Draft Talbot Village SPD Schedule of Representations No. Date Name Organisation Comments 1 10.08.2015 Mr Graham Talbot Village I am concerned about the proposed cycle way along Wallisdown Road (one of the busiest in the Borough). I guess this will see the Tuffin Residents removal of the tree belt, which provides a barrier to noise and pollution to those properties that back onto Wallisdown Road; will the Association Council propose to provide barriers, of the type that you see on some motorways? A better option, in my view, would be to direct cyclists along the existing cycle way - along the side of the Recreation Field and Talbot Combined School, missing out Wallisdown Road altogether. 2 11.08.2015 Mr Ian Patrick - There are some interesting ideas but it would be much better to have documents issued jointly by Poole and Bournemouth. 3 12.08.2015 Mr & Mrs F - Thank you for consulting us on the Draft Talbot Village SPD. As you can see from our address, the rear of our property will be adjacent Odell to the proposed Digital Village, and the proposed extension to Purchase Road (which will provide vehicular access to the Digital Village) is at the side of our property. Proposed Digital Village We are disappointed and surprised to see that this is proposed behind our house. The buildings will be very close to the Talbot Village SPA, and clearly within 400m of the Heath. We assume that Natural England have been consulted on the proposal. There is no report of their views (which must be crucial following the appeal dismissed in 2012). It would be surprising if NE support the proposal, as workers at the Digital Village could choose to walk on the Heath (e.g. in their lunch break) and so add to pressure on the Heath and protected species. If the proposed Digital Village is accepted in principle, we ask that the following be incorporated into the layout and designs: 1. The proposed green buffer between the backs of the Bishop Close houses and the Digital Village is increased to be significantly greater than the proposed building to building distance of 30m. so that there is no significant overlooking or blocking of outlook. The proposed trees in the green buffer should be of types and sited so that they do not grow to a height where they would block sunlight to the south facing rear gardens of the adjacent houses in Bishop Close. (In other words the trees should not be sited close to the rear gardens of the Bishop Close houses, but sited near the proposed buildings). The proposed green buffer must be given protected status so that it cannot subsequently be used for any other purpose (e.g. buildings or parking). The proposed tress and bushes in the green buffer should be planted several years before the proposed buildings are constructed so that screening is in place before the buildings are constructed or occupied. 2. The proposed buildings are single storey sloping away to no more that 2 storeys where adjacent to the Bishop Close houses and that there are no windows in the sides which overlook the houses and rear gardens of Bishop Close. The proposed buildings in the Digital; Village should be no higher than the proposed 2-3 storeys and no extensions to the buildings should be allowed without planning permission. 3. Measures are put in place to prevent subsequent change of used of the Digital Village buildings to any form of residential use. Traffic Routes We note that it is proposed to extend Purchase Road to provide access to the Digital Village and then to connect up to other proposed roads to form a through route. We object to this. It should be altered so that5 the existing bank across the end of Purchase Road is

No. Date Name Organisation Comments retained and all vehicular traffic to the Digital Village is accessed via the proposed road to Boundary Roundabout. The currently proposed layout will result in a rat-run as drivers seek to avoid any traffic jams that build up on the Gillett Road or other routes. Vehicular use of the proposed extension to Purchase Road to connect tom the Digital Village will cause noise and disturbance to the residential properties in Bishop Close and should not be allowed. It is not a suitable route for vehicular access to a proposed employment area, which will include vans and lorries as well as cars. Construction Traffic No construction traffic should be allowed to use Purchase Road or the proposed extension to it in order to avoid unnecessary noise, disturbance, dust and pollution. All construction traffic should use the proposed direct route to Boundary Roundabout. Parking No parking should be allowed on existing residential roads during normal working hours throughout the year. If this is not imposed, then existing problems of parking on re3sidential roads in Talbot Village will greatly increase as in practice the amount of proposed parking will prove to be inadequate for the number of people at the extended Universities or Digital Village who wish to use their cars. Walking and cycle routes We support the proposed cycling and walking routes, which will improve access to Bournemouth town centre by walking and cycling. Please consult us again on any revised version of this document and any other relevant proposals and planning applications. 4 13.08.2015 Mr Paul - As a resident of Talbot Woods I'm very concerned about the proposals to build the Digital Village and the north/south spine. Cornes Inevitably many students and workers at both the University and the Digital Village will access these sites through the pedestrian access point to the Heath at the bottom of Alyth Road. They will do so after parking their cars in the surrounding streets which will increase noise, pollution and change the very quiet residential nature of this neighbourhood for ever. If residential parking restrictions are put in place for the residents of Alyth and Dulsie Roads, traffic will move to streets without parking restrictions with resultant the bumper to bumper all-day parking which we currently have in Huntly Road. 5 13.08.2015 Ms Meg - May I first say that it is difficult to assess the impact of the project as we have only been given information relating to the Poole plans. I Roberts feel it is essential to be given full information by both the Boroughs before the public can make an informed assessment. It would have been an ideal opportunity for the Boroughs to work together rather than in isolation which has always been the case up until now. It is also difficult to assess the impact of the proposed entrance/exit on the Boundary Road roundabout without having some idea of the numbers of cars predicted to use it. Finally, it is a great sadness that the last vestige of farmland evident in this area will be built over. I feel it has been important for my children to have seen the cows in the field over the years- important both for education and for state of mind when living in a busy town. I suggest that a City Farm would be more beneficial to the young people of the conurbation than an access road to the proposed Digital Village. I hope that Mr Potter will give this response some consideration. 6 14.08.2015 Mr Dave Wessex We note the scope and scale of the planned growth at this site. Para 8.2.7 indicates 3 phases of planned expansion for the University Ogborne Water

No. Date Name Organisation Comments sites and the Digital Village proceeding from 2022 onwards. The master-plan should advise upon or include provision to develop a drainage strategy for foul and surface water disposal with Wessex Water. Foul and surface flows and discharges need to be confirmed and linked with capacity improvements for the phased expansion. Existing systems are unlikely to provide sufficient capacity for a development of this scale. We advise further discussion with Wessex Water to consider a capacity appraisal leading to phased infrastructure provision to match the rate of development. Land at the south associated with the Digital Village may require a pumped connection to an agreed location. Surface water disposal will require disposal to land drainage systems with flood risk measures approved by the Lead Local Flood Authority. 7 17.08.2015 Ms Linda - I have read with interest the leaflet about the Talbot Project. It was interesting and I had already written to Bournemouth about White Hulland Farm and received a reply from a Senior Lawyer. As I see it and I many be wrong some of the houses are going to be made into Student Accommodation ie. HMO thus ruining one of the few lovely places in this area to walk which has happened for ever. I have walked those woods for well over 30 years. It gets difficult now with some of the cars going at every kind of speed when a child or a dog may run out of the woods. It will be dreadful to see loads of students in those beautiful homes that everyone envies and wish they could live in. They were built for the people of Bournemouth not students although I understand University People already live there. Please can you tell me what will happen to White Farm. The public hoped it would be used for a Community Farm but was told no because of access. The trust say it will be used for Charitable purposes but I don't understand how if the access is so poor. I did ask if I could rent or buy and restore it at my expense but they say no. As it is a listed building I hope good care will be taken of it. I am not the only one who would have been interested in buying the farm but it never went to public offers. Just because The Trust owned it before why should they automatically get it back. Student Accommodation has ruined a lot of properties around the area with no upkeep to the fronts of the houses or the garden and has devalued peoples homes which is unfair. No though is being given to the people who live here. I shall be there on the 7th September with a view to looking at what is going to happen. There is a lot of feeling over this so it will be followed up closely but a lot of us. I am writing for several people. 8 18.08.2015 Mr Philip Elias Borough of I have been advised of the consultation now running on the Talbot Village SPD and wish to comment on our area of interest, access Poole and walking. I’d like to bring your attention firstly to a matter concerning access onto the Heath, specifically in reference to an application that we received to record a Public Footpath leading between Footpath 33 and Isaacs Close (I attach the sketch map submitted with the application). This application has been held for some years without determination, for a variety of reasons relating to the legality of the claim, and the resource constraints that would likely arise should the matter require settlement before a Public Inquiry. However, it was only through negotiation with the applicants that we were able to agree not to proceed, with the surety that an informal route could instead be formed, and that this would be recognised within the Talbot Heath Management Plan. To this end, I would advise that the document is amended to include this access under “Network of pedestrian routes (new)” on the

No. Date Name Organisation Comments walking network plan on page 47. Elsewhere, you may wish to consider as to whether the other routes across Talbot Heath and between the Campus and Branksome Hill Road should be dedicated as Public Rights of Way. 9 20.08.2015 Mr William - The digital village is an industrial estate under a different name. Bulcraig It is too close to Dulsie road, not suitable for the area and not properly thought through. It should be rejected now and /or much clearer details given. 10 20.08.2015 Ms Susan - We are very excited about this project as it will open up safe routes to school from our house. We currently have to drive from our Roxburgh house on Rothesay Road to St Marks School, opposite Bournemouth University, but the new walkways and cycle ways proposed in this development will allow my children to cycle to school which will be wonderful. It will benefit the health and well being of many children as well as reduce pollution and traffic in the area. We would love these to be built ASAP! 11 20.08.2015 Mr Steve Highways We previously provided comments on this site as part of our review of the Poole Core Strategy Review Issues & Options Consultation Hellier England – March 2015, where we highlighted the importance of assessing the transport impacts on the Strategic Road Network prior to any master planning work being undertaken, or the site being taken forward as an allocation, so that any mitigating measures could be identified. Without sight of the transport evidence base that has been used to inform the master planning that has now been completed and which underpins the SPD, it is difficult for us to make informed comments on the acceptability of the proposals it contains. However, we do support the general principles relating to sustainable transport (para 5.1.4), connectivity (para 5.2.4), reducing the need to travel (para 5.4.1) and travel planning (paras 5.2.6 and 6.10.6). We would welcome the opportunity to comment further on the SPD as it develops, particularly in terms of engagement on the assessment of transport impacts. If it would be helpful to discuss this aspect further, please don’t hesitate to contact either me, or my colleague Andy Roberts on 01392 312523. 12 21.08.2015 Ms Samantha - Being both a resident in the area and professional person that uses the Wallisdown road daily having read the proposal for Harvey development of the Talbot heath area I fail to see what infrastructure you are putting in place to reduce traffic on the already dramatically congested Wallisdown Road. Increasing the number of buses and cycle routes / walkways to the fern barrow area and a 2nd access to the university campus from the boundary roundabout does not address the dangerous area at Wallisdown roundabout junction with Alder road and certainly will not reduce the traffic along Wallisdown road. This junction would surely would be better served as being returned to a traffic lights as it once was when I grew up in the area as a child. I am aware that a much needed relief between Bournemouth and Poole was refused planning a number of years ago due to the protected sand Lizards on the Bourne Valley Nature reserve, sand lizards that can also be found in there abundance on Turbary common and Talbot heath and many of the residents gardens in between. As the relief road cannot be built on this land surely Poole

No. Date Name Organisation Comments council should find a way to work with Bournemouth Council and build a relief road as the current situation around the Wallisdown roundabout is putting risk to lives. I have called both Bournemouth and Poole councils to advise of the danger of the pedestrian crossing on Wallisdown road since the new Tesco express opened at the crossroads due to the numerous people driving through the pedestrian light to park in front of the aforementioned Tescos. I am aware that Poole council installed Bollards by the bus stop to protect the pedestrians in this area due to the reckless endangerment for life that some drivers cause while parking in front of the shops In this location. I have been advised by Poole council that the traffic lights belong to Bournemouth and so you wash your hands of any responsibility of the now dangerous location of the pedestrian crossing which if moved 200 yards further away from the roundabout and the parking in front of shops and to cross by the “ridgeway BMW” garage would make for a far safer crossing. Bournemouth council advise that the issue lies with the parking area in front of tescos and not their crossing and so the matter falls to Poole council. When questioned about this Poole council advised as this land is private there is nothing that can be done. It is only a matter of time before a pedestrian is killed at the Wallisdown roundabout due to the parking in front of tescos, the positioning of the pedestrian crossing , the dramatic amount of traffic already on Wallisdown road and the poor roundabout in this area. I cannot support the council in creating any additional traffic along Wallisdown no matter how good it is for the town until the problems around the Wallisdown roundabout are addressed. 13 21-08-15 Mr Peter Willy - I was delighted to see the proposal of a North -South pedestrian / cycle route from East Avenue to Wallisdown Road. My children attend St Marks School and this route will provide a superb way for us to cycle to school. We are currently unable to cycle safely with children of primary school age despite the fact that the school encourages cycling. East Avenue is in the catchment for St Marks school (historic parish boundary), so I am sure other families may make use of this new route. I wondered whether there could be room for an access path onto the new north-south cycle path off Dulsie Road? This would allow other families to join the cycle path half way along and thus avoid going out of their way to reach East Avenue / Alyth Road and also avoid the busy Talbot roundabout area too. We also attend St Marks Church regularly and the cycle route would allow us to reach the church easily without our car. Our children also like to use the Bournemouth Cycling Centre Velodrome at Slades Farm and the North-South route will allow us (and many other people) to safely access the velodrome via Slades lane by bicycle. I would very much like to see the new North-South cycle path linking East Avenue to Wallisdown Road in place as part of the first stage of the development ie within the short term 5 year plan rather than in medium term 10 year plan. Perhaps a case can be put forward to expedite the new cycle route? Such a move must be very much in keeping with any local sustainable transport policies? I would also like to add that the suggestion of adding grazing ponies to Bourne Valley is excellent. As stated in the proposal this will allow a sensible fencing plan which in my opinion could help deter arsonists on the heath and also dogs from roaming everywhere which undoubtedly disturbs the ecology of this small fragile habitat. 14 24.08.2015 Ms Amanda - I can not believe you are considering this development it will ruin our lovely village and community. Talbot Woods and Talbot Village Jane will just become swallowed in the Poole and Bournemouth metropolis. The natural beauty of the Heath will be ruined as developments encroach on the area changing everything from drainage to habitat profile. The already congested roads will become even more unbearable.

No. Date Name Organisation Comments Please consider this application carefully as if it is allowed to go ahead it will totally devastate the area. 15 24.08.2015 Mr K. & Mrs M. - My husband and I are the tenants of Highmoor Farm, Talbot Village which is part of the proposed plans the build a Digital Village on Cahill amongst other things in coming years. We have held a Farm Business Tenancy from 1st October 2014 and have just renewed to take us up to the end of September 2016, at least. Throughout your proposal you refer to Highmoor Farm in a past tense, as if it does not exist as a farm tenancy anymore, which it does. You also say that the last tenant left in recent years, again this is false. The previous tenant actually died in February 2013 but her tenancy did not end until September 2014 so it was bought to an end by her executors, which included selling off the livestock. So this is why the fields have not been grazed recently. My husband I were offered the tenancy from October 2014, receiving the finalised agreement in May 2015. We are currently working to repair fencing, improve the grass quality etc. As well as this we have been told that The Talbot Trust are bringing in contractors to re- establish borders and help with gorse control. Once this is complete, we can finish the fencing and bring animals back to graze on the land. So again your proposal saying the land is no longer used for grazing is misleading. We have listed below some of the misleading facts and false statements you have written in the Consultation Draft of the Talbot Village SPD Page 5: Refers to the closure of the last farm Highmoor Farm is not only still here but is being let under a FBT. Page 15: Refers to the former farmland as well as unfairly saying it is poorly utilised. This has been a time of great change for the farm with the ending of a very long term tenancy, then the starting of a new tenancy which involves a lot of preparation work to bring the land back up to a standard to keep livestock. Page 20: States that Highmoor Farm was the last of the Talbot Village farms to operate, with the last agricultural tenancy finishing in recent years. As above, it still is. We have been told that the Talbot Village Trust want us to keep livestock on the farm and are encouraging it. Also you refer to the land no longer being grazed which I have outlined above. Page 23: Refers to fields in the south of the farm as fields of the former Highmoor Farm. Highmoor Farm is not only still there but these fields are included in our tenancy agreement. But then on Page 40: you correctly refer to these fields as currently part of Highmoor Farm! In the Development Phase table on Page 56 and breakdown of the three phases on Page 57 you make no reference to these fields or when they fits into the plans at all? A lot of these errors and misleading facts are repeated throughout the document which we feel should be corrected so that the document contains accurate information. I look forward to hearing from you regarding these matters and to seeing an updated consultation draft containing all the correct facts. 16 25.08.2015 Mr Stephen - I have examined the Consultation Draft and at the outset make the point that, while the informal Master Plan on which it is largely Chappell based has been germinating for nearly three years, Poole Borough Council has only allowed 6 weeks beginning 10th. August for consultation. This hardly gives time for residents and other consultees to respond to this important document. Two proposals in particular give me immediate cause for concern. 1. The Location, Characteristics and Design of the Digital Village

No. Date Name Organisation Comments I have no argument with the concept of encouraging digital related businesses supporting the two Universities and providing employment and research opportunities. As the Draft SPD points out (1.2.3.) the Talbot Village Trust’s plans for housing development along with student accommodation were refused by the Secretary of State primarily because of the detrimental impact these would have had on protected heathland. My own representations to the Public Inquiry also dealt with the damage to the amenities of residents in Dulsie and neighbouring roads from such intrusive development. I note that the SPD acknowledges (2.1.1.) that the residential amenity of the many residents who live within and on the edge of the area “needs to be respected.” What kind of Class C 2 uses? The SPD needs to acknowledge – and in more robust terms than as set out in 5.2.8. – that any exception to development within the 400m buffer zone (and the proposed Digital Village is well within this zone – delineated in Figure 4.1.) is not restricted to residential development. It applies to any development which is likely to cause significant harm to the heathland. Accordingly, each proposal must be considered on its own merits against specified criteria. Because a Class C2 use can encompass a wide variety of business uses, and because the master plan is flexible about the final mix of uses, it is essential (especially if the Digital Village fails to get off the ground) for the SPD to specify acceptable uses that could be granted consent, with the overall caveat that any planning application for this area which is not supported by Natural England, for the reason that it would be likely to cause significant harm to protected heathland, will not be granted consent. There should be no possibility of an industrial park with no nexus to the two Universities being created. Recommendation That SSA 20 and this SPD clearly state that an application for development within the 400m zone will not be granted consent where it would be likely to cause significant harm to protected heathland. Accordingly, that the uses that might be contemplated be limited to academic floor space, specialist residential accommodation such as a care home, a private hospital, start-up creative and digital businesses. Protecting the Amenities of Dulsie Road residents. Buildings possibly 3 storeys high would have a detrimental effect on the amenities of residents in Dulsie Road – even if such buildings were to be sited a minimum of 30 metres from their properties (building to building) as 7.2.5. states. Bearing in mind that some of the Dulsie Road properties have gardens with lengths of 30 metres or less, this could involve the siting of a building “just over the fence”. Such a building could hardly be said to be “set well back” as stated in 6.9.6. 7.3.4. states that buildings overlooking the Highmoor Green public open space “will need to be at the front of the development plot” and that “car parking should be hidden to the rear of buildings” – doubtless to protect the street scene from the Highmoor Green public space. Car parking should not be moved to the rear of buildings without safeguards for the amenities of Dulsie Road residents– a substantial screen of landscaping – or even underground car parking – is called for. Recommendation That paragraphs 6.9.6.,7.2.5.and 7.3.4. be consolidated in the SPD to provide that the buildings on Highmoor Green

No. Date Name Organisation Comments backing on to Dulsie Road be no more than two storeys in height, be built at the front of their respective development plots fronting Highmoor Green, so that, building to building (Dulsie Road) there is at least a 60 metre separation, and that any surface rear car parking be so sited as to have minimal visual impact on Dulsie Road properties, with a substantial screen of landscaping. 2. Car Parking The Draft SPD states that the Arts University proposes only an additional 57 spaces, and that BU proposes no additional spaces. Indeed, the current provision may be reduced. The north-south pedestrian/cycle way (designated a strategic cycle route on Figure 6.9.) will encourage staff and students to walk to the Universities, and consequently to park in East Avenue, Alyth Road and other neighbouring roads. These roads, at their southern end, currently have no parking restrictions. To date, BU has shown little enthusiasm for enforcing the Section 106 Agreement with Poole BC, and Poole BC has admitted that it is legally unenforceable. Accordingly, inadequate control is exercised by BU over the usage by students of cars. The prohibition zone of 500 metres from the BU campus in the section 106 Agreement is not adhered to. Therefore, with the proposed new and attractive pedestrian way, combined with the increased number of students studying at the BU Campus that BU’s plans envisage, there is the probability that students and staff will drive to the edge of any restricted parking zone, and then complete their journey by walking. If this happens, and if residents call for parking restrictions to be implemented, the Universities should undertake to meet the costs. Recommendation That the two Universities put forward proposals to control the usage of cars by students, in order to prevent, so far as is possible, student parking in residential roads (or parts thereof) within a prescribed zone from the campus of both Universities; that the two Universities enter into a legally enforceable section 106 Agreement with Poole Borough Council and Bournemouth Council for the enforcement of the said proposals, and incorporating an undertaking by the Universities to meet the costs of any traffic regulation orders made by either Council to control parking by staff and students in residential areas. 17 26.08.2015 Mr & Mrs - We live at 10 Dulsie Road in Talbot Woods and therefore back right on to the proposed development. We cannot attend the public Hosier exhibition of the plans on September 7th largely due to the very short notice given for this event. We would like to make 3 comments: 1. However this development is constructed it will bring yet more traffic onto Wallisdown Road. We see no way that an extra exit onto the Boundary Roundabout will in any way alleviate this and any tweak's to the Wallisdown Road will hardly be able to improve the situation at all as there is not room for any significant improvements. This does need really serious consideration as Wallisdown is heavily congested and nose to tail most of the time nearly every day. We travel that road very frequently and it is certainly not a matter of it being just a rush hour problem. It's almost always rush hour on Wallisdown and simply gets even worse when the actual rush hour occurs. Extra traffic onto the Wallisdown will make it almost intolerable. This is not a minor issue and in our opinion must be considered when thinking of the size of the development with the consequent increase in traffic. This is not a matter that affects only Dulsie Road but a large number of people in a very populated area all around Wallisdown.

