………………….11

1

1 Introduction 1.1 Scope

1.1.1 This consultation document sets out the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Draft Charging Schedule for Bournemouth Borough Council.

1.1.2 This consultation document represents the second formal stage in the preparation of a CIL Charging Schedule for Bournemouth Borough Council. The Council consulted on a Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule in August 2014. Responses to the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule are contained within the Summary of Representations received on Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule and Council’s Response document which is published as supporting information to the Draft Charging Schedule at www.bournemouth.gov.uk/CIL. These responses have informed the preparation of the Draft Charging Schedule.

1.1.3 Once adopted, the Charging Schedule will set out a standard rate (£/sq.m) that will be payable by developers when they carry out specific types of development within the Borough. The money collected will then be used by the Council to pay for a range of infrastructure throughout the Borough. This infrastructure will support the growth that arises from the implementation of the Council's adopted Core Strategy (CS).

1.1.4 The purpose of this document is to explain the background to CIL, its main features and how it will substantially replace the existing system of planning obligations. The document also summarises the key elements of the CS, the infrastructure required to support the forecasted growth and how the Council has assessed the viability of various types of development across the Borough in order to establish appropriate CIL charging rates. How the money collected through CIL will be spent will also be given consideration.

1.1.5 The consultation is being carried out in accordance with Regulations 16 and 17 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 (as amended). Details of how to comment are included in the back of the document.

1.1.6 Following this second consultation the Draft Charging Schedule and all supporting evidence will be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate to allow for an Examination in Public to take place which will be overseen by an Independent Examiner.

1.1.7 The appointed examiner will consider any representations submitted. Anyone who makes a representation will have the right to be heard by the examiner. The examiner may recommend approval of the Charging Schedule with or without modifications. The Charging Schedule may only come into effect on a date to be specified once it has been approved by a resolution of Full Council. Only then will the charge be levied on new relevant development applied for after the commencement date.

1.1.8 The process for progressing a CIL Charging Schedule to adoption is:-

Consultation on the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule which contains the first draft CIL rates. This took place between 1 August – 15 September 2014.

Consultation on a Draft Charging Schedule. Having considered the comments on the Preliminary Draft, the Council must consult on a Draft Charging Schedule for a period of at least 4 weeks. Any person or organisation making comments at this stage will have the right to be heard at the CIL public examination.

http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/CIL

2

Submission of charging schedule for independent examination. Following completion of the Draft Charging Schedule consultation, if no changes are required the Council can submit the schedule for examination.

Examination in Public. Following submission, the Draft Charging Schedule is subject to an examination by an independent examiner.

The independent examiner’s recommendations are published, the Council considers these and drafts a final version of the Charging Schedule. Full Council must then approve the Charging Schedule for adoption and decide a date on which it takes effect.

The Charging Schedule takes effect.

3

2 Context 2.1.1 CIL came into force in April 2010, through the Community Infrastructure Levy

Regulations 2010. Since this time, there have been a number of amendments to the regulations, the latest of which at the beginning of 2014. Statutory guidance has also been revised with the latest version amended in June 2014. This Draft Charging Schedule consultation document has been prepared having regard to the latest guidance.

2.1.2 CIL is a mechanism for collecting and pooling contributions from developers for the purpose of providing new/improved infrastructure. Under current CIL regulations, on 6th April 2015, the circumstances in which the Council shall be able to rely on section 106 contributions for this purpose will be severely limited. In view of this, if the Council wishes to fund infrastructure improvements in the Borough through developer contributions after this date, it will need to implement a CIL charging regime, as it will no longer be able to pool S106 contributions.

2.1.3 An authority wishing to implement CIL must produce a charging schedule setting out the levy's rates in its area. A key requirement of CIL and setting the charging rates is that an appropriate balance is struck between the desirability of funding infrastructure from the levy and the potential effects that imposing the levy may have upon the economic viability of development. The chosen CIL rates should be set at a level that ensures development within the authority's area as a whole, based on the plan provision, is not put at serious risk.