No. Date Name Organisation Comments 2. It seems reasonable to suggest that very high buildings near to Dulsie Road would not be appropriate. We would request that out of consideration for the type of area that Talbot Woods is and to be fair to those who back onto this development that 3 stories as mentioned in the plans should be the maximum height allowed. 3. There is some considerable space behind Dulsie Road and therefore again in keeping with the nature of the area it seems reasonable to request that a substantial distance is kept between road or building development and the back of Dulsie Road. We accept that some development is probably going to take place on the land behind us. We would ask that the residents of Dulsie Road including ourselves are given appropriate consideration when it comes to the final plans being agreed especially bearing in mind the above. 18 26.08.2015 Jill - I wish to submit my dismay at the proposals for Talbot Village. The leaflet distributed to Talbot Village households is very misleading, the wording “Digital Village “ does in fact mean ”Industrial Estate” I do not feel this area is suitable for an industrial estate and no matter how many routes are made onto the roundabouts on Wallisdown Rd the area cannot sustain any more traffic and certainly not any traffic involved in an Industrial Estate. Three years ago the Secretary of State overturned permission for the building of 300 homes yet the new plan is to build a “home“ for University graduates. How would the use of these buildings be monitored as locally residents already suffer from noise and anti social behaviour from students in what is otherwise a very peaceful area. How would the industrial use of any units built be monitored? what will happen if non digital businesses take over properties? Highmore Farm is still a working farm and has new tenant farmers who should be encouraged to remain on the site as there can be no better use for the land and for the area of natural beauty surrounding it. Opening new routes onto the established housing estate via Purchase Rd will create a “rat run” in an area where children at the moment are free to play and residents and wildlife enjoy the peace and quite. The joint University Business Park seeks to unlock a prime development site for business use there are already numerous industrial units around Poole standing empty and available for sale or rent so there does not appear to be a need for any more units to be built. This whole plan appears to be centred on profit and when the last plans for the land failed to materialise this new suggestion has been put forward. Digital Village !! 19 26.08.2015 Dr Davis - Support the proposals as presented which seem reasonable and well considered. However, future development proposals will need to provide appropriate mitigation in respect to the additional traffic that will be generated on Wallisdown Road which already suffers from congestion. Measures which promote the increased use of buses, walking and cycling will help in this regard. 20 31.08.2015 Mr Mark & Mrs - The following outlines strongly held objections to the proposal based upon the facts and material contradictions with the above Mandy proposal. Houghton 1. Use of the site and the misleading name “Digital Village” 2.1.1 and 5.1.3 in the proposal refers to activities associated with a digital village yet in 6.9.4. the proposal refers to mixed usage to include health care facilities, a private hospital or home care. These are not bio-medical and are certainly not parts of a digital village therefore the proposal’s title appear intentionally misleading.

No. Date Name Organisation Comments Provision for a hospital and care will require different facilities, have different operating hours and therefore impact the environment differently, in terms of traffic and light and noise pollution. There will be enhanced traffic due to patients (private patients do not get the bus, neither do hospital visitors). 2.1.1 ……There is a major opportunity to provide a Digital Village which offers facilities to grow businesses related to digital industries such as computer games manufacturers, mobile technologies, cyber security and computer generated animation. 5.1.3 PCS1: This identifies principal locations for economic investment and the sectors that are particularly encouraged. This includes areas focused on educational establishments and supports the provision of opportunities which are being pursued at Talbot Village based on ICT, creative industries, environmental technologies and bio-medical. 6.9.4 The master plan identifies land at Highmoor Farm as the location for a Digital Village where creative and digital industries will cluster close to the Universities. This will provide grow on space for the Universities, space for business start-ups or for new industries to develop and flourish, to the south of the Talbot Academic Quarter. The mix may also include health care facilities (a private hospital or care home for instance). Economic growth in the region is anticipated in creative and digital industries and in social and health care. Both Universities have a strong track record in creative industries and media and Bournemouth University also has a school of health and social care. 2. Impact on traffic congestion The proposal contradicts itself a number of times in regards to parking and traffic. Whilst it tries to convey that there will be little additional traffic, it the states it will provide a car parking space for every 30m2 of digital floor space. This means over doubling the current car parking on the campus, i.e. adding 834 spaces. These will be for employees not students and it is likely that more than 1 in 3 will drive (based on data for business park users), this will mean pressure on local residential streets for parking. Over 1000 cars will be joining the already congested roads around Wallisdown, this will not be improved through a bus lane at they will be driving!! “6.10.10 Car parking takes up a considerable area of land and as sites are developed within the heart of the campus, and the pressure on land increases, light weight car park decks (up to three car parking levels may be developed).” “6.10.11Car parking for the Digital Village area has been calculated in accordance with planning policy with one car parking space provided for every 30m2 of gross floor area. Car parking will be located to the rear of buildings where it is less visually intrusive.” “6.10.12 The impact of surface car parking areas will be reduced through the use of hedge or shrub planting (up to a height of one metre) and clear stem trees. This planting will reduce visual impact but must also provide good visibility across the car park to allow for surveillance and reduce risk of crime. Planting will also be used to screen lightweight car parking decks.” 25000 = 834 new car parking spaces based on 1 car per three people, is this realistic as not talking about students also what about hospital patients and hospital visitors. 3. Impact on parking on the landscape Also the proposal talks about placing car parking at the rear of the buildings to avoid visual impact. This will mean they are against the back gardens of Dulsie Road, This means eventually Dulsie road residents will back directly onto two storey car parks. It does state a 30m building-to-building distance, however, most gardens in Dulsie Road are over 30m long, so these car parks will be against the back fence. I am sure the light pollution (they will have to be lit for safety and security as stated in the proposal) , size, scale, density, noise and fumes from car parks is not in-line with the Development management policy DM1 (5.2.2 below), and importantly Core Strategy Policy PCS23 Local (see 7.1.1 below) “5.2.2 DM1: This policy requires proposals to consider important design criteria, such as landscape, topography, trees, layout and connectivity,

No. Date Name Organisation Comments protection of amenity and building for life. This should be considered in consultation with the local community. “ “7.1.1 Core Strategy Policy PCS23 Local Distinctiveness states that ‘Proposals for development will exhibit a high standard of design and will complement or enhance Poole’s character, local identity and cultural vitality. To meet these requirements development will be permitted provided that it adheres to the following character and design principles: • It respects the setting and character of the site, surrounding area and adjoining buildings by virtue of its function, siting, landscaping and amenity space, scale, density, massing, height, design details, materials and appearance;” “7.2.5 The Digital Village is proposed on existing open land to the rear of residential properties in Talbot Village to the west and Talbot Woods to the east. In that context buildings within the Digital Village should be of a more modest scale than those in the Talbot Academic Quarter and should have a maximum height of three storeys. The floorplate of buildings will vary dependent on use. In this location buildings should be sited a minimum of 30 metres from residential properties (building to building) and a screen of native tree planting introduced to reduce visual impact”. 4. Impact of the buildings on the Talbot Woods street scape landscape Development management policy DM1 (5.2.2 below), and importantly Core Strategy Policy PCS23 Local (see 7.1.1 below) apply criteria that the digital village fails to meet. The building-to-building measure (30m) between the proposed development and the residences on Dulsie Road is misleading, perhaps intentionally. The gardens along that road are generally 30m long, this means three storey development could be build along the boundary. The artist impression below is accurate for measurement of a three storey building being built 10 meters behind the boundary of the gardens.

The alternative, which is implied in the proposal, is to place two storey car parks directly against this boundary. These will have to be lit according to the security and safety proposals. Dulsie road is a road of bungalows therefore how can this been seen to meet the requirements of PCS23?

No. Date Name Organisation Comments “7.1.1 Core Strategy Policy PCS23 Local Distinctiveness states that ‘Proposals for development will exhibit a high standard of design and will complement or enhance Poole’s character, local identity and cultural vitality. To meet these requirements development will be permitted provided that it adheres to the following character and design principles: • It respects the setting and character of the site, surrounding area and adjoining buildings by virtue of its function, siting, landscaping and amenity space, scale, density, massing, height, design details, materials and appearance;” 21 31.08.2015 Cll. Lynda Councillor for I write in response to the invited consultation on the SPD as a Councillor for Talbot and Branksome Woods Ward (in the Borough of Price Talbot and Bournemouth) Branksome I accept that the Talbot Village area has been planned in a piecemeal fashion over time. Land has also gradually been sold for housing Woods Ward, developments and to the Universities, these developments have tended to be inward looking and the result today is a fragmented and Bournemouth disconnected urban fabric where developments are poorly integrated with each other and the surrounding area. Borough Council I have read the Consultation Draft and make the point that, while the informal Master Plan on which it is largely based has been discussed for nearly three years, Poole Borough Council has only allowed 6 weeks beginning 10th. August for consultation. This hardly gives time for residents and other consultees to respond to this important document. There are proposals in this document that are of immediate cause for concern. The Location, Characteristics and Design of the Digital Village I have no argument with the concept of encouraging digital related businesses supporting the two Universities and providing employment and research opportunities. The Draft SPD states at (1.2.3 ) plans for housing development and student accommodation were refused by the Secretary of State primarily because of the detrimental impact these would have had on protected heathland. I would also like to remind you the Inquiry dealt with the damage to the amenities of residents in Dulsie Road and the neighbouring roads from such a development. I note that SPD acknowledges ( 2.1.1 ) that residential amenity of the many residents who live within and on the edge of the area needs to be respected. Talbot Heath is an internationally recognised wildlife habitat which is threatened by human influences. It is necessary to ensure it is protected and managed in a sustainable way that will ensure the heath is maintained to a favourable condition .I agree that Talbot Heath would benefit from an investment programme of managed heathland restoration working with Natural England, I note there would be three heathland support areas, but I would like to say wild heathland is not and should not be some sort of Disney style park it should be a wildlife area, and with Natural England involvement I would hope it maintains quality and enhancing important heathland habitats, whilest respecting the amenity of the local community (2.2.1 ) states the implementation of a heathland management strategy to protect threatened species and enhance their precious habitat. Class C 2 uses? The SPD needs to acknowledge – and in far more robust terms than as set out in 5.2.8. – that any exception to development within the 400m buffer zone (and the proposed Digital Village is well within this zone – delineated in Figure 4.1.) is not restricted to residential development. It applies to any development which is likely to cause significant harm to the heathland. Each proposal must be considered on its own merits against specified criteria. Because a Class C2 use can encompass a wide variety of business uses, and

No. Date Name Organisation Comments because the master plan is flexible about the final mix of uses, it is essential (especially if the Digital Village fails to get off the ground) for the SPD to specify acceptable uses that could be granted consent, with the overall caveat that any planning application for this area which is not supported by Natural England, for the reason that it would be likely to cause significant harm to protected heathland, will not be granted consent. There should be no possibility of an industrial park with no nexus to the two Universities being created. Recommendation That SSA 20 and this SPD clearly state that an application for development within the 400m zone will not be granted consent where it would be likely to cause significant harm to protected heathland. Accordingly, that the uses that might be contemplated be limited to academic floor space, specialist residential accommodation such as a care home, a private hospital, start-up creative and digital businesses Protecting the Amenities of Dulsie Road residents. Buildings possibly 3 storeys high would have a detrimental effect on the amenities of residents in Dulsie Road respecting the living conditions of the occupiers of buildings in the vicinity,(Talbot Woods to the east) therefore the Digital Village should be of a more modest scale– even if such buildings were to be sited a minimum of 30 metres from their properties (building to building) as 7.2.5. states. Bearing in mind that some of the Dulsie Road properties have gardens with lengths of 30 metres or less, this could involve the siting of a building “just over the fence”. Such a building could hardly be said to be “set well back” as stated in 6.9.6. I would like further clarity reference 6.9.3 which states, It is possible that the Universities may not require all of the land to the south and east of their present campuses. Alternatively, this land can be used for other forms of development, such as care home, or where it lies beyond 400m of Talbot Heath, residential development.(what residential development ? ) Also 6.10.23 the provision of a new north-south route through the area that links the Talbot Project area with East Avenue, needs to state clearly the East Avenue issue is only for walking and not opening up for anything else, as this would have a detrimental effect on the amenities of residents.7.1.1 It respects the setting and character of the surrounding area. 7.3.4. states that buildings overlooking the Highmoor Green public open space “will need to be at the front of the development plot” and that “car parking should be hidden to the rear of buildings” – doubtless to protect the street scene from the Highmoor Green public space. Car parking should not be moved to the rear of buildings without safeguards for the amenities of Dulsie Road residents– a substantial screen of landscaping – or even underground car parking is called for ,as this would affect the quality of life for Dulsie Road residents. Recommendation That paragraphs 6.9.6.,7.2.5.and 7.3.4. be consolidated in the SPD to provide that the buildings on Highmoor Green backing on to Dulsie Road be no more than two storeys in height, be built at the front of their respective development plots fronting Highmoor Green, so that, building to building (Dulsie Road) there is at least a 60 metre separation, and that any surface rear car parking be so sited as to have minimal visual impact on Dulsie Road properties, with a substantial screen of landscaping. Car Parking The Draft SPD states that the Arts University proposes only an additional 57 spaces, and that BU proposes no additional spaces.

No. Date Name Organisation Comments Indeed, the current provision may be reduced. This is of a concern for residents within Talbot Woods, as we already suffer from students leaving their cars in our roads causing problems for residents. The north-south pedestrian/cycle way (designated a strategic cycle route on Figure 6.9.) will encourage staff and students to walk to the Universities, and consequently to park in East Avenue, Alyth Road and other neighbouring roads. These roads, at their southern end, currently have no parking restrictions. To date, BU has shown little enthusiasm for enforcing the Section 106 Agreement with Poole BC, and Poole BC has admitted that it is legally unenforceable. Accordingly, inadequate control is exercised by BU over the usage by students with cars. The prohibition zone of 500 metres from the BU campus in the section 106 Agreement is not adhered to. Therefore, with the proposed new and attractive pedestrian way, combined with the increased number of students studying at the BU Campus that BU’s plans envisage, there is the probability that students and staff will drive to the edge of any restricted parking zone, and then complete their journey by walking. If this happens, and if residents call for parking restrictions to be implemented, the Universities should undertake to meet the costs. Recommendation That the two Universities put forward proposals to control the usage of cars by students, in order to prevent, so far as is possible, student parking in residential roads (or parts thereof) within a prescribed zone from the campus of both Universities; that the two Universities enter into a legally enforceable section 106 Agreement with Poole Borough Council and Bournemouth Council for the enforcement of the said proposals, and incorporating an undertaking by the Universities to meet the costs of any traffic regulation orders made by either Council to control parking by staff and students in residential areas. 8.2.9 Improvements to Boundary Road roundabout with a new arm introduced that will provide vehicular access to the Universities from the east and connect with Gillett Road, concern is excess traffic onto Glenferness Avenue and the noise that this will bring, therefore tree and hedge screening would be required, also new materials that reduce the noise of traffic on the new proposed roads should be considered. There is concern over Wallisdown Road generally, the road is already not able to take the amount of traffic, and air quality is also a concern. The feeling is an extra exit into Boundary Road will not alleviate this and any tweak’s to the Wallisdown Road will not be able to improve the situation, it is not a matter of a rush hour problem, as it is almost always rush hour on Wallisdown, this is not a minor issue and any increase in traffic must be considered. 22 01.09.2015 Ms Karin Black - Having reviewed the content of the supplementary planning document for Talbot village I would like to strongly object to the plans that have been proposed. I feel that the way you have gone about bringing these proposals to the attention of the residents affected is both unethical and underhanded. The leaflet that was recently delivered to the properties affected,( later than it should have been, as confirmed by the person who was delivering them), meant that residents had less time to examine the plans and make an objection. When I spoke to the person delivering the leaflets he was very evasive and kept reiterating that the plans were available to view online and at a public consultation and that he didn’t know anything about the proposals so who did he work for ASDA???. You are counting on the fact that many of the residents are elderly have no access to the internet and may be too elderly to attend the public consultation. Also by using misleading terms like “digital village” and not referring to the proposal as an industrial estate has been done to confuse residents rather than provide clear proposals The area immediately behind my property seems to have been designated to the creation of what you call a “digital village”, in reality

No. Date Name Organisation Comments an industrial estate with buildings that are two and three storeys in height!! What you have failed to include in your glossy literature and misleading plan is how it will actually look behind a road of bungalows, so I’m attaching a picture of how it will look in reality.

The proposals will mean that: • Due to the height of buildings behind my property, light will be lost, as the buildings will be one to two storeys higher than my own property • The resale value of my property will diminish as the buildings will not be in keeping and pleasing to the eye • My privacy will be affected as the height of the proposed units will be higher than my property • Increased noise , currently there is no noise , we live in a very peaceful area • Potential health hazards of an industrial estate e.g. chemicals etc. • Litter disposal • Smells emanating from an industrial estate e.g. fumes etc. • Potential effects on wild life I have to say that the underhanded way that you have gone about this is absolutely disgraceful. 23 03.09.2015 Mr Roy and - We believe the work that the major landowners, plus the two local authorities have undertaken, will provide the necessary information Mrs Elizabeth for discussion of the Draft Proposal, which we hope will be successful. Waring 24 04.09.2015 Mr Alan - I am concerned about the proposal to provide a Cycle Link from Slades Farm coming out at East Avenue. This will increase cycle Woodward traffic along the signposted cycle route along Benellen Avenue. Unlike Glenferness Avenue, this road does not have marked cycle lanes and is highly dangerous to cycle traffic. It is so dangerous that some cyclists have taken to using the pavements, which of

No. Date Name Organisation Comments course affects pedestrians. This will only get worse if the proposed Cycle Link goes ahead. Therefore I would ask that proper cycle lanes are put in place in Benellen Avenue. 25 08.09.2015 Mr Kevin - I have recently moved to the area and would like to place my objection to the sheer scale and impact of this development on local Hough wildlife, local transportation and the talbot woods area. 26 08.09.2015 Ms Natalie - Why can't this be built in the unused Bournemouth uni in town rather than in our back yard overlooking houses and shadowing the Griffiths bungalows dulce road! 27 08.09.2015 Mr Gary Finch - yet more greenfield land being given over to concrete and steel doesn’t feel like a step in the right direction. Surely the council should be looking to preserve and regenerate greenfield sites and to consider how they can be utilised to catch carbon and provide food as the threat of a good example - in Poole there are still large waiting lists for people desperate for allotments and community growing spaces. 28 08.09.2015 Mr R & Mrs S - As a family we have lived in Talbot Woods for the last 50 years and have seen many changes with Talbot Woods developing into the Tillings unique and high value residential area that it is today. We have lived in our current home, Carrbridge Gardens, for 26 years, and brought up our family in a peaceful environment. Developing up to the boundary (Highmoor Farm) will reduce the value of homes in the area as the uniqueness and peace will be lost. Describing the current fields behind Dulsie Road as Highmoor Boulevard does not hide the fact that a road will be running along the boundary so the peace we currently enjoy will be destroyed with building works and eventual traffic. We also believe that the increased development is detrimental to the environment, and will impact on the tranquillity of the nearby Talbot Woods residential area with a subsequent loss in value to household property. This particular financial loss aspect does not seem to be referenced in any proposal nor indeed proposed compensation to relevant household owners. We strongly object to the development – and continue to support the thousands of residents who have rejected such schemes over the years. 29 08.09.2015 Ms Veronica - Apparently Natural England have been consulted with regard to complying with the type of building acceptable within the 400 m zone. Trevett This is the 'Digital Village' on the farmland, plans for which are extremely vague so could be anything as time goes by. Though the paperwork includes heathland management as part of the SPD, it appears TVT will remain owners of Talbot Heath. I understand there is no legal obligation included for them to manage the heathland, so I don't see it happening in the short or longer term. The maps don't show existing footpaths and bridleways properly and they wish to restrict access to the heath (no access shown from Talbot View side of the heath). But Talbot Heath is open access land. Cattle grazing would be all over the heath as part of management, similar to other local heaths. So expect lots of fencing. No regard for Protection of Badgers Act nor fire engine access from Purchase Road onto the heath, both acknowledged as needed at the Public Inquiry. There is mention of allotments, but we couldn't work out where. 30 09.09.2015 Mr Richard & - With reference to the Talbot Village project, I would like to make the following comments: Mrs Sue 1. We are residents of Talbot Woods and are concerned of the effect the proposed development would have on this conservation Fewkes area. The building of the Digital Village is too close to the existing homes in Dulcie Road and no mention is made of the actual height of the new buildings. 2. Similarly, the Landmark University building behind the northern end of Dulcie Road at 4/6 storeys high would be overpowering and

No. Date Name Organisation Comments a blight on the landscape. 3. The pedestrian cycle link connection with East Avenue will encourage motorists to park here and in surrounding roads. The aim of the project is to encourage people to use public transport. This is doubtful and will exacerbate the existing parking situation where people already park in the lower reaches of Glenfeness, Huntly and Keith Road. Why is so little parking space being provided at the University and the problem shifted to the surrounding residential roads? 4. The building on a green field site will encroach on the green belt between Bournemouth and Poole. 31 09.09.2015 Ms Diana - Having looking at the proposed development of the University site I can see that the development will make an improvement to the Ledbetter existing facilities of the University and may encourage IT businesses to set up in the area. The plans look attractive and I think the new access from the Boundary Road Roundabout will aid traffic congestion around Wallisdown Road and the University Campus. However of course by definition there will be more traffic travelling on those congested roads in the approaches to the area which will not be alleviated. The Talbot Way cycle route/ pedestrian path is a sensible link however it will have knock on consequences for the roads around East Avenue. It will be an obvious solution for commuters to park their cars in the roads around the entrance to Talbot Way and then walk to the University / Digital Village. These roads are already fairly busy as routes to and from Talbot Heath School. Rothesay Road is the principal drop off and collection point for senior students. If this road is full of parked students’ and commuters’ cars then this will cause congestion to spread into Glenferness Avenue at the beginning and end of the school day. Given the nature of the blind bend in Glenferness Avenue at the end of Rothesay Road I can only imagine that it could become an accident hotspot. To prevent congestion around the residential road in the area, I can foresee that it will be necessary to introduce parking restrictions in all the roads around East Avenue and also in Branksome Hill Road since this is not far from the East Avenue entrance by foot across the Heath. Whilst this will hopefully prevent the area becoming congested with commuters’ and students’ cars, it will also restrict resident’s abilities to park outside their own homes. I cannot quantify the impact that the increased numbers of commuters on bicycle and on foot will have to the detriment of Talbot Heath itself but the presence of many more people will affect the wildlife in the area and they will need to be properly considered and protected. One must remember that there are wild deer that roam freely in that area and these shy creatures will be badly affected by the increased footfall. Looking at the proposal for a potential Rail Halt between Rothesay Road and Glenferness Avenue that will make the congestion in the area even worse and will spoil the character of one of the most attractive areas in Bournemouth. 32 09.09.2015 Dr Lesley E - This scheme is a great improvement on previous proposals and is generally to be commended in comparison. In particular the Haskins appearance of Heathland Support Area alongside the heath is welcome. However it is disappointing that the scheme does not include any actual heathland restoration. This would be of great benefit in the north west sectors where the existing heathland becomes quite narrow. Whilst some of the HAS may be expected to revert to a heathy

No. Date Name Organisation Comments grassland type habitat over time, a band in which heathland restoration is a clear objective to be proactively pursued should be included.. It is unclear from the plan what if any provision for ‘ordinary’ open space is being made. Students, children and indeed all local residents should have ordinary open space available in a readily accessible location. The HAS is for absorbing the type of recreation which would otherwise impact on the heath. eg dog walking. It should not be expected to also absorb the types of recreation normally occurring on inter development green space. Any new foot or cycle routes should not be so close to the heath as to attract additional access or adverse impacts thereon. 33 09.09.2015 Mr Edward - I have studied the SPD in some detail and while I support many of the principles of the plan I have a number of serious concerns. Walker 1. I before E. Infrastructure before Expansion. There are vague proposals to improve traffic flow on Wallisdown road and mitigate the traffic demands of increased employment. This is one of the busiest roads in the Bournemouth/Poole area and road usage will increase even if no additional employment occurs. Therefore improvements to the traffic problems on Wallisdown road should be implemented and shown to work before there is any further development. 2. Residents on both east and west sides of the proposed Digital Village are quite rightly very concerned about the effect of the development on their quality of life and the desirability of living in their properties. The proposal that no new building should be less than 30 meters from the existing building is not satisfactory. This should be revised to 'No new building, car park or vehicle activity should be less than 30 meters from the existing property boundaries. 3. Parking in the quiet residential roads in both Talbot Woods and Talbot Village will be a problem. This problem could be resolved by disallowing parking on these roads, but giving residents parking permits for their own use and also for the use of their visitors. 34 09.09.2015 Mr David & - As a resident of Talbot Woods I wish to make the following comments on the draft proposals: Mrs Margaret 1. The houses in Dulsie Road that back on to the university site should be afforded full privacy protection. The proposal to Law locate the Digital Village buildings within 30 metres of homes is totally unacceptable. 80 metres (building to building) is the absolute minimum. The screen of trees must be mature specimens so that they provide privacy right from the outset. If car parks are to be sited between properties in Dulsie Road and the proposed new buildings, these must be no less than 40 metres from perimeter fences. The Digital Village buildings nearest to Dulsie Road should, ideally, be one storey high, and certainly be no more than 2 storeys. 2. I am very concerned about the very restricted number of car parking spaces proposed for the 2 campuses. It is all very well trying to incentivise staff to use more sustainable modes of transport, but there is no knowing what the take up will be. Contingency arrangements must be in place to cater for a failure of the plan. If more parked cars start appearing on roads in Talbot Woods, provision must be in place to immediately extend yellow lines to all affected roads. 3. The concept of a digital village is a good one, but my only fear is that it may not be possible to realise the full potential of the site. If insufficient interest is shown in the proposed use of the site, it must be made very clear that any change in use cannot be sanctioned without full consultation with all interested parties, including the community. Under no circumstances must the site be allowed to become an industrial estate. 35 10.09.2015 Mr Mike Byrne - As a new resident to the Talbot Woods area, I am deeply concerned about the Borough of Poole's proposal to develop a digital industry

No. Date Name Organisation Comments within the surrounding land of Talbot Heath. There are a significant number of people within the Borough of Bournemouth adversely impacted by these plans that will forever change the landscape and tranquility of this area. I attended the recent open day consultation at the University and was disappointed to note that there was not a single representative for the Bournemouth based residents. What concerns me further is that only Poole councillors will vote on these proposals. Please can you let me know what I can do to actively prevent these plans from going ahead. I do not want industry created at my family homes doorstep. 36 11.09.2015 Mr Roger - Point 2 Newnham Industrial development on the University Campus will not benefit the local residents one iota. All business rates are paid to Council and any interaction will be with the University, NOT the residents living over the hedge. Point 4 The heath land area is now so small and criss-crossed by may dog walkers that any natural wild life has been very disturbed. Recovery could take place if areas were secured against disruption, but I think that such an area would soon be breached by the less understanding neighbours. Point 5 However it is put the major problem is that all traffic ends up on Wallisdown road. Could there be an access road onto Alder Road? (map attached).

No. Date Name Organisation Comments

Point 5 Traffic congestion The cycle route proposed from the University to east Avenue is fine, but unfortunately it does not consider the cyclists trying to cross Glenferness Avenue. The Rothesay Road/ Glenferness junction is badly sighted. The better route, long term, would be to drop the route down into the Bourne Valley, punch a tunnel under the railway, purchase a bungalow in Wren Crescent and run the cycle route right through the gardens. The councils must think longer term. If Bournemouth want the students in Town, make it easy to get there!! OK, bit more expensive, but at least it will keep the cyclists away from difficult junctions and provide a quick route into town, (map attached). There are roads to cross, but all are much better sighted than the Rothesay Road junction.

No. Date Name Organisation Comments

Point 5 Cycle route Point 6 The buses already have a large area to pick up and wait. It does not obstruct Fern Barrow so I can see no point in squeezing buses right into the campus. It serves no purpose and has no benefits. 37 14.09.2015 Mr & Mrs B - The expansion of the University Campus will be positive in many ways. Also the additional access point from Boundary Road Sirota Roundabout will prove to be very popular with the residents of Talbot Village and those who wish to access this area. The suggestion of a development of a ‘Digital Village’ creates other issues. Overall there are areas of concern that should be specifically addressed: Car Parking: Student and staff numbers will increase as a result of this development (plus employees in the ‘Digital Village’) and many of these people will be car users. The notion that – not providing enough additional car parking spaces will influence people to change to a different mode of transport is an impractical ideology. There is too much emphasis on ‘hope’ that great numbers of people will change their mode of transport. Yes, some will, however, many won’t and the result will be that these car users will use the surrounding roads near to the campus, as car parks eg. Dulsie Road, East Avenue, Glenferness Avenue etc. If the Digital Village is created and becomes a viable employment hub, then this will no longer be just a term time problem but very much a continuous, permanent one.

No. Date Name Organisation Comments It would be unacceptable that these roads should become overflow car parks as a result of this project. The rules concerning whether students are allowed to bring their cars anywhere near the campus should be strictly enforced but a good deal of additional car parking will still be needed. The fact that not enough car parking would be provided, is put forward in the ‘vision’ as something to be applauded! This is completely misguided. Sufficient car parking should be provided within the ‘project’ area. There are current car parks located more centrally within the campus area, (I stress central, ie nowhere near the Dulsie Road property boundaries), that could be made into multi storey car parks. As the existing buildings and those presently being constructed, are already several storeys high – a multi storey car park next to them would not be any higher and there is no reason why the external look cannot be made attractive. Lack of parking space does not contribute positively to your objective of a ‘welcoming environment’. Dulsie Road is a quiet road with very little on street parking, (as are other roads in the immediate area). It would be unacceptable to completely change the nature of this road as a consequence of this proposed plan/project. This project appears to be very much ‘Poole driven’ but the negative impact concerning this issue will be felt by Bournemouth residents. This should not be the case. Bournemouth Council should and will, I am sure, be supporting its residents on this matter. Digital Village Location: In the project information, it is stated that the distance between Dulsie Road buildings and the ‘Village ‘ buildings would be 30m, ‘building to building’. It would seem that though there have been many people consulted in the course of putting this project together, that not one of them, have informed the ‘panel’ that Dulsie Road rear gardens are all in the region of 30m in length and therefore the ‘building to building ‘measurement of 30m would allow for buildings to be directly against our garden fences. Therefore before any approval of any sort is given regarding the creation of the digital village, then this distance allowance needs to be extended to – 30m from the Dulsie Road BOUNDARY, i.e 60 m Building to Building -and no buildings of any sort should be within this area. In the ‘plan’ we are told that there will be a screen of trees (how many years does it take for a tree to grow?) against the boundary. However we are also told that any car parking for the digital village buildings will be to the rear of them. Also the ‘loading’, if not underground, will take place at the rear ie. immediately next to the boundary of Dulsie Road properties. This will mean noise and pollution and an unhealthy development that is not acceptable. Any use /activity of this nature should be subject to a ‘not within 60m building to building rule’ Currently we have open fields and fresh air. As the plan currently stands, it may have economic benefits but it will be to the detriment of the health and well being of Dulsie Road residents – in direct contrast to your ‘vision’ where you place great emphasis on ‘ health’. Height of Digital Village Buildings: Dulsie Road properties are single storey bungalows.

No. Date Name Organisation Comments The plan states that the DV buildings will be 2/3 storeys high – with no indication of how high a storey is! At the exhibition we were advised that an industrial storey is 3m high. Therefore we assume each building to be 9m, approx 30 feet high, plus a roof? If a building of this height were to be built in close proximity to the Dulsie Road properties, it would overlook and overshadow our properties to an unacceptable degree and the accompanying noise and activity levels that would inevitably arise from what is effectively a business park, would also be totally unacceptable. With regard to the design of the Digital Village, there seems to be an emphasis on what is going on at the ‘front’ –what it looks like, is it facing the proposed ‘Highmoor Green’? can the buses get to it? However, very little consideration seems to have been given to what is going on at the back, ie the area that directly affects Dulsie Road residents. This needs to be addressed. 400m Buffer Zone: The proposed Digital Village will be within the 400m buffer zone but the plan does not specify the detail of the mix of usage for this area. What happens if the Digital Village does not become viable, do we get an Industrial estate by default? There should be no developments within this zone that could cause harm to the heathland, an industrial estate would surely fall into this category. Highmoor Farm: Over all the years that the plans for TVT land have been put forward, Highmoor Farm has been repeatedly written off. However it is still a farm and recently has acquired new tenants. There is therefore every reason to suppose that the farm will thrive again. Railway Halt Shock! Disbelief! Dismay! When we read this. How can anyone think that putting a railway stop (which would become a station), in the middle of Talbot Woods is a good idea? Do the residents of Rothesay Road, East Avenue and Glenferness Ave know about this? Have they been consulted? What about all the implications of a railway ‘stop’ – platform, station, car park (even more people trying to park on our quiet residential streets),probably a cafe, designated taxi ranks! Where would it all end? Your ‘vision’ of connectivity has reached inappropriate levels with this suggestion. It is described in your plan as ‘There may be potential in the longer term...’. However it is extremely worrying that this idea has been given space or consideration within this document. The Bournemouth Council should have immediately dismissed this idea with a resounding ‘NO’

No. Date Name Organisation Comments This idea, potential or not, should be deleted from this plan and never mentioned again. In many ways this plan displays a lack of consideration of the impact of its proposals on the residents of Dulsie Road and the surrounding area. Dulsie Road in particular, being directly next to the land concerned, will feel much of the consequences. We would suffer the most intrusion and change and negative impacts. The current plan has no positives for us. We ask that Bournemouth Council look into these issues in support of its residents and look forward to appropriate amendments being made to the plans by the ‘Partnership’, before adoption of the SPD. 38 14.09.2015 Mr Richard - I would like to express my concern about the proposed development of Talbot Woods, please would you NOT go ahead with this Nixon scheme I will I would ruin the area and cause even more overcrowding on the all ready congested roads. The better option would be to bring the jobs and development to the hun airport site that has the room and would benefit from this. 39 14.09.2015 Mr Peter - Broadly from the information currently available there seem a number of positives from the proposals. That said, they are currently only Stockford proposals. No indication has been provided of how they will be financed and the implications if one or more elements of the proposal is not delivered. Without this it is not possible to consider the points raised in the questionnaire that has been issued. However, on the assumption that the project is delivered in broadly the form currently proposed I have four immediate concerns as someone living close to the proposed project: * parking implications for Dulsie Road and neighbouring roads should occupants / users of the project decide to park vehicles off site due to restrictions on parking contained in the proposal. * noise from occupants / users of the site together with noise generated by buildings themselves e.g. Air conditioning units. This comment applies to individual buildings, collective groups of buildings and the site overall. Currently Dulsie Road is a quiet area and it would be expected that as a good neighbour the project will seek to continue this. *proximity of digital village buildings to homes in Dulsie Road. A thirty metre limit is suggested - this should be from the boundary of existing properties and not from the existing homes * restrictions on usage of the office buildings/digital village should not include provision for anything other than digital business or office use. The suggestion of other uses such as that of a residential care home is unacceptable. Nor should industrial or distribution businesses be permitted. 40 14.09.2015 Mr John & Mrs - My wife and I visited Talbot House on 7th September and viewed the proposals for Talbot Village. Judy Newbold We believe that the proposals are very good indeed and we hope that they will eventually be implemented. The one matter that does cause us concern is car parking. It is vital that every means possible is used to discourage people who are coming to the Universities or the Digital Village from using their cars. In our experience, people will not voluntarily give up their cars. Good public transport and possibly a park and ride scheme, alongside measures to prevent parking on side roads, will greatly help. 41 14.09.2015 B D Taylor - I can see that there will not be enough parking in the university, and parking will be on our roads without yellow lines. Once the digital village has been built it could become an industrial park. Which would devalue the properties close to the area. Dulsie

No. Date Name Organisation Comments road could be overlooked by the digital village. Also could there be loading bays at the boundary of dulsie road. The railway halt would be bad for residents amenities. 42 16.09.2015 Mr G & Mrs I - We are writing to object to the above proposals for the following reasons:- Houlden Buildings The style, height and proximity of the buildings will have a visual impact on Dulsie Road. Digital Village We understand that the business park could generate 1,770 jobs but only 800 car parking spaces will be provided. Will Talbot Woods be expected to accommodate the additional cars. Loading Bays Where will these be sited. 43 16.09.2015 Mrs S M Hyde - I write to express my objections to the above SPD for the development of a Digital Village, University Building, New Roads, Cycle Lanes & Footpaths on land at the rear of Dulsie Road. The Digital Village, a business park, with buildings of up to 3 storeys in height & a landmark University Building 4 to 6 storeys in height are going to severely overlook the bungalows in Dulsie Road. Talbot Woods is a Designated Conservation Area & Talbot Heath is a Site of Special Scientific Interest and should be protected. The physical impact on our properties in terms of being overlooked on rising ground and noise generated from a road in front and roads and cycle tracks to the rear of our boundary will be tremendous “Blighting,” a Conservation Area. I ask that the Planning Policy Document be rejected by Poole Borough Council and serious thought be given to the future of this land. 44 16.09.2015 Mr Gerald Dorset CPRE Further to our receipt of the relevant consultation document concerning the above, we would comment as follows:- Rigler 1. the historic built environment should be protected and enhanced – it was a precursor for the modern approach to environmental enhancement. 2. any measures must be consistent with the finalized Dorset strategy for heathland protection which is due to be progressed further this Autumn. 3. the proposals to attract dog walkers and others from visiting heathland are supported and should be enhanced during any detailed design work. 4. the provision of a railway halt is consistent with the emerging national policy of rural railway re-connections. 5. the proposed facilities for reducing reliance upon cars are welcomed and more controls upon the use of cars would be appropriate. 6. since the consultation was conducted during the ‘silly season’ and before the Dorset strategy for heathland protection has been finalized, further opportunities for the public to help refine this SPD are essential for credibility / acceptability. 45 17.09.2015 N A Farrell - I would like to object to these proposals on the following grounds: - This development will cause further congestion along Wallisdown Road, which is already unable to cope with existing volumes of traffic. This will adversely affect road safety for the emergency services and for St Marks and other school children in the immediate area. - The proposed pedestrian/cycle link to East Avenue is unnecessary and inappropriate. The existing cycle lanes and footpaths along

No. Date Name Organisation Comments Glenferness Avenue and Talbot Avenue already provide a perfectly acceptable route to the town centre. However the creation of a new link to the western end of East Avenue will inevitably lead to university students and workers parking in the surrounding roads. This will destroy the very quiet residential nature of this neighbourhood, whether or not parking restrictions have to be imposed. - Development of this density is inappropriate for this site bordering the Talbot Woods conservation area, and likely to harm the residential amenities of people living nearby through overlooking, loss of privacy and noise and disturbance. - Development is likely to harm the adjacent heathland which is one of the few remaining green areas in the conurbation and which should be protected rather than creating increased risks of fires and further encroachment. 46 17.09.2015 Mr Gerald Society of The proposals for Talbot Village appear to be an inevitable progression of the development of this part of Poole. Rigler Poole Men It is considered that the area, as it currently stands, is not sustainable and that a carefully planned and co-ordinated integration within the urban area has to happen. Key will be the constraints on the architectural look and feel of the area so that the “mass house building syndrome” (ie an ‘estate’ of very similar, if not identical, little boxes) is avoided. It is appreciated that ‘transport flows’ and ‘heath land protection’ are being taken very seriously and will, no doubt be improved and managed to ensure acceptable ’transport flows’ and ‘heath land protection’. It is stressed that entry from the South is welcome and that there will be a need to ensure adequate control to prevent the risks associated with multiple occupancy of individual properties. The ‘park and ride’ proposals are also welcome and it is trusted that they will not be dependent upon other ‘park and ride’ proposals across the conurbation. Incidentally, Winchester has established an operational ‘park and ride’ scheme but it did take a very long time before people adjusted their behaviour to make it work : an issue that needs to be properly managed for the current proposals for Talbot Village. 47 16.09.2015 Ms Gill Smith Dorset Thank you for consulting Dorset County Council on the Draft Talbot Village SPD. As this does not raise issues of strategic significance Senior County for the County Council we do not propose to make any comments. However it was an interesting read! Planning Council Officer 48 16.09.2015 Mr John Green Dorset Police Having attended the consultation meeting at Talbot House and reviewed the documents available, I make the following comments. I would in principle support the proposals. The new Student Union and Fusion 1 buildings underline the Universities desire to make good use of the space available and work towards high quality design. Their ongoing commitment to maintaining the Secured Environment award shows their attention to safe and secure processes. The previous refusal of a residential scheme for the Heath leaves little room to manoeuvre around extending the campus. I was surprised that any further development within the 400 metre line was allowed, but specific types of use were considered acceptable. I think that if the campus does not need the space for academic development, any thought about including a care home, or residential units on the edge of the campus, may not be appropriate, even outside the 400 metre zone. I know that you will face a great deal of lobbying from the group I would identify as residents of Dulsie Road , as well as those seeking to protect the ever diminishing Heathland. The ever expanding campus and parking issues have been a long running basis for many disagreements over the site. I know that