2.2 What development will be subject to a CIL charge?

2.2.1 In general terms, CIL will be payable on most buildings that people normally use, and will be levied on the net additional new build floorspace created by any given development scheme1. But the following will not pay CIL:

New build that replaces demolished existing floorspace which has been in use for six months in the last three years on the same site, even if the new floorspace belongs to a higher-value use than the old;

Retained parts of buildings on the site that will not change their use, or have otherwise been in use for six months in the last three years;

Changes of use

Development of buildings:

o with floorspace less than 100 sqm (if not a new dwelling),

o by charities for charitable use,

o self build homes,

o self build residential annexes and extensions,

o social housing as defined in the regulations.

1 Ibid (Sections 2:1:1, 2:1:2 and 2:3:12)

4

2.3 How will the charge be levied?

2.3.1 The CIL Charging Schedule will set out which forms of development will be liable to pay CIL and what the charges will be Charges must be levied in £s per square metre of gross internal floorspace arising from any chargeable development. Only the net additional floorspace on a development site will be liable for CIL, so that existing floorspace on a site will be discounted against any new floorspace for the purposes of calculating CIL liability.

2.4 How will CIL be spent and Regulation 123 List

2.4.1 CIL will deliver additional funding for the local authority (and other infrastructure providers) to carry out a wide range of projects that support growth and benefit the local community. However, the levy is intended only to contribute part of the total cost of infrastructure.

2.4.2 It is also the intention of Government that a 'significant proportion' of the collected monies (15% in non-parished Boroughs with no Neighbourhood Plans, as is the case in Bournemouth, capped at £100 per dwelling) must be spent by the local authority in the areas affected by development. Allocation of funds will be subject to appropriate local consultations. In addition, the Regulations permit up to 5% of CIL revenue per annum to be collected by the charging authority for administrative purposes.

2.4.3 The remaining proportion of CIL must be spent by the charging authority in accordance with its stated priorities. Authorities must produce and publish for consultation a list of spending priorities in accordance with Regulation 123 of the Community Infrastructure (2010) (as amended) regulations. This list must relate to the infrastructure requirements identified by the local authority. A draft Regulation 123 List has been published as a supporting document and can be viewed at www.bournemouth.gov.uk/CIL. The Regulation 123 list will be examined and agreed at the same time as the Draft Charging Schedule. Any subsequent changes to the list will require appropriate consultation and approval by the charging authority.

2.5 What are the benefits of a CIL charge?

2.5.1 The introduction of CIL is intended to:

provide a clearer mechanism for funding infrastructure in a given area, and give developers more certainty from the outset (when they are formulating a development proposal) about how much money they will be expected to contribute towards infrastructure provision;

give local planning authorities a predictable funding stream that allows them to plan for the future more effectively;

give local authorities as charging authorities the freedom to set their own priorities for what infrastructure the money raised through CIL should be spent on;

benefit local communities who agree to development in their area by securing funding to be spent on a wide range of infrastructure; and

make the system more transparent for local people, as local planning authorities are required to report each year on how CIL money generated in their area has been spent.


5

2.6 How will the role of Section 106 agreements change when a CIL charging regime is adopted?

2.6.1 Currently Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides the main mechanism that local planning authorities use to secure developer contributions for infrastructure to support development. From April 2015, or when the Council adopts its CIL charging schedule (whichever occurs sooner), planning obligations will only be able to be used to secure contributions towards infrastructure, or its provision, where there are site specific implications of development. Planning obligations will only be taken into account in determining planning applications where they meet the following tests from Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended):

Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. -Directly related to the development.

Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

2.6.2 In addition, Regulation 123 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010) as amended will limit the use of planning obligations where there have been five or more obligations in respect of a specific infrastructure project or type of infrastructure. This is intended to ensure that local planning authorities use CIL instead of planning obligations to secure contributions for infrastructure that serves a wider area. CIL will not replace Section 106 agreements altogether but it will become the main mechanism for funding the provision of general infrastructure. Affordable housing, however, will still be secured through S106 agreements on sites of 11+ units as well as Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) payments and site specific infrastructure that is required to make a development acceptable in planning terms (and which is not contained in the Council's regulation 123 list).