No. Date Name Organisation Comments despite the Universities working hard to limit the use of cars, there are still issues around the site particularly in the adjacent streets, and especially now on Slades Farm. I heard several people bemoaning the loss of the Highmoor Farm and its open spaces, as well as worrying about likely changes to the Talbot Village lands north of the site. I do suggest that much of the concern I heard was over the unknown or still to be decided detail, the layout of the Digital Village especially. Here again the car parking and transport access, as well the extent of the development to the rears of existing properties, were causing concerns. The nature of proposed landmark buildings near to Boundary Road was also a concern to several, as again they worry about the height and mass of such buildings. There is mention of improved cycle links, though it is obvious that Poole and Bournemouth Councils have differing ideas on these are to be laid out, or even routed, which again may be a detail that will be quite contentious. I do like the proposal of the 2 metre wide cycle lane as well as a 3 metre cycle and pedestrian lane, but can foresee problems of actually fitting that all in and meeting the differing approaches of the two councils. The fact that probably the most congested road in the County runs along the Campus boundary, with a one road access to the Campus can only be improved by the proposed road coming off at Boundary Road Roundabout and the proposed bus interchange. It may open up some other access control problems. Car parking is a major issue on and around the Campus. Pedestrianisation and locating car parks on the outer edges is a good approach, but there is still the practical problem that some vehicles will still need to access the centre, and there are a growing number of visitors coming to the site. Access control for vehicles will remain a vital, and probably still contentious, issue. I also point out that cars parked away from active buildings, with no guardian to keep watch, can become easy targets for crime as has happened in Meyrick Park, Dean Park and Cavendish Road. I know that there is an aspiration to operate a Park and Ride scheme. This is a very expensive option, and in the current economic climate I do wonder if it will ever become a reality. Certainly the experience appears to be that if you close a town centre completely, and then provide an economic Park and Ride, that is only a short distance from the centre, then it will succeed. I do consider that from the experience of the Creekmoor scheme, Mannings Heath may be seen as too far out by many potential users. Considering the Universities open access policy, there is relatively low crime on the Campus. As the physical size of the Campus and its permeability increases, so providing security may become more complicated. The biggest issues they have at present are bicycle thefts, and again the provision of secure cycle storage will be essential. Changing and showering facilities will need to be quite extensive as wet gear needs to be stored securely while drying. The document does suggest that the management of the Heath will include continued grazing by animals. I feel that is odd as since the farm’s tenant died two years ago another tenant has tried to continue grazing the farm and slowly watched the farm buildings rot away, so there is now no existing facility for grazing animals. Wardening Services and heathland management are quite labour intensive, and may become dependent on voluntary participation. A great deal of discussion on the previously refused application centred on protecting the Heath from outside influences, and I think the further south the built environment stretches , the harder it will become to ensure that divide is maintained. I remember a long debate

No. Date Name Organisation Comments over bats in the Farm buildings, which are now actually unsafe and derelict. The concept of the Digital village is excellent, but being located beyond the university it will become a secluded attraction for the criminally minded. There is also a concern in my mind that this is a long term plan, expecting the economy to grow, whereas at present the trend appears to be for there to be a surplus of business units in Poole and Bournemouth. I would suggest that the provision of tree lined walkways is excellent, but care must be taken in ensuring these are wide and welcoming, with good visibility and lighting. I have previously submitted a report that included the uninviting nature of the paths that students use to cross Talbot Village Trust land between the Campus and carparks in Slades Farm. The suggestion that a new railway station could be added south of the Heath would again cause some major issues in increased permeability, access control, and quite possibly ongoing protection of the Heath. 49 16.09.2015 Mr S & Mrs H - . The creation of a centre of excellence- welcomed but not to the detriment of the residents who chose to live here for the tranquil Ball views of the heath and farmland, ease of access to Bournemouth and Westbourne and the good quality family housing (which is becoming more and more taken over by student lets). Residents resent the inconvenience of restricted parking outside our own properties - put in place to deter student parking (this summer, the students' cars were replaced by the building contractors parking their vans on Fern Barrow dangerously restricting sight lines on oncoming traffic). . Opportunities for future University expansion - the site is not big enough for future expansion especially with both universities sharing a site that has been increasingly over developed in the last 16 years. . The creation of a Digital Village and complementary uses on open areas to the south of the Universities - this is not the place for a 'Digital Village' - a clever play on words for what effectively will be a business park. Why not house these digital enterprises in existing redundant office space around the town? The proposed 3 storey high buildings are too tall and will be too close to existing housing. They will be visible to many other residential properties that currently aren't exposed to the jumble of different designs already in place on the two campuses. Promoting improvements to access and movement - a second road on and off the village would be welcomed via Gillett Way to reduce the bottleneck at 5pm each weekday evening when the vehicles are exiting the two campuses. The transformation of the University campuses to create a more welcoming environment for staff, students and visitors and to improve the student experience - disagree that the current building works is an improvement - who allowed them all to be so varied and random in style using a multitude of different building materials across the two campuses? The resultant hotch potch of buildings, (including the ugly 'cowshed' that's part of the Arts University on the left hand side of Fern Barrow) shows no cohesion or thought behind the development. No consideration is being given to the residents with the plans for more buildings and putting carparks on previously green fields. Protecting and enhancing nearby natural habitats - fail to understand how building on the existing farmland and so close to the heath be protecting and enhancing? There should be no encroachment on this precious green belt between Bournemouth and Poole. The current tenant farmers should be allowed to stay and build up the farm. Improving the sense of arrival on Wallisdown Road - what does this mean?? Improving the sense of arrival for who? Wallisdown Road has a constant stream of traffic in both directions that can't be eased by road widening or any other means to enable vehicles to move along there quicker. 50 17.09.2015 Mr Simon - . Having looked at these proposals I wish to register my objection for a number of reasons, in particular the traffic and parking problems

No. Date Name Organisation Comments Hartwell which will adversely impact on the residents of East Avenue. 51 17.09.2015 Mr Stephen - Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on this SPD, I am responding as a private individual. Coltman I have a considerable number of concerns: . I note that it is planned to have a Digital Village, as a business park, along the back of Dulsie Road. It is appreciated that this may well generate new jobs in the Area. However, should the uptake by computer companies not match what is built, there must be a guarantee that the Conditions of Use do not change at sometime in the future. . It is also noted that the buildings of the Digital Village could be sited within 30metres of the Dulsie Road properties and could be some 3 stories in height. I believe that this is far to close to the houses in Dulsie road when many of their rear gardens are 30m in length. In effect the building will be by their back fences. They should be set back at least 30m from the rear fence and not be more than 2 stories so they do not overlook the houses. There should also be a screen of trees planted. . There will be considerable growth in student numbers at Bournemouth University (BU). With the scarcity of parking in the new complexes, and the imposition of a walk/cycle way emerging at the end of East Avenue, there will be a huge increased in the numbers of those who will use Talbot Woods as a car parking area. I get the impression that BU exercise inadequate control over the usage by students with cars. The prohibition zone of 500 metres from the BU campus in the section 106 Agreement with Poole is not adhered to. It may well be that residents will call for parking restrictions to be implemented (a point for Bournemouth Council to note). Any costs generated by this should not be borne by Bournemouth Council but by either Poole or the Universities. . It is noted that there is a possible provision in the future is to look into a Railway Halt on the London to Weymouth main line with the platforms extending from Rothesay Road and Glenferness Avenue. This would have certain effects as the line is in a railway cutting at that point. This would mean that in order to site platforms, the cuttings would have to be excavated a certain distance from the lines (I am not an engineer so am unable to estimate how far back these would go) and this would mean compulsory purchase of much of the rear gardens from those properties that back onto the railway line, including the Talbot School playing fields. Whilst, no doubt, the thought process is to help those attending University or working in the Digital Village to come by train, the opposite may also occur that people would drive to use this station and park all over Talbot Woods, which would become a large car park. I believe that the effect of the Railway Halt would be detrimental to residents’ amenities and should be deleted from the SPD. 52 17.09.2015 Mr R F Cooper Talbot Village Talbot Village Master Plan Residents The SPD clearly derives from the proposals contained in the Master Plan. Any assumptions which this makes will reflect in the SPD Association proposals. Some of these assumptions appear to have been written by someone who is totally unfamiliar with the area. Had we been consulted earlier we would have pointed out that the following statements are incorrect: 1.5 Transport & Movement “Wallisdown Road is a busy route through the conurbation and is near to capacity at its junction with Alder Road / Kinson Road (the Wallisdown Roundabout) causing the traffic to back up at peak periods.” This is manifestly wrong. Traffic backs up throughout the day six even seven days a week. The junction must be at capacity. Further the statement ignores delays caused by the two on-carriageway bus stops and the pedestrian crossings  “The Talbot Project area is well served by bus.”

No. Date Name Organisation Comments This depends upon where you are going and when. Poole town Centre and Poole Hospital are badly served by buses. The University buses do provide a service but that only runs in term time. 3,4 “Transport & Movement Strategy  Residential areas close to the campus are already designated as Controlled Parking Zones preventing parking within these areas.” Parking on many of the residential roads is only restricted for two hours per day and not over the summer. The parking problem is such that TVRA, following a survey of residents, is discussing with Poole Council the need to extend these restrictions,  Bournemouth Borough Council are already progressing proposals for new cycling infrastructure along the Wallisdown Road between the junctions with Talbot Drive to the west and University Roundabout to the east. The proposals include the widening of the southern footway by approximately 2m into the adjacent verge such that the resulting 4m wide footway could incorporate either a shared or segregated cycling facility This is not a verge for most of its length but a wooded area which acts as a screen to the houses which back on to Wallisdown Rd Supplementary Planning Document Summary We believe this is premature and can only be considered in conjunction with a similar SPD produced by Bournemouth Borough Council. It should be deferred.

We recognise that the proposals have the potential to bring many benefits to the local community but we are also mindful that without proper safeguards the proposals will also create significant problems for local residents The one land use proposal to which we strongly object is the creation of the Digital Village. We feel that the SPD has been driven by the needs of those parties involved in the Masterplan and how it benefits them, We suggest some changes to recognise the needs of local residents and how they might be met., particularly in relation to bus services and the designated community facilities. There are no publicly available traffic figures or details of any works on Wallisdown Road, which make it impossible to draw firm conclusions, compounded by the fact that any questions about Wallisdown Road are deflected on the grounds that Poole are not the Highway Authority. We have responded paragraph by Paragraph to the SPD. Inevitably, there is some overlap which has led to duplication of some of our comments General Comments 1.1 We wish to object most strongly to starting a six week consultation period in the middle of August. This is during the peak holiday period which effectively reduces the six weeks for most people by 1 to 2 weeks. Furthermore the public meeting which one would normally expect to be held beginning of this period is only two weeks before the end of the consultation period. It's hardly enables people to respond following the public meeting. In our view the process is flawed.

No. Date Name Organisation Comments We cannot see why this Is being rushed through so quickly. The inspector’s decision on the planning application which was for pre- dominantly for residential use was issued in Feb 2012 some three and a half years ago. It took around another eighteen months to establish the Master Plan Process. The SPD has been almost 2 years in the gestation, yet now Poole Council wants to dispose of in four months. This leads to the conclusion that the consultation exercise is merely a paper one and the council is determined to push the SPD through without any significant modifications. Why the great rush now? 1,2 TVRA was given to understand that we would be involved in the process of producing the master plan of which this SPD is a part. Although we had a preliminary meeting at the end of 2013 at which the purpose of the master plan exercises explained since then we have had no further involvement and this has the following implications.  The proposals represent a significant change of land use policy. It has always been envisaged that the new Talbot Village would be a residential estate albeit with two academic institutions. That has totally changed and has significant implications. Had we been consulted during the formulation of the SPD we would've had a better understanding of why there is this change of policy and many other issues and be much better placed to make positive and helpful contributions. As it is we are basically forced to either go along with or object to the proposals. We are not given any choice of options.  The SPD was produced as part of the Talbot Village master plan process. Three of the five parties who are involved in this exercise and with whose support the SPD was produced stand to gain significantly from the new proposals. Whilst we do not suggest any impropriety, it could be construed that these proposals have been directed by those with vested interest's rather than an impartial and independent process.  Para 1.3 of the SPD is at best misleading and arguably incorrect to suggest that there has been engagement with local groups. 1.3 The Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD SSA 20 states: If planning permission for the mixed use development is refused by the Secretary of State, consideration would need to be given to the reasons for refusal and any alternative development options would need to overcome these. The suitability of the site to deliver a range of these different components of the development with a view to continuing to meet some of these development needs on the site will be assessed in the light of this. Alternative uses such as academic uses (including student accommodation and/or a school to serve a catchment covering both Poole and Bournemouth), specialist residential accommodation and Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG), may also be considered. This was tested at Public Inquiry (Appl 00/08224/084/) unlike the SPD. The provision of the Digital Village is not mentioned and is not a use consistent with this Policy. It will totally change the nature of the area of Talbot Village, which is primarily residential. We believe it should remain residential with community facilities in the area within 400m of the heath. Furthermore it was not identified as an employment area in the Poole Core Strategy. We also have strong concerns about the traffic and parking implications. We therefore object most strongly to the proposed digital village. It is against all existing Adopted Policies 1.4 The proposals could have a significant effect upon the area for which Bournemouth is the relevant authority particularly Wallisdown Road and indeed makes reference to the implications for that road. However in asking questions and trying to get more detail. All we get is that it’s down to Bournemouth as Highway Authority to sort this out. We have also been unable to gain access to the traffic

No. Date Name Organisation Comments figures. The SPD was produced out of the Master Plan which covers both local authorities. We object in principle to the SPD on the basis that it is premature and can only be considered in conjunction with a similar SPD produced by Bournemouth Borough Council. 1.5 The relevant traffic calculations referred to in the document have not been made publicly available so we are unable to make informed comments. It is noted that there were no Officers at the Public Exhibition who could deal with this. Supplementary Planning Document Proposals The Following comments relate to Paragraphs of the SPD : Introduction 1.3 We believe the statement that the partners have (sic) “been conscious of all local residents, engaging with local groups” is wrong. One preliminary meeting does not justify that statement. There is nothing in the proposals to suggest that, A Vision 2.2  We support the vision with conditions with the exception of the Digital Village, ,  We object to the Digital Village proposals Site Context 3.4  There is a significant error. There are nearly 600 dwellings in the Village not 400.  The land use for Community facilities ie shops and Doctors and Dentists Surgery has been omitted. Key Site Factors 4.2  We note there has been a Transport Study. This is not been made publicly available which does not help in making constructive comments. There was much debate at the Planning Inquiry on Appl 00/08224/084/P on the details of the Transport Study  It is stated that the proposals may not significantly increase congestion along Wallisdown Road. “Significant” is not defined. We object on the basis that any increase is unacceptable.  We continue to be of the view that any further development should be tied into specific measures to deal with congestion and these should be put in place prior to any such development, eg bus lay-bys along Wallisdown Road and improvements to the Wallisdown Rd/Alder Rd Junction and this should be contained in the SPD  There is no mention of the impact upon increased delays getting off the estate during the peak evening period. Proposals 6.2  We fully support the strengthening of the green network.  It is proposed to provide heathland support areas. They need to be easily accessible, whereas they appear to be surrounded by Heathland. There needs to be a Policy which clearly states and shows how these are to be accessed. There is an informal access

No. Date Name Organisation Comments to the heath off Isaacs Close but Talbot Village Trust as landowner has resisted all attempts to have this designed as a statutory footpath. Without such a Policy these areas will not be used because access will be difficult 6.3  We have no objections to the principles outlined here and fully support a more open campus shared by the wider community. However there needs to be detail upon how this will be achieved. Without that it is just a wish and depends upon the willingness of BU and AUB to engage with the local community and put measures into place 6.4  We object most strongly to the proposed Digital Village. This is a Planning Document but in Planning Terms there is no such thing as a Digital Village  We assume it would be B1. This means it could be used for light industry without the need for further Planning Permission and could change to storage & distribution (B8) up to 500m2 as permitted development. These uses are totally inappropriate.  If there is not sufficient demand for the type of units envisaged then we believe the land owner will seek these alternative uses. We consider the Council has neither the powers nor the will to stop such changes of use. There is a danger that over time, the Digital Village will become just another light industrial estate.  It will cause increased congestion on Wallisdown Road. See 4.2 and 6.9 & 6.10 and there will be delays getting off the estate at peak periods.  Any vehicles which are not able to use the car parking spaces provided will seek to park in the adjoining residential areas. 6.5  As we did at the public inquiry into the planning application (Appl 00/08224/084/P) for residential use we fully support the proposal to create an all purpose vehicle access of Boundary Road roundabout. We believe it is imperative that this is in place prior to any further Planning Permissions being granted. 6.6 We support this, subject to the following changes:  The improved public transport access does not go far enough. There should be a commitment to extend bus services through the existing residential area by routing more of them around Fern Barrow.  Whilst we welcome the provision of enhanced pedestrian crossing facilities in Wallisdown Road, we consider that there is a conflict between this and inevitable increased traffic congestion. One of the major causes of traffic delays along Wallisdown Rd and Talbot Avenue are the existing crossings. We cannot see how the two conflicting needs can be resolved 6.9  See 6.10 re the our position on the expansion of BU and AUB.  We object to the land adjacent to the Doctors Surgery being designated for Academic space. The Surgery is already struggling for both parking space and operational space. Government policy is to put more care into the Community which will exacerbate this. Pressure will also come from increased student numbers. Land should be set aside to allow expansion of the surgery 6.10 Overview

No. Date Name Organisation Comments  We support these proposals but believe that paragraph on re-routing buses should include a wider commitment. See 6.6  If people are to be encouraged to switch to public transport then there needs to be recognition of the inadequacies of bus services to Poole Town Centre and Poole hospital and proposals to address this. (Note: Although there are three service buses an hour plus the U2, due to timetabling there only is effectively a service every half hour to Poole and one an hour to Poole Hospital) 6.10.3 – 7 Vehicular Movements  We believe any increase in journey times along Wallisdown Road is unacceptable. There are already significant delays all day.  The SPD is silent about the effect on delays getting off the estate. It may be that with the new access delays will be reduced . Without evidence to the contrary this forms one of the reasons for our objection to the Digital Village. 6.10.6 repeats the error in the Master Plan to which we have already referred. Parking is not prevented within one of the two CPZs. Parking on many of the residential roads is only restricted for two hours per day and not over the summer. The parking problem is such that TVRA, following a survey of residents, is discussing with Poole Council the need to extend these restrictions, The proposals to limit the number of additional vehicular trips sounds fine in theory but does not work in reality.  We continue to see an increase in the problems caused by parked vehicles not just during term time but now during the summer holidays such that there is pressure to extend the times of operation of the existing restrictions.  It does not cater for special events at AUB where there is already insufficient capacity and which has led to a significant number of vehicles parking in the adjoining residential areas. Whilst Bu does try and co-operate and allow use of its car parks, this is not always possible and relies upon their good will. We believe AUB should be required to provide a significant increase in spaces or some way should be found to provide a shared area for use by both Institutions  The reality is that BU and AUB continue to expand but it is our members who have to suffer more and more extensive restrictions.  The proposed 833 parking spaces for the Digital village will create significant trip movements and have a significant impact upon journey times both along Wallisdown Road and within the Estate.  We cannot support unconditionally any proposals to expand the University and Arts University where they lead to increased numbers because this will lead to increased delays getting of the estate, and inevitable increases in traffic on Wallisdown Road; also the bus stop in Fern Barrow has already reached saturation and the road safety and access issues caused by vehicles associated with BU and AUB parking on the estate. Thus this Policy should be conditional upon any further development not being occupied until such time as both the new bus station and access to Boundary Rd are completed and in operation, and the current waiting restrictions in the Village have been extended in conjunction with a Residents Parking scheme.  We object to any proposed vehicular access to the main Digital Village via Purchase Road . This road is bounded by residential properties and only 6m wide and entirely unsuitable. The Parking & Highway Layout in Development SPD requires 7.3m . Notwithstanding our objections to the Digital Village if it goes ahead we believe the SPD should read “Access to the Digital Village may be gained either from University Roundabout via Gillett Road or via a new boulevard connection from the Boundary Road roundabout.” as stated in the Masterplan  The proposal falls within Special Parking Zone 2. Of the Parking & Highway Layout in Development SPD, where the intention is to restrict vehicle movements by producing travel plans. The provision of 833 parking spaces in the Digital Village is totally

No. Date Name Organisation Comments inconsistent with these Policies Buses  We support these proposals but believe that paragraph on re-routing buses should include a wider commitment. See 6.6 Cycling –  We support the principles  Although not in the SPD, the Masterplan states “Bournemouth Borough Council are already progressing proposals for new cycling infrastructure along the Wallisdown Road between the junctions with Talbot Drive to the west and University Roundabout to the east. The proposals include the widening of the southern footway by approximately 2m into the adjacent verge such that the resulting 4m wide footway could incorporate either a shared or segregated cycling facility There is currently a tree and shrub barrier (not a verge) between the properties in the village which back onto Wallisdown Road and Wallisdown Road itself. This acts as both a noise barrier and a visual screen. This was recognised in the original planning approvall (AN5/83 8824/16) which required a 12m landscaped strip with trees to be provided along Wallisdown Rd and the houses designed to keep noise at a certain level and a noise barrier provided between those houses and Wallisdown road. The landscaped area was part of that barrier. We object most strongly to any proposals which reduce the width of this screen as it would have a significant impact upon those properties in terms of increased noise and pollution. .It would deviate from the original planning approval Walking  We question the practicality of providing enhanced crossing facilities. Subways will not be used. At Grade crossings will have a significant impact on traffic flows. You only have to look at the effect of the existing crossings particularly the one Talbot Avenue. Delivery Phasing  Notwithstanding our view that the traffic and problems associated with further expansion of BU and AUB have not been properly addressed, we fully support the Phase 1 Transport Improvements subject to the improvements to Boundary Rd Roundabout and the provision of a new bus station being completed prior to the occupation of any new buildings. General  There should be a specific commitment to provide community facilities such a pub or a church and church hall. We have the following questions: 3.2 What Community Facilties are envisaged ? 5.1 PCS 17 – Wallisdown Road Corridor. At the Planning Inquiry on the proposed residential development (Appl 00/08224/084/) we asked without success for more details of how this would actually be implemented, as it has the potential to have a serious impact upon those properties which adjoin Wallisdown Road. We would object most strongly to any proposals which reduced the width of the tree and shrub belt which separates them from the road,. Also what is the proposed cycleway mentioned in Para 6.10 ?

No. Date Name Organisation Comments There is currently a Policy to control the Conversion of Residential properties to HMOs. Surely reference to this should be in the SPD What is the impact upon roads within the estate of the potential development, with and without the new access road? What effect upon traffic flows will the enhanced crossing facilities have? 53 17.09.2015 Chris Evans Talbot Heath I have been asked by the school's Head to raise our concerns over increased pedestrian and cyclist movement to and fro the proposed Support School Highmoor Farm Digital Village, cutting across the schools private grounds. Services Our campus is unfortunately currently used by some BU students as a cut through from Rothesay Road railway bridge down to Director Branksome Hill Road past our Boarding House. Our concern is that the developing campus, enlarged over the adjacent farm and

heathland, will increase these unwelcome movements across our grounds. 54 17.09.2015 Noreen & - I would like to register my objections to the proposed development of Talbot Village. Feliks I recently moved to a bungalow backing onto the farm and chose its location for the peace, privacy and environment it offered. I am in Zakrzewski the process of having an extension being built which was approved on the basis that it complied with the existing requirements of work being conducted in the Talbot Woods area of Dulsie Road. We are in our 60's and this proposed development changes the entire aspect of living in this area for us. From the peace and tranquillity of my existing property you are proposing:  A three storey building which now will overlook my property where at present I am not overlooked at all.  A road at the back of my property with the additional noise and insecurity to my property.  A tree lined cycle path which will again create public access to the immediate rear of the property resulting in additional noise and insecurity.  A long term development lasting 10 years and over that will mean I have to live the remains of my life on the fringe of a noisy building site with the additional noise, pollution, dust and upheaval it offers.  A proposal that will bring yet even more traffic emerging onto Wallisdown Road which at times makes entering or leaving Bournemouth an incredibly long and frustrating experience. traffic at rush hour times barely moves as it is without additional traffic making it even worse. All of your proposals no doubt have great financial benefit to those in its construction, sale of land, receipt of rates but come at a great loss to those existing residents who chose to live here because of what it offered in its current form. It will no doubt have a detrimental affect on my property price and the way I wanted to live my life. It is totally out of keeping to build this at the back of a road of bungalows and would unfairly change things very much for the worst for us. 55 18.09.2015 Allen & Jackie We write to register our objections to the above proposals for the following reasons: - Weager 1. The Wallisdown Road is already a severely congested highway. Adding a new road with access to the proposed digital village, with the inevitable increase in traffic, plus the proposed increase in student numbers at the University will have an intolerable impact on the traffic flow.

No. Date Name Organisation Comments 2. The proposed Pedestrian and Cycle Path between Slades Farm and East Avenue will result in a substantial increase in on road parking in the Talbot Woods area having a negative impact on residents. 3. The possible provision of a Railway Halt between Rothesay Road and Glenferness Avenue would have a major negative impact on residents. Bournemouth and Poole are already very adequately provided with Rail access with Bournemouth main line station and Branksome Station all within a reasonable distance. Talbot Woods is a Conservation Area and such a rail halt would have a major negative impact on the Area. Where would rail users park their cars? One can only assume that on road car parking would again be the outcome. This should be deleted from the SPD. 4. The impact on Dulsie Road residents, particularly those whose gardens face the Heath would be unacceptable as they would be significantly overlooked and their outlook would be severely impaired. Talbot Woods is as mentioned a Conservation Area and we would look to the planning authorities to ensure that any plans or developments do not negatively impact on this Area. 56 18.09.2015 Mr David - Please find below my response to two specific parts of the Talbot Village SPD. As a member of staff at Bournemouth University, but Fevyer who lives in Verwood, the transport implications are of particular interest to me. I am pleased to see that consideration is being given to walking/cycling/public transport with a view to making them more viable options, and hope that the opportunities presented here become a significant part of the final plan. Several of the proposals have the potential to remove key barriers to cycling to the University campuses. Please note that my responses are my own and in no-way represent any official view of my employer. ‘Talbot Way’ Overall this is an excellent idea with many potential benefits to cyclists and pedestrians and huge potential to reduce unnecessary motor traffic in the area. However, in order to work well it must provide a viable travel option at all times of the year and must be properly integrated with provision in the surrounding area. I have two main comments in relation to this. Character of route 6.10.19 The character of the above routes will vary. Typically cycle routes will be 2.0m wide with a bitmacadam surface and lighting. The north-south route will however be a shared cycle / pedestrian route and will need to be wider (3.0m). Where this route skirts the edge of the heath it will be contained with a post, rail and wire mesh fence (height 1200mm) restricting access onto the heath. Through this section a bitmacadam surface and lighting are inappropriate and a rolled gravel surface will be provided. It is entirely unclear to me why it is ‘inappropriate’ to have a sealed bitmacadam surface skirting the heath, especially as this route will be separated from the heath itself by a fence. There is currently a ‘gravel surface’ on the alleged ‘link’ on the Western edge of the heath between Winston Avenue and Dalling Road, and this is very difficult to use by non-mountain bikes (let alone pedestrians with push chairs, or wheelchair users), and essentially impassable during or after periods of rain. So a gravel link is not in my view a link at all; if the intention is to encourage cycling for transport then such infrastructure should be appropriate for any kind of bike at any time of year. Bearing in mind that gravel is not itself a habitat for wildlife, and that gravel tends to need more frequent maintenance, I have never understood the ‘logic’ of saying that because it skirts a heath, it must be gravel. This seems to be based on a myth that gravel is somehow less visually intrusive because it looks vaguely like a naturally occurring track.

No. Date Name Organisation Comments Connections to existing routes The connection of Talbot Way to existing/proposed new or improved cycle routes is crucial to its potential success. However it is not clear from the SPD how well this will be achieved. I notice for example that having brought cyclists to East Avenue and then routed them along Rothesay Rd, cyclists heading for the Greenway in Bourne Valley are then left to cross Glenferness Avenue just south of the rail bridge on a bit of a bend with traffic coming up the hill on the right (so low visibility until last moment) and traffic also coming out of Leven Avenue diagonally opposite. They then have to go down Leven Avenue, which is actually quite dangerous on a bike due to an undulating and broken road surface, insufficient lighting at night, and its use as a ‘rat-run’ by cars who are trying to avoid the lights at the bottom of Glenferness Av. Cyclists wishing to reach the Greenway then have to get safely across Branksome Wood Road, which remains problematic due to its narrow width and the speed of traffic along it. So unless these areas are also improved to address such problems, the southern section of the new link really only succeeds in cutting out some of Glenferness Avenue. It is also important that the link to and from the north provides a means of safely cycling from the current ‘recommended’ route on Coombe Avenue to the shared use path at Slade’s farm, without needing to go through the dangerous Ensbury Park Gyratory system. I note that the plans show a route crossing Columbia road; this is a potentially positive but will require a safe crossing of the junction to be implemented with traffic lights and segregated cycle provision that avoids conflict with pedestrians and unnecessary exposure to motor traffic. As can be seen in the area cycle map, there is currently a glaring a gap in the provision here:

No. Date Name Organisation Comments

Public transport - rail 6.10.15 There may be potential in the longer term to provide a dedicated railway halt on the London to Weymouth line that runs to the south of the campus and integrates with wider pedestrian and cycle infrastucture. The platforms could extend from Rothesay Road and Glenferness Avenue. This would provide direct access to London, Southampton and Winchester and provide improved commuter access as well as enhanced economic potential for the campus. Further feasibility work will be required to test the deliverability of this proposition. This is an excellent idea and would provide a range of benefits to students, staff, and visitors to both University’s, as well as local residents. With the right provision of local stopping trains it could serve a vital role in reducing unnecessary journeys along the east- west A3049 corridor. By making this central area of the conurbation easier to reach by train, it would also contribute to less traffic on the eastern and western approaches to the conurbation more generally. I hope that this idea remains in the plan and is investigated further. 57 18.09.2015 Ms Jane Lane - I am writing to query how you have managed to come up with yet another poorly thought through plan for the development of lands in

No. Date Name Organisation Comments Talbot Village, following rejection of previous plans by the secretary of state I fail to see how the building of a ‘Digital Village’ with all their staff and vehicles will not encroach on the wellbeing of the heathland and its inhabitants Whilst I can see that increasing student intake may require more university space,[although judging by the length of time building works have been continuing there I should imagine there must be plenty more space available already] I cannot see the necessity to bring an industrial site under the guise of’ Digital Village’ to the area, as we all know most computer experts work from home so distance learning, communication and work shouldn’t be a problem, let alone several three storey buildings! The cycle path is all well and good , but I assume pedestrians will be allowed to use it too, which brings me to the point of parking , all the roads the other side of Talbot Road are totally congested with parked cars, turning what used to be a nice family neighbourhood into a student haven, is the same thing going to now happen to the roads around East Avenue??? It’s a shame all the council are thinking about is revenue in their pocket and not the good of the community for once. 58 18.09.2015 Ms Jane Lane - Re Trees (Wallisdown Road) I'm writing to object to the proposed idea of cutting the trees down (bordering the recreation field on the Wallisdown Road side). There is already an adequate cycle path on the other side of this field where cyclists easily travel to Talbot Village &/or to both Universites. The trees form an attractive border to the field & also provide a protective barrier to the noise & pollution from all the traffic travelling along Wallisdown Road. It doesn't seem clear where the proposed cycle path would end & it doesn't appear to have any useful purpose - except to add to the general congestion in that area. Re Digital Village I am very concerned about the close proximity of this proposed Digital Village to Bishop Close & also to other nearby residential properties. I believe this will impact negatively on all the residents there - especially those with gardens backing on to the proposed area. With regard to Talbot Village as a whole, residents could be subjected to even more traffic travelling right through the estate. I don't feel the residents have been considered at all in this proposal. 59 18.09.2015 Mr Peter Willey - Further to my positive email on 21.08.15 I have had chance to study the proposals for Talbot heath in greater depth. I would like to raise concerns in two areas: 1. The digital village and 2. The proposed railway halt. 1. The Digital Village. My main concern relating to the digital village is what would happen if it turns out to be impossible to fill the buildings with computer & IT based industries? If there is a lack of 'suitable' industries to use the site it would not be financially viable to leave the buildings empty. The buildings will have to be filled with whatever companies can afford the purchase price / rental

No. Date Name Organisation Comments costs. Even if the digital village is successful initially it may gradually change in use over future years to come to light industrial use.Therefore it will be impossible to control the occupation and development of this site and it could end up morphing into something quite different from that what was intended. Secondly I see no reason why the current green space occupied by Highmoor Farm cannot be left as a green recreational space for the benefit of the local communities. This area sits between Talbot Woods, Talbot Village, Coy Pond, Branksome Wood and the University. Instead of infilling a valuable green area with buildings why cant this be kept as a open parkland? Part of the area could be used for some university sports pitches? Keeping this green space will further reduce the recreational pressure on the Bourne Valley heathland which is a key objective the the Talbot Village SPD. If in time the university needed to expand, then 'genuine' university development for students would be a better use of some of this green space. Like all universities expansion is inevitable - provision for such expansion must be kept in mind. To fill it at this stage with a highly unpredictable digital village risks making a 'white elephant' which will unnecessarily inconvenience the residents of Dulsie Road. 2. The railway halt. This will completely change the nature of the residential area of the western part of Talbot Woods - especially on those roads within walking distance of the proposed railway station. Commuters who normally use Branksome station or Bournemouth stations will flock to the area with the prospect of free parking. I suspect that the surrounding roads to the station will be adorned with miles of double yellow lines to control parking, or there maybe metered parking or residents parking permits. None of these are welcome prospects. Nonetheless the character of a conservation area will be permanently changed for the worse. Is there a proposal to compulsorily purchase land from the Talbot Heath School Playing fields to create space and access to the station and parking? A station will create extra traffic and noise for residents of East Avenue, Rothesay Road Glenferness Avenue and further afield. The station will also create more traffic at evenings and weekends. There is already significant traffic to Talbot Heath School at rush hour especially on Rothesay Road and East Avenue, the addition of further traffic due to a railway station will make traffic and noise levels significantly worse. None of these changes are welcome in a residential area. My suggestion would be to improve the bus links between the two nearest railway stations at a fraction of the cost of and disturbance of creating a new station. This would have no impact on a quiet residential area. A dedicated shuttle bus route could be provided to follow a short linear route linking Branksome station to the university campus to Bournemouth station and back again. Work could also be done to improve the cycle links to the two stations from the university campus. As per my previous email I still think the North-South cycle route from Slades Farm to East Avenue is an excellent idea along with better management/protection of the heathland. 60 18.09.2015 Mr David Ability Ability Housing Association, working in partnership with the Talbot Village Trust, provides affordable housing in the Talbot Village area Williams, Housing for people with a diverse range and mix of abilities. Chief Association We welcome the proposals set out in the Supplementary Planning Document. In particular we welcome the economic and employment Executive opportunities that we expect to be created by the proposals and the anticipated improvements to access and movement. We are however disappointed that Section 7: ‘Design’ makes no explicit commitment to inclusive design principles. Given that we are aware of significant numbers of people living in the locality with various mobility, physical or sensory impairments, we feel this is a significant oversight. We would ask for assurances that the needs of people with different abilities are understood and fully taken into

No. Date Name Organisation Comments account in the design statement to ensure that no person is excluded from the benefits we otherwise expect to accrue to the local community. 61 18.09.2015 Lois George - These are the comments I would like to make regarding the Talbot Village SPD:- 1) The pedestrian/ cycle link --route Comment: there will only be an increase of 57 car parking places at AUB and none for BU. There may be a 3 level light weight car park developed, but, the access along this route,to the universities will encourage students and staff to park in Talbot Woods along roads without yellow lines. 2) The Digital Village -- a business park-- along the back of Dulsie Road could generate 1,770 jobs. Comment: Guarantees are needed that it would not become an industrial park should there be a lack of take-up as a digital village. 3) Buildings in the Digital Village to be sited a minimum of 30m (measured building to building) from residential properties. Comment: The siting of the Digital Village building just 30 m from Dulsie Road properties is too near and therefore should not be allowed. A safeguard for Dulsie road bungalows should be arranged so they are not compromised by the Highmoor Green design. A green corridor for nature by planting native trees to screen the Dulsie Road residents should be considered. The native trees would start to ameliorate for the D village buildings with the resulting loss of habitat and related wildlife. 4) No height is given but buildings in the D.Village could be 3 storeys, plus have balconies and roof terraces. Comment:This needs clarification as it could mean that the bungalows in Dulsie Road loose their privacy by being overlooked. 5) A Landmark University building 4 to 6 stories high, to be sited behind the northern end of Dulsie Road. Comment: This would be the largest building around in what was a 'village area, a farm and open heath it is the width of the new road with only a tree boundary away from Dulsie Road properties. It should be reconsidered over it's mass, density and placement in relation to bungalows in Dulsie Road. 6) It is suggested that loading should be underground or located in dedicated and screened servicing areas. Comment: could there be loading bays at the rear of the commercial buildings? 7) Growth in student numbers at BU with an estimated 12,962 full-time equivalent students who study at the Talbot Campus (as distinct from those that study at the Landsdowne Campus) by 2018/9. This is an increase of 27% on current numbers. Comment: More parking problems will arise at the Talbot Campus with a higher number of students than estimated as some will be engaged in part-time courses. 8) The 3 fields with new informal grassed paths and seating are anticipated to continue to be grazed. Comment: it would be wonderful for residents and wildlife to keep some continuity to land use when so much of the area is about to change. It is possible that the universities may not require all of the land to the south and east of their present campuses.