2.7 Setting the charge

2.7.1 The regulations require two distinct aspects to be considered before setting any charges. Firstly, Regulation 14 of the CIL regulations states that, 'in setting rates (including differential rates) in a charging schedule, a charging authority must strike an appropriate balance between the:

desirability of funding from CIL (in whole or in part) the actual and expected estimated total cost of infrastructure required to support the development of its area, taking into account other actual and expected sources of funding; and

potential effects (taken as a whole) of the imposition of CIL on the economic viability of development across its area.

2.7.2 Both of these aspects of setting charges will be explored in more detail in this section.

2.8 Infrastructure requirements in Bournemouth Borough

2.8.1 The CIL charging schedule has to be underpinned by an Infrastructure Delivery Plan which supports an up-to-date development plan and which provides evidence of a 'funding gap'. As part of the development of its Core Strategy, officers have been working with infrastructure providers and agencies in considering and estimating the costs of the local infrastructure requirements associated with supporting the emerging Core Strategy and have produced an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) which identifies both the essential and desirable infrastructure required to support forecasted development identified in the Core Strategy with estimated costs, potential and known funding sources and timescales for delivery. The IDP identifies that there

6

will be a significant shortfall in funding essential infrastructure alone in the Borough over the plan period.

2.8.2 The Bournemouth Infrastructure Delivery and Implementation Plan 2011 is a key part of the evidence base supporting this charging schedule and shows that the essential infrastructure needed to meet the demands of a growing population are:

Education: provision of additional capacity for schools across the Borough;

Green Infrastructure: leisure, sports and open space provision;

Transport: improvements to strategic and local road network, key junction improvements, public transport network improvements, public rights of way and cycle improvements; and

Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS): the Council is required under the Habitats Regulations to mitigate the impacts of all residential development within 5 km of the Dorset Heathlands by providing and maintaining areas of SANGS. Since SANGS constitute infrastructure, funding will need to be collected through CIL once the Council has a charging schedule in place to ensure their continued provision and maintenance.

2.8.3 The total cost of providing the essential infrastructure to address the impacts of development is set out in the table below.

Category of Infrastructure Estimated cost Estimated funding already secured

Estimated funding gap

Transport £73,585,000 £8,150,000 £65,435,000 Heathlands mitigation £3,115,000 £1,459,000 £1,656,000 Green infrastructure £21,106,500 £1,330,000 £19,776,500 Education £24,000,000 To be advised £24,000,000 Aggregate Funding Gap £121,806,500 £10,939,000 £110,867,500 Table 1: Estimated Infrastructure Costs and Funding Gap

2.8.4 It should be noted that CIL is not intended to replace main stream funding for services. CIL will be an additional funding stream which will be used to reduce the gap between the cost of providing the required infrastructure to support a growing population and the amount of money available from other mainstream sources such as from central government and the local authority's own capital receipts. The Council will be required, in consultation with partners and the community, to prioritise the delivery of infrastructure, ensuring that essential infrastructure is delivered in the first instance.

2.8.5 A Funding Gap Background Paper, which updates information in the Bournemouth Infrastructure Delivery and Implementation Plan 2011, has been published as supporting information and can be viewed at www.bournemouth.gov.uk/CIL. This provides background information on costs for individual projects within categories of infrastructure and has informed the funding gap identified in Table 1 above.

2.8.6 It is recognised that infrastructure providers may be able to provide better and more robust information as time goes by on the cost of infrastructure, and timescales for delivery, and future costs and funding sources are likely to change depending on the exact timeframes in which individual elements are delivered. This may affect the


7

overall size of the funding gap. However, it is not anticipated that the size of the funding gap will decrease significantly.

2.9 Economic Viability

2.9.1 The Council has commissioned independent consultants to undertake work to assess the economic viability of development in the Borough with a view to setting an appropriate CIL charging schedule, taking account of a range of financial costs and other variables, including different levels of affordable housing, and other policy requirements in the Core Strategy in accordance with the CIL Regulations. This report has been revised and updated in response to representations made at Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule stage. The updated consultant's report can be read in full at:- http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/CILEconomicViabilityReportOct2014

2.9.2 Following the Government’s announcement on 28th November 2014 of amended National Planning Policy Guidance which introduces a threshold approach to seeking financial contributions from development, the Council have commissioned consultants to assess the implications of this new planning policy guidance on proposed CIL rates. This resulted in the production of a CIL Addendum Report December 2014 http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/CILEconomicViabilityReportAddendumDec2014 which should be read in conjunction with the CIL Economic Viability Study October 2014.