No. Date Name Organisation Comments Alternatively this land can be used for other forms of development, such as care homes, or where it lies beyond 400m of Talbot Heath, residential development. Possible provision in the future is to look into a Railway Halt on the London to Weymouth main line with the platforms extending from Rothesay Road and Glenferness Avenue. Comment: This Railway Halt should be deleted from the SPD as it would be very detrimental to residents' amenities. 62 19.09.2015 Ms Sue Casey We think that plans for this area should be put on hold until a decision has been made and action taken on the recently publicised proposal to merge the Councils of Christchurch. Bournemouth, Poole and East Dorset. Maybe with both Bournemouth and Poole dealing with the document together some of the glaringly obvious pitfalls could be avoided. Who could ever envisage deliberately encouraging more traffic to use Wallisdown Road? Perhaps the intention is to force the extra traffic involved to travel in the opposite direction - towards the already congested town centre of Bournemouth. Of course we are not allowed to know how it is proposed to manage this extra traffic as we have been denied sight of the relevant figures produced following recent research. Nothing further should happen with this SPD until we are allowed to know how the volume of traffic on the Wallisdown Road can be either reduced or better managed. 63 19.09.2015 Angela Pooley East Dorset Whilst development of the University should be seen as a positive for Bournemouth & Poole I believe this project is in the wrong place Friends of the for the following reasons: Earth  The development falls within the Heathland Mitigation rules, one of the reasons the proposed housing development was rejected.  It would place additional pressure on Wallisdown Road, an already overused and congested road.  I don’t believe it fits in with the Talbot Sister’s ideas when they set up the Talbot Trust.  Loss of farmland still in use that would be ideal for a Community Farm.  Whilst the plans outline proposals to improve cycle ways & footpaths I believe there should be a greater emphasis on reducing traffic and encouraging sustainable alternatives. If the project is approved and an additional recreation area is created for dogs restrictions should be put in place that prohibits dogs off the lead on the heathland areas. This would reduce the damage caused to the heathland and wildlife by dogs having free access. 64 19.09.2015 Mr Richard - It has come to our attention that the Talbot Village Trust has purchased a bungalow backing onto Talbot Heath & at the end of Alyth Welch Road, Bournemouth. We would like your assurance that this site will not be used as a road into/out of the Digital Village, i e not incorporated into the Talbot Village S P D as the number of employees & students envisaged working in the Digital Village would create enormous parking & traffic problems turning Talbot Woods roads into a "rat run" . 65 20.09.2015 Mr Stephen Branksome & The Talbot and Branksome Woods Residents Association makes the following comments on the Draft Talbot Village Supplementary Coltman, Talbot Woods Planning Document (SPD). Chairman Residents Digital Village Association P39 6.9.6 “The area will be well landscaped and with buildings typically two to three storeys in height, set well back from residential properties in Talbot Village to the west and Talbot Woods to the east, so that visual impact is minimised.” P50 7.2.5 “The Digital Village is proposed on existing open land to the rear of residential properties in Talbot Village to the west

No. Date Name Organisation Comments and Talbot Woods to the east. In that context buildings within the Digital Village should be of a more modest scale than those in the Talbot Academic Quarter and should have a maximum height of three storeys. The floorplate of buildings will vary dependant on use. In this location buildings should be sited a minimum of 30 metres from residential properties (building to building) and a screen of native tree planting introduced to reduce visual impact.” 7.2.6 “Buildings heights are generally defined in storeys, not metres. Although storey height may vary depending on the nature of development and the use …..“ 7.2.7 “Generally set backs or other forms of occupied roofspace are promoted ….” 7.3.3 “On all other sides of the buildings, an active interface with the landscape should be established with windows, terraces and balconies (where appropriate) providing overlooking to the outside space ….” The boundary between Bournemouth and Poole runs along the back of Dulsie Road. The Dulsie Road properties, which were built at the end of the 1950s with a view over the adjoining farmland are bungalows and their back gardens are nearly all just under 30 metres in length. The above SPD extracts show that as it stands the SPD would allow 3 storey buildings with occupied roofspace, i.e. 4 storeys of activity with also the possibility of balconies to be built literally at the bottom of the gardens of Dulsie Road bungalows. Furthermore the width of the footplate of these buildings is left unspecified so that potentially, as viewed from the bungalows, they would be not only towering buildings with 4 levels of activity looking down at them but also there is the possibility of one building stretching the width of many gardens so it would present a block of 4 levels of activity. Also as the height of commercial buildings is measured in storeys there is no definite limit set on the height of these 3 storey commercial buildings. This is all just left to the detailed planning stage, which is not acceptable. None of this ties in with the Creating a Vision statement: P11 2.1.1 “There are many residents who live within and on the edge of the area and their residential amenity needs to be respected.” This Poole SPD does not respect the residential amenities of the Bournemouth residents who live bordering the length of the SPD area. The difficulty is that Poole Planning Policies only refer to land in Poole, e.g. 7.1 PCS23 Local Distinctiveness states that: “Proposals for development will exhibit a high standard of design and will complement or enhance Poole’s character, local identity and cultural vitality. To meet these requirements development will be permitted provided that it adheres to the following character and design principles:  It respects the setting and character of the site, surrounding area and adjoining buildings by virtue of its function, siting, landscaping and amenity space, scale, density, massing, height, design details, materials and appearance;” They do not refer to how they relate to existing buildings in Bournemouth on the other side of the invisible boundary.

No. Date Name Organisation Comments Nearly the whole of this SPD impacts heavily on Bournemouth, not Poole. Recommendations for modifications to the SPD 1) Digital Village buildings to be located no closer than 30 metres away from the BOUNDARY of the gardens of the dwellings in Dulsie Road. 2) Digital Village buildings to be no more than 2 storeys in height with no activity in roofspace. 3) Maximum width / length of footplate of buildings running parallel with line of bungalows to be stated. Screening of Digital Village 7.3.4 “….. car parking should be hidden to the rear of buildings” 7.3.5 “Areas required for the servicing of development (delivery and loading should, where possible, be internalised or located underground. Otherwise they should be combined and located in dedicated and screened servicing areas.” 7.4.8 “Belts of native tree planting should be established to the rear of properties on Dulsie Road to the east and Bishops Close / Purchase Road to the west of the Digital Village area helping to ensure a strong green character for the Digital Village whilst screening new development from the residential properties in those streets.” 6.10.11 “Car parking for the Digital Village …. Will be located to the rear of buildings where it is less visually intrusive.” Whilst we welcome the belts of trees it does still mean that the parked cars will be visually intrusive to Dulsie Road residents as the foliage of the 7.2.5 “screen of native trees planting introduced to reduce visual impact” though partially helpful (when established) in the case of screening buildings, they will not screen lower down at tree trunk level. It is not clear from 6.10.12 whether the use of hedges is referring only to the Universities’ car parks. Recommendations for modifications to the SPD 1) As well as trees, hedges / shrubs should be planted to help screen the car parking from the neighbouring bungalows. Usage Class of the Digital Village The Shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Consultation Draft (Talbot Village SPD) on Page 19 gives the following: “Recommendation: The acceptability of any C2 use within the Digital Village area is reviewed by BoP and Natural England if and when a potential operator is identified.” C2 usage is: Use as provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need of care: - Hospital or nursing home - Residential school, college or training centre

No. Date Name Organisation Comments These are the kind of uses given in the Policy SSA20 of the DPD for the TVT area of Poole. It also included a SANG which now appears to have been moved from Poole to Bournemouth, i.e. the Talbot Woods area of the Historic Talbot Village. The Digital Village proposed in this SPD is described at 5.7 under Dorset Local Enterprise Partnership Strategic Economic Plan as “an expansive new shared campus-based business park fusing skills-development, creative and professional education, international- quality research, innovation and commercial development.” We think therefore this would equal Class BI Business Usage: Class B1 Business Use for all or any of the following purposes: a) as an office other than a use within Class A2 (financial and professional services) b) for research and development of products or processes, or c) for any industrial process, being a use which can be carried out in any residential area without detriment to the amenities of that area by reason for noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit. The raison d’etre of this Digital Village Business Park is that it is campus-based and inter-related with the universities. Recommendations for modifications to the SPD 1) If the Digital Village usage of the land is accepted and if that does indeed constitute B1 Usage then the B1 Usage must always be directly related to the universities and not deteriorate into business usage with no relation to the universities. 2) The SPD must stipulate no other Class B usage. 3) Extractor fan noise and vibration emanating from the buildings must not cause a nuisance to neighbouring residents. Car Parking Over the next ten years; 8.2.2 Bournemouth University (BU) anticipates a 27% increase in students studying at the Talbot Campus. Similarly the Arts University anticipates further growth although numbers are not provided. 6.10.9 In the same period BU will not be providing any new car parking spaces over the 800 currently provided and AUB propose only an increase of 57 spaces from the 243 currently provided. Within the same time scale a new cycle and pedestrian path, Talbot Walk, will be provided linking Ensbury Park, Slades Farm, Historic Talbot Village, the two Universities and Digital Village to East Avenue. 6.10.6 “Residential areas close to the campus are already designated as Controlled Parking Zones preventing parking within these areas.”

No. Date Name Organisation Comments Once Talbot Walk is opened this statement is incorrect. Whatever the merits of a linked cycle / pedestrian path to East Avenue, of one thing we can all be sure – East Avenue, Dulsie Road, Keith Road, Huntly Road, Rothesay Road, the west end of Alyth Road will all become a car park for the students and staff of Bournemouth University and Arts University Bournemouth. Over the years BU’s man with a van came and went. This was replaced by a Section 106 Agreement which Poole and the University said was legally unworkable and did not even apply to AUB. Recommendations for modifications to the SPD 1) AUB and BU should control this situation in the way in which some other universities do, e.g. Cambridge University. There, the University has rules that graduate and undergraduate students may not bring cars within the city without a licence from the Proctors (licences only issued in special circumstances) and if cars are brought within the city a fine of £175 can be applied. 2) Failing this the 2 Universities and the 2 Councils (Bournemouth and Poole) need to agree a legal, enforceable solution other than painting yet more miles of yellow lines. 3) If yellow lines are the only solution, it must be stated in the SPD who has agreed to pay for them. Furthermore the anticipated location of the 6.10.10 “light weight car park decks (up to three car parking levels may be developed)” should have been shown on the map. Recommendations for modifications to the SPD 1) Car Parking decks to be no closer than 30 metres away from the boundary of gardens of Dulsie Road dwellings. We also note that the Shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) of the Consultation Draft states: 4.1 “Employment space for digital industries at High Moor Farm up to 25,000m2 with 833 car parking spaces.” The SPD (Page 39) tells us it expects the Digital Village to create 1,770 jobs. The SPD also informs us: 6.9.8 “1 job is provided per 12m2 net internal floor area within the creative and digital industries.” 6.10.11 “Car parking for the Digital Village area has been calculated in accordance with planning policy with one car parking space provided for every 30m2 of gross floor area.” The mismatch between numbers of jobs and parking spaces is intentional in order to encourage walking and cycling and some may do this. However the mismatch is so great, also even some of the 833 spaces will presumably be set aside for visitors so the result will be that many working in the Digital Village will habitually park in East Avenue and the other roads in Bournemouth. Recommendations for modifications to the SPD

No. Date Name Organisation Comments 1) Any yellow lines will have to apply throughout the year without the existing exemption of July to September. Increase in Traffic 4.2.4 “A Transport Study has been undertaken …. This has concluded that although Wallisdown Road is a busy east to west route, the proposals can be accommodated without significantly increasing congestion beyond that which is likely to arise from the natural growth of traffic. However, mitigation is required to improve safety and minimise congestion through alterations to junctions and the provision of better public transport, cycling and walking facilities” Wallisdown Road is an incredibly busy main road that is not just congested at peak times but this congestion even now is spreading to other times during the day. This is acknowledged at: 6.10.1 “The master plan area is served by the strategic road network, however it is recognised that Wallisdown Road has little capacity for additional vehicular traffic.” We can see that some of the proposals put forward will help to a degree but even the new arm on Boundary Road Roundabout will only: 6.10.2 “ .. reduce the need for some trips along Wallisdown Road..” There will be the “natural growth of traffic” up from and into Bournemouth and add to that the big expansion of traffic from the 1770 jobs to be created in the Digital Village, plus business customers plus deliveries and frankly it is difficult to see how the proposals can be accommodated. 6.10.5 “The impact of additional vehicular trips has been modelled using Dorset County Council’s strategic SATURN model. …. The modelling indicates a small increase in journey times along Wallisdown Road but that most trips are dispersed across the wider network (it appears that some drivers will choose to take an alternative route so that the impacts on Wallisdown Road are small).” The documentation relating to the SATURN modelling should have accompanied this Draft SPD so that the results could be studied by the public, To our certain knowledge people are already choosing to take alternative routes and therefore has the same SATURN modelling been applied to these roads and similarly the supporting documentation should have been made available to public scrutiny. The use of “it appears that” is not reassuring to the public and does not speak of certainty. Furthermore the marked improved pedestrian crossings, which of course naturally everyone hopes will improve the safety of pedestrians will in turn add to journey times along this strategic route. Of course cars will not only be joining Wallisdown Road from the south (SPD area) but also from the north (Bournemouth). Page 26 of the Draft Talbot Project Outline Masterplan provides pictures of buildings that would “strengthen the centre of the village and to give it a new 21st Century identity.” It also provides the following plans for the historic Talbot Village:

No. Date Name Organisation Comments P 29 “The use of village buildings, the surrounding surviving farm buildings or appropriate plots for new development for educational, starter creative units or community benefit. The careful conservation and repair / extension of the original listed village buildings, together with appropriate use or proportionate extension to provide a sustainable future for the group as a whole. The development of discrete plots to provide new residential models, and Investigation into the re-provision of the school playground to the rear of the school building to allow for the re-provision of a village green around which development can be structured.” The Shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment also notes at 4.1: “Incubator / small business space in Talbot Woods of up to 6,000m2 with associated parking for 198 cars.” Plans north and south of Wallisdown Road amount to the urbanisation of Talbot Village Trust land – all of which traffic will pour (or more likely try and push its way out) onto Wallisdown Road. Recommendations for modifications to the SPD 1) This Draft SPD is incomplete for public consultation without the supporting traffic modelling documentation. Has SATURN modelling also taken into account the 2,500 homes which we understand are to be built on land off Magna Road? Many of these cars would end up on Wallisdown Road. Railway Halt Page 44 6.10.15 “There may be potential in the longer term to provide a dedicated railway halt on the London to Weymouth line that runs to the south of the campus and integrates with the wider pedestrian and cycle infrastructure. The platforms could extend from Rothesay Road and Glenferness Avenue. This would provide direct access to London, Southampton and Winchester and provide improved commuter access as well as enhanced economic potential for the campus. Further feasibility work will be required to test the deliverability of this proposition.” We are of the opinion that the platforms and train operations would bring unwarranted intrusion and harm to the adjoining properties in terms of noise of announcements, platform lighting and accentuate the already anticipated parking problems. This would do nothing to preserve or enhance the Meyrick Park and Talbot Woods Conservation Area (1988) in which East Avenue, the railway line and Rothesay Road are situated. Recommendations for modifications to the SPD 1) Section 6.10.15 should be deleted from the SPD. Footpaths P47 Figure 6.11 This Figure which gives the network of pedestrian routes (existing) does not show accurately the line of all the Definitive Footpaths over the whole SPD area, e.g. FP33.

No. Date Name Organisation Comments Recommendations for modifications to the SPD 1) Figure 6.11 needs to be corrected to show the lines of the existing Definitive Footpaths. Alyth Road, Bournemouth The Shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment states at: 6.3.7 “Other options for the route of the cycle path have been considered during the design phase including the option of routing along Wallisdown Road via the Boundary Road roundabout and through a property on Dulsie Road. ……. The option of routing through the grounds of the property on Dulsie Road would not be supported by the B of P”. The Residents Association has just been informed that Talbot Village Trust (TVT) has now bought the bungalow at the end of Alyth Road cul-de-sac next to the Public Footpath. There is concern that TVT will now wish to demolish the property to extend the new road from off their land and the Digital Village / Business Park to exit at this point. Bournemouth Council has always said that they would not permit such an exit road into this quiet residential area. Recommendations for modifications to the SPD 1) Poole does not support a vehicular access and egress by the demolition of any property into either Alyth Road or Dulsie Road, Bournemouth. Additional Comment The Poole website announcing this Draft Talbot Village SPD with its hyperlink to the document says “the SPD takes as its basis the broader objectives for the area, set out in the Talbot Project Master Plan.” On opening this hyperlink there is a welcome to the Talbot Project, the first paragraph of which has a link to the “Talbot Project Master Plan”. This opens onto “The Talbot Project Principals Board - The Talbot Project Outline Masterplan - Draft Report - August 2015”. The SPD document on Page 7 sets out the Role of the Supplementary Planning Document and says at 1.1.1 “This Supplementary Planning Document is supported by the Talbot Village Master Plan (Master Plan). This is an informal document endorsed by five partners:  Borough of Poole  Bournemouth Borough Council  Bournemouth University  Arts University Bournemouth, and  The Talbot Village Trust

No. Date Name Organisation Comments Question This SPD was prepared and put out to Public Consultation on 10th August 2015. The only version of the Talbot Project Master Plan available to read is a Draft Report dated August 2015. Has this report been modified or agreed by the Principals Board? If so, why is the agreed final version of the Master Plan not available to be read on the Borough of Poole website? 66 20.0-9.2015 Mr Richard - As residents of Dulsie Road, we oppose the proposed development of a 'digital village' as part of the SPD. Kayan & Ms We see that the draft SPD states at (1.2.3) plans for housing development and student accommodation were refused by the Secretary Helen Moyses of State primarily because of the detrimental impact these would have had on protected heathland. We understand that the inquiry also dealt with the damage to the amenities of residents in Dulsie Road and the neighbouring roads from such a development. We have two very young children: one 3 years old and the other a baby. We would prefer that the Digital Village does not go ahead so that they can enjoy the benefits of having Highmoor Farm on their doorstep, including the views. If this scheme does go ahead, they will potentially go from living on a safe, clean, residential road to one right next to an 'industrial estate' instead. We would like to know what provision Poole Council will be making to ensure that there will be none of the potential health dangers associated with this close proximity of an 'industrial estate' to a residential road (e.g. We understand that there is mention for the use of 'bio-medical facilities' in the SPD). We are concerned that the Digital Village, as currently proposed, potentially over-towering and overlooking the properties on Dulsie Road, will have a significantly adverse impact on house prices on Dulsie Road. We would like to know what provision Poole Council will be making to compensate residents of Dulsie Road, such as ourselves, for the resulting loss in the value of their houses, if this scheme goes ahead. Any future loss in house prices as a direct result of this scheme will be straight forward to calculate from the benchmark prices being achieved in the period prior to the announcement of this scheme, when compared to benchmark house price inflation in the wider area in the future. If this proposal does go ahead, we would want assurance of the following points: - That the buildings on the Digital Village will be shorter in height than the bungalows on Dulsie Road. - That the properties on Dulsie Road will not be overlooked by the new Digitial Village buildings. - That there will be a screen of trees between the properties on Dulsie Road and the new Digital Village buildings, so that the Digital Village buildings are not visible from either floor of properties on Dulsie Road (Ground floor or loft extension). - That there will be no multi-storey car parks backing onto Dulsie Road. - That the buildings on the Digital Village be at least 60m from those on Dulsie Road. - That the Digital Village will not be turned into an industrial estate, if the uptake of the Digital Village is low. - That Dulsie Road will not be used as a parking and access point for the Digital Village. - That Poole Council will put in appropriate measures to compensate the residents of Dulsie Road for the resulting loss in value of the properties as a result of the scheme. 67 20.09.2015 Mr Howard & - We viewed with dismay the latest proposals for building upon Talbot Village Trust land. The buildings of the digital village/industrial Mrs Helen estate would have an adverse effect upon the quality of life for all local residents. Janda

No. Date Name Organisation Comments At the public consultation held at the University on 7th September, a planning officer from Poole Council was unable to confirm important details concerning the height of the industrial units, the distance from neighbouring properties in Dulsie Road (in the draft document it states that this would be 30m building to building but the officer informed us that this was “a typo and it should be 50m”) and that there were no guarantees that the developers would plant trees to screen the buildings. Consequently, we question the accuracy and reliability of any of the statements in the document. Another interesting fact which became more apparent during the consultation was that the University would have no influence or control upon the nature of the businesses or the buildings themselves on the industrial estate. We were also told by another officer that, despite the timescales given in the document, market forces would decide when the digital village/industrial estate was built and that this could be in two years’ time. This begs the question that if digital companies are not interested, what kinds of companies would be encouraged to re-locate to the area – a bio-mass plant perhaps? The addition of a road and car park on the industrial estate would create an intolerable burden upon Wallisdown Road. Those people who would work on the industrial estate who are not able to park there, or who do not wish to park there, would park in Bournemouth roads such as Rothesay, Alyth, Keith, Huntly, Carrbridge, Dulsie and East Avenue and then use the proposed pedestrian/cycleway in order to access the units creating further problems and congestion for local residents. The SPD stresses a commitment to “respecting the amenity of neighbouring dwellings.” With the proposed development, we would like to know how any respect is going to be achieved. 68 20.09.2015 Mr David & - This is a ridiculous idea. Although we don't live near the Heath we use it frequently to walk our dogs and are always astounded by its Mrs Lindsay beauty at all times of the year. Fendley Who knows what impact this will have on the wildlife - I don't feel it will be a positive one. We also feel for the people living adjacent to the proposed 'digital village' whose lives will be totally changed by this. The digital village is an industrial estate just given a fancy name to try and fool us mere mortals. The area is unsuitable for an industrial estate and would point out that there are already plenty of industrial estates in the surrounding area with many unoccupied units - use them instead!! This development will ultimately ruin the Heath, it's ecosystem and its wildlife, with the increased footfall, litter etc. from the students. (Providing bins will not make people use them!!). We completely support Highmoor Farm being kept and with even the possibility of being expanded to be a town farm. 100% leave the Heath alone or do something sensible with it. 69 21.09.2015 Mrs Jo As you are no doubt aware, this surgery is situated in Talbot Village and has been treating patients from the village and surrounding Phillimore, areas for over 20 years now. We have therefore taken a keen interest in the proposed plans outlined in the SPD for the Talbot Project Practice and considered how it will affect our patients and the care we can provide them. Manager The Village Surgery in situated in the centre of Talbot Village and is surrounded on three sides by undeveloped land. Although we welcome the redevelopment of the area, especially the proposal to link Gillett Road with Boundary Roundabout, we are concerned that