2.10 The Proposed CIL Charges

2.10.1 Based on the viability work undertaken and updates to the viability report following consultation and national planning policy changes, the proposed charges are summarised in the table below. The boundary of the Town Centre AAP area is shown in Appendix 1.

Development Type CIL Charge per sqm Residential development outside the Town Centre AAP area of 11 units or more £70

Residential development outside the Town Centre AAP area of 10 units or less with a maximum combined gross floorspace of no more than 1,000 sqm

£120

Residential development inside the Town Centre AAP area £0

Offices £0

Light Industrial/warehousing £0

Student accommodation £50 Comparison Retail inside the Town Centre AAP area £0

Comparison Retail outside the Town Centre AAP area £250 Convenience Retail inside the Town Centre AAP area £250 Convenience Retail outside the Town Centre AAP area £250 Hotel £0

Mixed leisure £0

Public service and community facilities £0

Other (standard charge) uses £0

http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/CILEconomicViabilityReportOct2014

http://www.bournemouth.gov.uk/CILEconomicViabilityReportAddendumDec2014

8

2.11 Exemptions and Relief from CIL

2.11.1 Bournemouth Council do not consider it is necessary at this time to offer any discretionary relief, however if circumstances change in the future then they will consider each circumstance on its merits and put into place an appropriate policy at that time.

2.12 Payment in Kind

2.12.1 The 2010 CIL Regulations (as amended) allow charging authorities to accept one or more land or infrastructure payments in satisfaction of the whole or part of the CIL due in respect of a chargeable development. Regulations 73 and 73A (inserted by the 2014 Regulations) set out the circumstances in which this may occur and how it can be done. The Council may accept payment “in kind” in lieu of CIL where the Council considers this to be appropriate.

2.13 Instalments Policy

2.13.1 Regulation 70 (7) of the CIL Regulations (as amended) allows Charging Authorities to impose an instalments policy at their discretion. Views were sought during consultation on the PDCS on the desirability of introducing such a policy. Feedback has indicated a strong support for an instalments policy. A draft Instalments Policy has been prepared and is published as a supporting document at www.bournemouth.gov.uk/CIL .

2.14 Implementation, Monitoring and Review

2.14.1 Under the CIL Regulations, Districts and Boroughs are the charging and collecting authorities and have the final decision on how to spend money raised through CIL. All CIL money collected and spent each year must be monitored and reported on.

2.14.2 There is a need to ensure that comprehensive administration and governance arrangements have been put in place before the Charging Schedule comes into effect so that CIL can be collected efficiently and effectively.

2.14.3 The Council will review the CIL charging schedule to ensure changing market conditions are fully taken account of over time. The Council will therefore have regard to information arising from its annual monitoring and formally review its charging schedule periodically to ensure that it remains up-to-date and relevant.


9

2.15 How to comment on this consultation

2.15.1 The Draft Charging Schedule should be read with the following supporting documents:-

• Schedule of Representations received on Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule and Council’s Response

• Bournemouth CIL – Economic Viability Study Final Report October 2014 and Addendum – Revised Recommendation December 2014 produced by Peter Brett Associates on behalf of the Council

• Draft Regulation 123 List

• Draft CIL Instalments Policy

• Funding Gap Background Paper

• Statement of Representations Procedure – this sets out how you can make your representation

These documents can be viewed on the Councils website at www.bournemouth.gov.uk/CIL

Alternatively hard copies of documents can be viewed at all Bournemouth Libraries during normal opening hours or the Council Customer Services Centre in St Stephen’s Road.

2.15.2 Comments should be submitted by Monday 23rd March 2015 via:-

• Email to [email protected]

• Or in writing to Planning Policy Team. Planning Transport and Regulation,

Bournemouth Borough Council, Town Hall Annexe, St Stephen’s Road, Bournemouth BH2 6EA

Please note that comments received cannot be treated as confidential as all comments must be made publicly available in accordance with government regulations.


mailto:[email protected]

11

Appendix 1: Town Centre AAP Area Boundary