No. Date Name Organisation Comments planning is being sought to erect buildings for the Digital Village in close proximity to the surgery on three sides. Since the major changes to the NHS over recent years, General Practice has been encouraged to support patients by providing more medical services within their locality and we are very keen to do this for our patients. At the moment, our building can just about accommodate the services we provide but as there is a real likelihood that our list size will grow substantially with more people working and studying in the area, we would then face a serious issue with insufficient space to provide effective medical services. Please remember that we also provide rooms for the Village Dental Surgery whose patient list I’m sure would also increase. We are therefore very concerned that we are being ‘hemmed in’ by these new buildings and will be left with no room to expand the surgery should we need to. We also already have a serious problem with providing sufficient car parking spaces for our staff and patients. Although we do have our own car park, it is already too small and no longer ‘fit for purpose’. Indeed, we have been informed by patients on an almost daily basis of their frustration in being unable to find a parking space. We reviewed patient feedback and surveys to assess the problems patients were experiencing. The major difficulties were patients frequently being late for their appointments or having to park in the local shop’s private car park or on the single yellow line in the roads. That is another issue as all the roads surrounding the surgery have single or double yellow lines so patients have no alternative areas to park within Talbot Village. I have looked at various ways to improve this situation over the past two years but have been unsuccessful and I know the shops next to us also have the same problem. In order to help us, would it be possible to consider off road parking along Gillett Road? I assume that the road will need to be widened and having limited time parking of perhaps one hour would help us greatly. All the doctors, clinicians and dentists at The Village Surgery and Village Dental Surgery are committed to providing a high quality health service to their patients in this locality and want to increase the medical treatments we provide in order to help the community. We therefore would be grateful if our concerns about the proposed Talbot Project would be taken into consideration so that we are able to continue to care for our patients effectively. 70 21.09.2015 D Tickner - I consider the Talbot project to be ill advised and ill considered. In particular the "digital village" which is a speculative office development on a green field site, that would both tower over the adjacent single storey dwellings, and cause the wildlife in and around the heathland to become an isolated "island population", threatening its' long term survival. Indeed the proposals are so invasive and offensive that it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the have been produced out of spite, after the councils' previous attempt to ruin the heath was blocked. 71 21.09.2015 Mr Ben - I have been involved in the conservation of Talbot Heath SSSI for over 25 years. I have been carrying out detailed wildlife surveys on Limburn Talbot Heath SSSI, on a voluntary basis, for the past two years, targeting reptiles specifically. I am more than happy and keen to provide consultancy input for future habitat management and mitigation proposals at no charge. My overall concern is that the draft Talbot Village SPD fails to provide a high level of consideration for the protection of habitats and species in and around Talbot Heath SSSI, and I feel these factors should be at the heart of the proposal. My specific concerns relating to the ‘draft Talbot Village SPD’ and ‘Shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) of the

No. Date Name Organisation Comments Consultation Draft’ are as follows: Species I am concerned about the potential of significant so-called ‘indirect’ negative impacts of the proposed ‘Digital Village’ on the species present at Talbot Heath SSSI, particularly the nightjar and Dartford warbler. Such a development in such close proximity to the active areas and nesting locations of these species could significantly reduce the probability of these species inhabiting the site and successfully breeding due to: - Increased noise and light pollution disturbances - Increased anthropogenic disturbance from visitors to the SSSI (particularly from university employees and students, and employees at the digital village) - Potential increase in disturbances from dogs - Inappropriate, or lack of, habitat management Talbot Heath SSSI – Management Plan Over the past 25 years the Talbot Village Trust has severely neglected appropriate habitat management regimes on Talbot Heath SSSI. The Trust have demonstrated little interest or concern for maintaining SSSI interest features (habitats and species) in order to maintain favourable condition status. Lack of appropriate habitat management of the Talbot Heath SSSI has also occurred on land owned and managed by the Borough of Poole. This neglect, and lack of an up-to-date and instigated Management Plan for the entire SSSI has resulted in loss or degradation of Annex 1 heathland habitats due to increase in scrub, gorse and birch, woodland, bracken and recreation. There has also been failure to manage the SSSI to reduce risk or severity of fire. Recommendations: I strongly recommend that a detailed Management Plan for Talbot Heath SSSI be written immediately, which: i. Clearly states the habitat management that will be implemented within the next 10 years if the proposed development is granted. ii. Clearly states what habitat management will be implemented in the absence of the proposed development. iii. Details the habitat management which will be carried out within the next 3 to 5 years. The Management Plan should:

 Take into consideration all the species that inhabit and utilise Talbot Heath and surrounding land, particularly mammals (badgers, deer, foxes, hedgehogs), reptiles (notably, adder, grass snake, sand lizard and smooth snake) and birds (notably, kestrel, sparrowhawk, nightjar, Dartford warbler, stonechat).  Clearly outline the actions that will take place to achieve restoration of Annex 1 heathland habitats.  Clearly state the actions that will take place on both the Borough of Poole and Talbot Village Trust owned land in order to maintain the Annex 1 habitats in favourable condition in the future.  Clearly state achievable time scales for implementation of habitat management actions.  Be completed before any formal planning application is submitted.

No. Date Name Organisation Comments  Incorporate a clear plan of action for grazing on Talbot Heath SSSI should the site be developed. The potential negative impacts of fencing and grazing this small and sensitive site should be considered extremely carefully.  Incorporate the potential impacts of development of the surrounding land and plans as to how these potential impacts will be controlled or mitigated if they occur.  Incorporate ongoing assessment and monitoring of the species and habitats within the SSSI and surrounding land.  Provide detailed costed plans and assurances outlining who will pay for the implementation of the Management Plan over the next 10 to 20 years and beyond. Proposed Mitigation I strongly disagree that the provision of ‘heathland support areas’ on the fields adjacent to Talbot Heath will ‘provide an alternative resource for existing visitors and dog walkers’. There is no justification, or more importantly any scientific evidence to support the statements made. From the evidence provided in the Shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment it could be seen as highly probable that this mitigation will have the opposite effect; instead attracting people to the area to use it as a public amenity for recreation, particularly dog walking. The number of dog walkers, students and employees utilising the SSSI and areas around Annex 1 heathland habitats could significantly increase which would be highly detrimental to the habitats and species of concern within Talbot Heath SSSI. A new Talbot Heath Management Plan would require careful consideration in relation to recreational activities and include radical measures for the prevention of species and habitat disturbance. The proposed ‘heathland support areas’ do not consider mammals such as badgers, deer and foxes, which readily utilise the area. There is also no consideration for reptiles, particularly adders, which are likely to use the areas for summer feeding grounds, migration routes and hibernation. Detailed research must be carried out to determine the behaviour and habitat choices of adders, sand lizards and smooth snakes on Talbot Heath SSSI and surrounding land before any future draft proposals or full planning applications are put forward. Alternatives to the development: I have seen no consideration for other potential sites and strategies for future growth of Bournemouth University and the Arts University, particularly within the Lansdowne area of Bournemouth town centre. I propose that the area suggested for development as a ‘Digital Village’ should not be undertaken. Instead I propose that the entire area of land proposed for development as a ‘Digital Village’, alongside areas proposed as ‘heathland support areas’, and all SSSI land owned by the Talbot Village Trust be donated to the Borough of Poole and incorporated into the ‘Talbot Heath Nature Reserve’ as mitigation for the pressures already present within the Talbot Heath SSSI. The donation of land should also include a significant financial donation from the Talbot Village Trust for the restoration of Annex 1 habitats and future management and maintenance of the land. I propose that 80% of this land area should be designated and managed for wildlife and the remaining 20% should be managed for recreational activities, particularly dog walking. General comments:  It has not been made clear as to who will maintain ownership/management of the SSSI area and ‘heathland support areas’ of the Talbot Village Trust land.

No. Date Name Organisation Comments  I feel the proposals for a ‘Digital Village’ within the documents provided have not been made clear enough to allow the public to provide reasoned opinions on the proposal. Bournemouth University has a number of staff regarded as international experts in heathland ecology. I would like to hear specific details regarding the University’s justification for the development and would be very interested to know if the proposal is fully backed by the Department of Life and Environmental Sciences based on their expertise in this area. 72 20.09.2015 Sarah - I have several concerns regarding the draft Talbot Village SPD, particularly relating to the development of a ‘Digital Village’.  The proposal does not consider visual impacts to residents or visitors to the heath. It is likely that I will see the ‘Digital Village’ development from my property on Mayford Road which looks over the Talbot Heath Nature Reserve. I urge that any future planning application include real-life digital visualisation of the development from any position.  Light and noise pollution is a major concern and I will see light output from the ‘Digital Village’ from my property at night.  I’m very concerned that the proposed development will decrease the value of my property.  As I see it, there is a huge potential for increased use of Talbot Heath by students, workers and dog walkers. I am concerned that this may detrimentally affect the special wildlife that lives there. I fear the protected heath will become viewed as a public amenity rather than a nature reserve. There are already known incidences of youths gathering, and even camping, on Talbot Heath and with alcohol and drug abuse related problems (anti-social behaviour, noise, litter, discarded needles), I fear these issues will increase. I also have concerns that traffic will increase within the ‘Talbot View’ estate (Winston Avenue area) due to increased number of dog walkers that would be attracted to Talbot Heath (particularly the car park at the end of Mayford Road).  I am concerned that increasing traffic congestion on Wallisdown Road will detrimentally affect my journey to work. Due to the nature of the area, I am deeply concerned that the local councils cannot physically provide the infrastructure to successfully manage the potential traffic problems in this area with such a development.  I feel that the nature of the ‘Digital Village’ development proposed within the draft SPD has been inadequately explained and detail has been purposely held back. 73 20.09.2015 Ms Harriet - 1. I am strongly opposed to the proposed development on land currently farmed as Highmoor Farm. This is for two main reasons: Stewart-Jones a) Loss of land on which food can be produced. b) Loss of green space and impact on wildlife. It is important to retain the last of the Talbot farms as a working farm, producing food for the people of Poole as originally intended. Although the land is said to be poor, this is only because of lack of management in recent years. There?s no reason why the land should not be fully productive again, given appropriate management. Local food production, especially in an urban environment, should be maintained whenever possible. I believe that children in particular should have the opportunity to see and appreciate where food comes from. We are lucky enough to have an urban farm in the centre of the conurbation. It should be preserved. All green spaces are precious, especially in a densely populated urban area. It has been shown time and again that natural spaces are important for our health and well-being. They have a long-lasting positive impact on mental well-being.

No. Date Name Organisation Comments The ?new? open spaces proposed as heathland support areas are already green spaces and should remain so. The public does not need to have access to fields to be able to benefit from them. Views across green fields, hedges and trees (especially with grazing animals) are as important as areas that we can walk across. Indeed in terms of wildlife they are more important. Increased biodiversity comes from having a variety of habitats, including areas that we can enjoy visually but are not open to dog walkers and others. Wildlife needs space. 2 . I am not totally opposed to the concept of a ?Digital Village? to allow Arts University and Bournemouth University to expand but it would be better to locate it on a brownfield site further away from Wallisdown. This would have two benefits: a) Avoid creation of even more traffic in an already congested area. b) Bring possible employment benefits to other areas of Bournmeouth/Poole.

Poole in particular is a town of economic contrasts with extremely wealthy and extremely deprived areas. It would be a good idea to spread employment opportunities more widely. One of the great benefits of digital industries is that they do not have to be located centrally. 3. The proposed digital village is on almost exactly the same area as the residential development thrown out by the Secretary of State 3 years ago. It would have just as detrimental an effect on the adjoining heathland. Any development next to heathland will threaten these remnant habitats further. Transport issues have been covered thoroughly elsewhere by other stakeholders. Any commercial development of the land would result in greater problems with traffic and parking in a highly congested area around Wallisdown. 74 20.09.2015 Ms Debbie - I would like to register the following objections to the Talbot Village Planning Policy Document: Glover A. Digital Village. This is an industrial estate. Units would be two to three storeys high overlooking a road of bungalows and as the proposal is 30 metres 'building to building' they would be on the boundary line of properties in Dulsie Road. With regard to the car parking provision for the expected 1770 jobs to be created 6.10.11 states that 'Car parking located to the rear of buildings where it is less visually intrusive'. Is that to the University or Dulsie Road residents? B. Highmoor Farm. Is still a working farm. I have not been able to find any proposals for the farm buildings which were built at the same time as Talbot Village in the 1800s. As the other buildings have Conservation Area status surely these buildings should be afforded the same protection. C. Wallisdown Road. By increasing the number of pedestrian and cycle crossings it will cause more queueing for motorists so I fail to see how this will alleviate pressure on this very busy road. D. Wildlife. The two species of bat that visit our garden use the tree line to the rear of the properties on Dulsie Road as a corridor this would be severely affected by any buildings on the boundary line. E. Cycle/foot paths across the Heath could not be illuminated because of the SSSI protection and would therefore pose a Health and Safety risk. This proposal will have a huge impact on all of the properties backing on to the site and I would urge you to take this into consideration

No. Date Name Organisation Comments and to respect the 400 metre Heath protection zone. 75 20.09.2015 Mr and Mrs - As residents of Rothesay road we are deeply concerned if this hub goes ahead , more traffic noise, parking this will bring to our Anthony Jones area.The value of our homes will also be deprecated. We feel that this paragraph should be deleted. 76 20.09.2015 Ms Janet - I am writing to object about the above, in particular the building of a so called 'Digital Village ' behind Dulsie Road. The impact this will Welch have on the properties and the immediate area is immeasurable. In particular the height of the buildings and only 30 metres from residential properties. This business park could generate 1700 jobs causing all sorts of problems with traffic and car parking. This is a conservation area and is the most expensive part of Bournemouth to live (we pay the highest rates) and we do not want to live in a car park., or on the edge of a industrial park., and yet you want to build a 'digital village' behind us. There are plenty of empty buildings on Bournemouth and Poole industrial estates which could be used instead. There are already problems from students and staff cars parking in the roads where there are no restrictions and creating this 'village' will only add to it. The traffic on Wallisdown Road is already at a standstill most days and adding to it will only cause more traffic congestion. What happens when there is a lack of uptake in the digital village? Will it then be let to other industrial businesses? The building of a bus interchange will not discourage people from using their cars. I understand that Talbot Village Trust has now purchased another property at the end of Alyth Road. Is this in order to create an entrance from that end? Which will turn Alyth Road into a through road. Again causing noise and traffic/ parking problems for us the residents. Also, I strongly object to the provision of a railway halt with platforms extending from Rothesay Road and Glenferness Avenue. Again this will increase the traffic in this area and cause all sorts of problems with noise/parking and have a detrimental effect to residents amenities and should be deleted from the SPD. The Talbot project is something which I strongly disagree with . I chose to live in a lovely conservation area of Bournemouth and by building this it will become a very busy area. I strongly disagree that it will contribute to the economic growth of Bournemouth and will not benefit the residents at all. 77 20.09.2015 Mr David & - I write to register our objections to the Talbot Village SPD. Principally, the proposals seem to fly in the face of the fact that Talbot Mrs Maureen Woods is a conservation area and thus surely it is the Planning Authorities responsibility to ensure that the rules are adhered to. Other Andrews major specific concerns/objections are; As the Wallisdown Road cannot remotely cope with its current level of traffic, the development and subsequent increase in student and development traffic will cause even more congestion and environmental pollution, added to which one shudders to think of the potential for cycle accidents bearing this in mind. Walkers, cyclists and students at the local primary schools and university will be impacted adversely by the increased pollution. The pedestrian and cycle path will add to parking levels on surrounding roads. We fail to see the necessity or desirability of a railway

No. Date Name Organisation Comments halt, where on earth could the immediate vicinity cope with the increase parking requirements. We also feel that the area is adequately supported by the current stations. We feel that Bournemouth University is now the size where even more growth can only be to the detriment of Bournemouth as a whole. 78 20.09.2015 Cllr. Lynda Councillor for I have already sent in a letter to you about my concerns on behalf of my residents, however I felt I have to further include two other Price Talbot and items of concern. Branksome Page 44 6.10.15 the Rail Halt, we feel this would change Talbot Woods beyond recognition and cause a great deal of harm, therefore Woods Ward, respectfully ask for this to be deleted from the SPD. Bournemouth Borough Further I have just been informed that TVT has now bought a bungalow at the end of Alyth Road cul-de-sac next to the Public Council Footpath. There is now concern that TVT will now wish to demolish the property, Bournemouth Council has always said that they would not permit such an exit road in to a quiet area. 79 20.09.2015 Mrs E G Welch - I wish to place on record my objection to the proposal of the draft S P D, in particular 1. The Digital Village which will have a major impact on the Talbot Woods homes. 2. The proposed railway holt and 3. The possibility of a new road formed by the the demolition of the bungalow at the end of Alyth Road recently purchased by the Talbot Village Trust creating major parking and Traffic problems in the area. 80 20.09.2015 Mrs Nicola - In connection with the Talbot Village SPD I would like to register my concerns regarding the loose wording contained in the document Juniper which, regardless of any “promises” which might be made, leave the door wide open for the development to evolve over time without any genuine concern being given to the effect it will have on the residents of properties which are adjacent to or within eye sight and/or earshot of the area to be developed. Although the wording used in the SPD itself and various associated leaflets and exhibitions make it sound as if it will be a very attractive development with little or no adverse affect on the surrounding area, there are virtually no guarantees that less attractive developments will not be allowed. The following list highlights some of my concerns. I am sure there are other aspects of the proposed development that will also have a detrimental affect on the surrounding area. 1) New buildings will be allowed at a distance of 30 meters from existing properties. In the majority of cases this means that new buildings might well be built very close to rear gardens of the surrounding residential properties. This will significantly reduce the privacy currently enjoyed by these residents and will have a severely detrimental affect on their visual outlook. 2) The document allows building of “typically 2 or 3 storeys in height” This does not impose a limit of 3 storeys, and therefore actual buildings might be higher. Also, by using “storeys” as a unit of measurement it does not actually impose any restriction in actual height as specified in meters. 3) The term “Digital Village” implies that any planning permission that might be granted in the future will be for small unobtrusive buildings as found in a “village” and that the companies that might those buildings will be working with computers and other small electronic devices. However there is nothing in the document that places any actual restriction on the size of buildings or types of industries that will be allowed.

No. Date Name Organisation Comments 4) The document states that the increase in the number of students and employees will have little or no detrimental affect on traffic congestion or parking shortage. This is obviously incorrect as anyone who uses Wallisdown Road will testify. The congestion on this and surrounding roads has been getting worse every year and any additional regular flow of traffic can only make it worse. In general, the document attempts to give the appearance that the concerns of local residents have been given high priority and will be catered for so that any impact the development might have will be minimal. In reality, however, there are no guarantees that large buildings will not eventually blight the landscape, or that the area will not become an industrial estate with all the associated noise and other pollution. In its current form therefore, there is every possibility that the lives of the local residents will be severely and negatively affected. 81 20.09.2015 Mr Paul - I would like to make the following comments on the Talbot Village SPD Juniper As an overall observation it is apparent that much of the wording used is vague and imprecise and as such will allow an unreasonable amount of leeway for any actual planning permissions that will eventually be applied for and/or allowed. Taking into account that whatever developments do eventually take place will have a significant, and probably detrimental impact on the surrounding environment, it is essential that precise limitations be included in the final document. The eastern boundary of the proposed development lies adjacent to the rear gardens of the properties in Dulsie Road. Any proposals must keep to a minimum the adverse effect that the development will have on these properties. Specifically: A) The current document implies that any new buildings will be at least 30 meters from existing “properties” Since the rear gardens in Dulsie are roughly 30 metres in length this would permit buildings to be placed immediately at the end of the gardens. This is totally unacceptable. The plan must be changed to make it clear that no new buildings or other developments such as roads, car parks or other infrastructure etc will be permitted within 50 metres of the existing garden boundaries. B) The current document refers to any new buildings as being “... typically two to three storeys in height” and also that “... occupied roof spaces are promoted” This wording places no restriction on the actual height of any new buildings since ... i) there is no legal definition of “storey” ii) there is no legal definition of “roof space” iii) the word “typically” does not impose any actual restriction This is totally unacceptable. The plan must be changed to make it clear that no new buildings or other structures will be permitted that are higher than 10 metres measured from ground level to the highest point. This is approximately the height of an average 2 storey house. C) As far as I can see the existing document places no restrictions on the size of the footprint made by any one individual building. A number of small buildings will be more sympathetic to the area than a single large building. The current plan would thus allow a single building to run the entire length of the Dulsie Road boundary.

No. Date Name Organisation Comments This is totally unacceptable. The plan should be changed to specify what maximum ground area individual buildings can occupy. The maximum specified should be compatible with the surrounding area. D) The plan makes reference to trees and bushes etc being planted along the boundary with Dulsie Road as a form of screening. It is well known that trees planted as saplings take many years to grow before they will provide any reasonable degree of privacy. The plan should be changed to make a specific commitment that “mature trees” will be planted well in advance as a condition of actual planning permission being granted. In addition to the above, various other items are of major concern. 1) Digital Village There is no definition of “Digital Village” This phrase conveys the impression that the new buildings will be primarily made up of office space with employees working at desks with computers etc. If this is the case then noise, dust, vibration, etc will be minimal. However, if other forms of light industry are allowed then associated pollution of various types will become more likely. The plan should be changed to make it more clear as to exactly what type of industry will be allowed. 2) Traffic Congestion The SPD states that studies have been carried out on traffic flow in Wallisdown Road and that “ ... the proposals can be accommodated without significantly increasing congestion “ I would suggest that the studies have been carried out with using erroneous methodology. Wallisdown Road is already congested more or less throughout the entire day. To say that no impact will be made by the proposals cannot be true. 3) Parking The increase in the number of students and the employees working in the Digital Village will undoubtedly put extra pressure on the surrounding roads. In the past problems caused by student and staff parking in Dulsie Road and other roads in the Talbot Woods area resulted in yellow lines having to be painted along great lengths of the roads. The proposed increases in students and employees will undoubtedly result in an increase in parking to the detriment of local residents. The plan should be changed to include provisions for parking by residents only, and the way in which any funding required for this should be clearly shown. Conclusion Unless specific limits are included in the proposal as to location, heights, size, etc of any buildings that are eventually granted planning permission then there is a very grave risk that the site will be allowed to grow into a standard industrial area with all the negative results on the surrounding area that are associated with such developments. The SPD must be changed to guarantee that the general ambience of the Talbot Woods area is maintained, and that the lives of all residents affected by the development are not seriously and detrimentally affected.

No. Date Name Organisation Comments 82 20.09.2015 Mr Stephen - I would like the following comments to go on record regarding the Talbot Village SPD. Wadsworth 1. We live in the quiet setting that is Dulsie Road. The track and farmland to the rear of Dulsie Road is an important haven for wildlife. We currently have a variety of wildlife visiting our garden including birds, hedgehogs, foxes and deer. It is a unique place. 2. The idea of turning over such a setting to a business use gravely concerns me. I am aware of the old provisions for a relief road which is unlikely to be ever constructed. The designation 'digital village' is vague and likely to mean offices and business units which are Unlikely to be reserved solely for digital business uses. There is currently a glut of business park accommodation available in the Poole, fern down and ringwood areas where land for such development is being developed with more regard for the surrounding residential development. The plans to erect buildings varying from 3 to 6 storeys so close to prime residential development has clearly not been thought through and certainly wouldn't be proposed in the good areas of Poole. I don't suppose we will ever know why the Talbot Village Trust are so desperate to cash in on this land at this time. The estimate of 1770 jobs sounds vague and suggests an over intensification of development to create so many jobs on such a modest piece of land. Much development above 2 storeys In Bournemouth and Poole is refused due to it being overbearing and impacting adversely On the amenity spaces of people. The same criteria should be applied here so the development doesn't blight the properties adjoining. Commercial development on such a scale should be Sited appropriately on zoned areas paying regard to the proximity of residential development. The prospect of an under occupied business park and the undesirable prospect of light industrial uses taking the free units need to be considered. The proximity of this commercial development to residential housing and vague designation make it unacceptable. I don't know of any office developments being sited so close to residential development in the Bournemouth and Poole areas. Surely any development being proposed must be low rise and of a suitable low density to respect the surrounding devlopment if it is going to be considered at all. I work in the property construction sectors and know that demand for new office space is not outstripping availability In the area. I feel that the proposal to replace this natural farmland space with office development would extinguish much of the wildlife which thrives in this space and would be inappropriate being so close to private residential accommodation and would inevitably impact adversely on the adjoining occupiers and the enjoyment of their amenity spaces. 83 21.09.2015 Brett Spiller Chapman I herein provide a response on behalf of W H White Ltd, who represent a consortium of landowners in North Poole. Lily Our response follows the broad structure of the SPD. Planning Limited (on Partnership approach behalf of W W H White Ltd welcome the partnership approach to the formulation of the draft SPD. H White The proposed vision Ltd). W H White support the proposed vision.

No. Date Name Organisation Comments Background Contrary to the description in the SPD, we are led to understand that Highmoor Farm is still tenanted and actively farmed. Proposed mix of uses W H White support the principle of the proposed uses, both collectively and individually. W H White fully support the delivery of a Digital Village of up to 25,000m2 of gross employment floor space, focussed on creative and digital industries, as well as social and health care. We understand that this component of the development would be phased such that; 5,000m2 would be brought forward over the period 2022-2026 and 20,000m2 in the ten years thereafter. Whilst the estimate of 1,770 jobs (on the basis of the HCA threshold of 1 job per 12sqm) might prove optimistic, the Digital Village could play a critical role in retaining knowledge and expertise within the local area to the benefit of the wider economy. It would be very disappointing, however, if the Digital Village turned out to be a B1 trading estate completely unrelated to the Universities. Whilst we recognise that planning is ill-equipped to limit occupation to certain sectors or types of business, the endorsement of the respective landowners may present an opportunity to provide further comfort on this issue. W H White Ltd is pleased to see the ambition of two University’s reflected in its development /redevelopment programme. We therefore fully support the proposal for additional academic floor space totalling 32,500m2 (Bournemouth University and Arts University Bournemouth). We understand that this would be delivered in phases, such that c16,500m2 would be brought forward within the next seven years, c9,000m2 over the period 2022-2026 and c7,000m2 during the ten years thereafter. Given the planning history of the site, W H Whites Ltd is surprised to see reference to potential market housing at paragraph 6.9.3, if only as a fall back option. Whilst the overall proposals incorporate ‘heath support land’ it is very unclear as to whether these areas would have the capacity (given the intensity of the academic and employment components of the scheme) to serve as a SANG (n.b. advice at paragraph 6.9.11 of the SPD). Indeed they might well be viewed as being entirely in the wrong place to serve this function owing to the fact that the support land lies immediately adjacent to the Heath. As you will be aware, developments of 50 units or more, should this ever be proposed, within 400m-5km of the Dorset Heaths should feature an integral SANG. Without the certainty that a SANG could be accommodated it would seem inappropriate to contemplate market housing, even as a fall back, within the SPD. It is recommended that this reference be deleted. The delivery of 354 additional student bed spaces is noted. We understand that this would be delivered in phases, with 204 being brought forward within the next seven years with a further 150 to be brought forward over the period 2022-2026. The growth of the University population, facilitated by the additional academic floor space outlined in the SPD, will add to the pressure for housing within both Bournemouth and Poole. We would respectfully suggest that, even allowing for students living at home, the proposed level of on-site accommodation is unlikely to be significant in offsetting the need for accommodation. As such, the housing needs of the growing student population should be fully reflected in the emerging Strategic Housing Market Assessment. Transport and strategic connections Whilst the principle of enhancing north-south movements through the strategic connection / spine is supported, it is evident that this will involve intensifying movement along the foot/cycle path within the eastern boundary of Talbot Heath SPA. This jars with the stance

No. Date Name Organisation Comments adopted by Borough of Poole in relation to other schemes such as in the determination of Magna Business Park at North Poole. One can only hope that the pragmatism shown in the SPD will follow in other areas, particularly when incorporating features to facilitate modal shift, and therefore plays a small part in reducing carbon emissions and global warming, which arguably pose a far greater risk to heathland habitat and the species that utilise it. With respect to the cycle network, much of the attention is focussed on improving cycle paths / lanes and instating missing links to the east. It is respectfully suggested that attention also be given to strengthening links to the west too, including the largely residential areas of Kinson and Bearwood. Given the scale of development envisaged, it is disappointing that no firm commitment to increasing bus frequency is provided (above and beyond the somewhat vague statement at 6.10.14). Frontloaded services – i.e. establishing high frequency in the early years of development can help engender sustainable travel habits. It is recognised that this might require upfront subsidy in the early years, but this should be secured by means of obligation to render the development acceptable, particularly given the capacity issues on Wallisdown Road and the car parking strategy being advanced. Whilst we understand that transport modelling has been undertaken, there is insufficient detail presented within the draft SPD to allow consultees to analyse of draw an informed conclusion about the transport impacts of the proposed development. Detailed design parameters Paragraph 7.2.5 states: ‘The Digital Village is proposed on existing open land to the rear of residential properties in Talbot Village to the west and Talbot Woods to the east. In that context buildings within the Digital Village should be of a more modest scale than those in the Talbot Academic Quarter and should have a maximum height of three storeys. The floorplate of buildings will vary dependent on use. In this location buildings should be sited a minimum of 30 metres from residential properties (building to building) and a screen of native tree planting introduced to reduce visual impact.’ I would note that the rear gardens of the properties fronting Dulsie Road are typically in the region of 25-30m in depth. The above paragraph would imply that the proposed 3 storey buildings could be right of the fence line. It is noted that a screen of native tree planting is proposed, which allowing for canopy spread and root protection zones might well require a 30m offset from the rear gardens of the properties fronting Dulsie Road. As such, we believe that the above statement is in error and requires correction, presumably to make reference to the stand-off distances from the site boundary. The opportunity for redevelopment within the existing campus is duly acknowledged and the encouragement given to the creation of landmark buildings is supported. The proposed approach to public realm, trees and open spaces is also supported. Despite various planning policy hooks, very little attention is given to energy, opportunities for energy efficiency and on-site generation. In the interests of presenting a holistic SPD, it is recommended that energy efficiency and on-site generation be addressed. Phasing and infrastructure provision The phasing strategy is broadly supported and considered realistic. With the exception of the need to frontload increased bus frequency, the phasing of infrastructure delivery is generally supported.

No. Date Name Organisation Comments 84 21.09.2015 Ms Sandra - I would like to note my objection to all aspects of this planning application; Keen  The public consultation was very short notice, giving little time for concerned residents of the area to look at this very detailed plan, the public consultation was also badly timed being held in the peak holiday season.  The open day held on the 7th Sept was a very poor quality display, with only 2 bound consultation pamphlets available for concerned members of the public to view.  The comments forms available gave the impression of it being a tick box exercise with a very small comments box, you are dealing with a fairly large elderly population in part of the affected area and this gives the impression that our views are limited.  The content is hugely biased in favour of development.  This would be a disaster for the heathland no matter how far away from the heath it is implemented  The resulting increase in traffic is unsustainable in such an already over populated area  All the cycle ways and footpaths will not get people out of their cars  The heathland and Highmoor Farm are one of the last few open space areas in Bmth/Poole and their value to the local population is being greatly overlooked for pure financial gain.  Highmoor Farm is a welcome jewel in the crown, a peaceful area free from noise and this is STILL a working farm contrary to PBC take on the area, the farm is being carefully managed by the current tenants for continuing future use.  Nighjars are evident within the fields of Highmore Farm, just ask the residents of Dulsie Road, also Deer are often seen on the farm.  There is mention in SHRA (HRA) consultation plan that the 'mature tree belt' be retained behind Dulsie Road, There is no mature tree belt, only that which has been planted by the residents which is a mixture of trees/shrubs which is not fit for use as a buffer, new planting would be required and fencing adjacent to any development which would required several years to become mature.  Quality of life in which is essentially a retirement area would be immeasurably affected.  Digital Park ( Industrial Estate) completely out of character for the area  Figure 4.1 of the SPD and the 400m buffer zone effectively invalidates any development. 85 21.09.2015 Ms Sally Knott, Intelligent The Talbot Village Trust welcome the proposals put forward in the Draft Talbot Village SPD. As a major land owner in the area, the Planning Land (on Trust welcomes the opportunity to revitalise the unviable parcels of agricultural land, into heathland support areas for Talbot Heath, and Advisor behalf of as land for the Digital Village in association with the Universities to support the local economy. Talbot Village Highmoor Farm was the original endowment that funded the Talbot Village Almshouses and other charitable purposes. 150 years later Trust). the farm is no longer a viable agricultural holding. There is no farmhouse, the area capable of being farmed is small in agricultural terms and there is a persistent issue of vandalism. The agricultural land lies within the urban conurbation and its development provides a sustainable opportunity to help the Universities provide better facilities, and development to support the economy with space for innovative businesses. This can be developed in conjunction with the opening of large areas of land for informal recreation and the implementation of a strategy to help protect and enhance Talbot Heath. Transport improvements can be introduced to minimise congestion in the Wallisdown Corridor. These will provide the opportunity for people to use alternative modes of transport to the car. Junction improvements can also help traffic flows and improve safety,

No. Date Name Organisation Comments particularly for pedestrians and cyclists. As a charitable trust we welcome the opportunity to utilise our endowment land for the excellent purposes of supporting the Universities and enabling the exciting economic benefits that can flow to the region as a result of their success. The local community and all our existing beneficiaries will be better off if this scheme is allowed to flourish. All of this in accordance with the long term work and ethos of the Talbot Village Trust. We are therefore pleased to endorse the SPD and look forward to helping deliver the Council’s vision for the area. 86 21.09.2015 Ms Theresa - 1. The central proposal is to replace Highmoor Farm (our centrally located urban farm) with a digital start-up village. I am not McManus convinced of the over-arching benefits of co-locating digital start-ups, but even if I were, I think that either this development could be located elsewhere, or that another of the BU faculties could be located elsewhere, and that freed-up space used for the digital start-ups instead.

2. Delivering improved educational facilities and supporting the success of both Universities (Q1) a. Yes, happy that this is a key objective, but The Talbot Plan is not the best way of achieving it.

3. Contributing toward economic growth (Q2). a. Bournemouth and Poole are largely prosperous enough already except for certain areas of multiple deprivation. If the new facilities (ie the digital village) were to be developed in these areas, then the economic growth that follows would then benefit the people who need it most. Bournemouth University has already dealt well with having distributed campuses. Having a further site (either the digital village or a faculty) down in Kinson and/or in Boscombe, would be better than at the proposed Wallisdown site because it spreads the load (traffic/ potential student disruption)as well as the benefits across the conurbation. b. To be even bigger about it, it would be better for Dorset if new facilities are developed in Weymouth, which also has areas of multiple deprivation and nothing like Bournemouth/Poole’s levels of prosperity.

4. Creating space for start-ups (Q3) a. Both towns should be doing this anyway. There are plenty of unused brown-field space and unlet-shops for business start- ups. Local authorities just need to work with the LEP and other partners to develop favourable packages. Here’s what Bristol offers: http://www.bristol.gov.uk/page/business-bristol/business-grants b. One of the key benefits of digital developments is that you can communicate digitally and don’t need to be co-located with other digital companies, so I disagree that the digital employment village is so essential that it’s worth losing the only viable urban farm situated in the centre of the conurbation.

5. Improving and protecting the heathland (Q4) a. This should be happening anyway. b. The need to use the farm to provide alternative recreation space to the heathland, and to say that this is a benefit of this proposal, is a symptom of the fact that our conurbation is over-developed. This means we need to stop any further development that encroaches on any of our existing green space. Including that farm.

No. Date Name Organisation Comments

6. Proposals for changes to local road network (Q5) a. I absolutely disagree that we need to make any more roads for vehicles other than buses and bicycles and pedestrians. We will never achieve the mass switching to sustainable modes of transport which we so clearly need, if we keep making it easier for car drivers. b. I absolutely disagree with losing any of the urban farm to additional roads (or any other development) c. If a new exit from the Talbot Campus is needed for buses and cycles, and it can be constructed without encroaching on the urban farmland, then I am happy that it should be done, on the proviso that it is not a permitted access route for cars. d. Great news that there will be new cycle lanes. These should be built off-road wherever possible, and if on-road, should provide plenty of room for cyclists and not peter out at the difficult bits. Sustrans have a guide book for cycle friendly design. e. More visitor cycle parking would be useful at the University.

7. New Bus Interchange (Q6) a. I am not aware of the problem the residents are experiencing with the buses in Fern Barrow, so cannot comment on how important it is to alleviate by providing a new bus interchange. Please note my previously expressed sentiments about prioritising buses etc over cars.

8. I can see no evidence that Bournemouth University and the Borough of Poole have considered some key issues, namely climate change and the wider county issues. a. Planning for the future – we can expect both diminishing supplies of fuel and restrictions on fossil fuel usage to be issues of the future. What would the impact of this be on our food ? A lot of what we eat is grown and/or imported with a high energy cost. We urgently need to move towards more sustainable and local agriculture and horticulture. Urban farms have a key role in helping people to get back in touch with our agrarian roots, helping people come together as a community, and re-skilling people so that more can grow their own. See https://www.farmgarden.org.uk/ to read more about the benefits of urban farming. b. Planning for the future – we can expect both diminishing supplies of fuel and restrictions on fossil fuel usage to be issues of the future. What would the impact of this be on the universities ? I think it would mean that there would be fewer overseas students, and maybe even fewer students from outside of our region. This, I think, is a good reason for developing facilities in Weymouth, to ensure that West Dorset continues to have some access to higher education. c. Planning for the future – we can expect many changes in our weather pattern and climate in future. What is and will continue to be the impact of this on our wildlife and biodiversity? And that is aside from continual pressure from over-development on key habitats and green corridors. We urgently need to do more for our wildlife and to encourage more biodiversity. This is why we need to use this opportunity to make Highmoor Farm a highly biodiverse space, supporting wildlife and farming.

87 21.09.2015 Ms Helen - Firstly I feel that any further development in this are will be detrimental to the community and environment as open spaces in towns are Bateman so rare and once they are developed they are gone forever. The use of this area as farmland is a unique feature that should not be discarded too readily. However, I am resigned to the fact that Poole council and TVT are determined to do something to develop this land so here are my

No. Date Name Organisation Comments comments and feedback to the SPD: What exactly is a 'digital village'? Why do think this proposal is likely to attract they types of businesses listed? Isn't one of the attractions of emerging technologies that work can be done anywhere and groups can collaborate from homes and offices anywhere at anytime, so the need for premises overheads and commuting can be avoided? If this development doesn't attract the business you expect what other business/use could then appear? This needs to be specified and clear agreements stated. Is it possible this area could ultimately turn into another industrial park? The type of permitted use and hours of use that will be allowed should be stated clearly in the plan. What is meant by underground loading and where would this be? What types of things will be loaded? Will it be directly adjacent to current properties? Such facilities if needed should be carefully positioned away from current domestic dwellings. The visual intrusion this development could cause to surrounding properties needs to be managed. The height of buildings must be specified to make it clear what is acceptable. The suggested screening by the existing trees is likely to be insufficient as many of the trees suffer branch losses in winds and are already patchy, so further planting should be included in the plans. If the properties in Dulsie Road are going to be subjected to a new road on their boundaries, then a new secure and pet/child proof fencing should be erected as part of the development to stop access on to the road between the boundaries and the road. The way the plan summary is written is very vague in regard to the type of vehicular access that may eventually be allowed on the proposed 'boulevard'. This seems to being billed as a cycle/pedestrian way but then vehicular access is mentioned later in the document. Is it the intention is for this to be road open to all traffic? The proposed railway halt is likely to increase traffic and parking demands in the area and will detrimental to residents' amenities. Is it really necessary with Bournemouth and Branksome stations being so close? Is further development of the university sustainable? Isn't it likely there will be more of a turn to e-learning in future years as people try to reduce the expense of learning and fit it in around work? It has also been noticeable over the last year or so that the noise level coming from university events has increased and become more frequent. Further expansion of the university should also include guidelines as to the types, frequency and timings of such permitted events that often involve the continual thud thud of loud music throughout the neighbourhood throughout the day and into the evening. The plan mentions nothing about how to ease traffic problems along Wallisdown Rd. The opening of the supermarket and its parking spaces at Wallisdown crossroads has caused more problems as cars are always pulling in and out, blocking movement past, which has a knock on impact along all approaches. Adding another road to feed into this busy area will only compound the issue. 88 21.09.2015 Mr Paul Rees - I wish to formally record my objection to the Talbot Project proposal. Reasons include: - - Noise disturbance and air pollution over an extended construction period seriously and adversely affecting the peace and tranquility of the area surrounding the proposed site - The height of the proposed buildings would oversee the residences within the proximity of the proposed site adversely impacting on the current visual amenity of the area - The likely increase of traffic within the area and the potential for increased crime - The disruption to homes and gardens will significantly reduce the value of property within the area .

No. Date Name Organisation Comments 89 21.09.2015 Mr Karl Lyons - The proposals for the location and number of storeys of the proposed buildings comprising the Digital Village will seriously impact on the environment of the existing buildings in Dulsie Road which are mainly bungalows, some of which have been extended to semi- bungalows, and on the properties in the adjacent roads. I attach a photograph which has been displayed on a lamp post adjacent to the existing pedestrian route from Dulsie Road onto the farmland. The artist's impression shows the proposed buildings which are totally overwhelming in the street scene. I do not understand why, bearing in mind the amount of land available for the development, the proposed buildings need to be located so close to the existing properties. I suggest therefore that the layout of the new buildings should be as discrete as possible and certainly should not exceed two storeys high and accommodation should not extend n into roof areas. The buildings should be located at a reasonable distance from existing development. I understand that the Talbot Village Trust is proposing to purchase a bungalow next to the pedestrian route. I note from the proposals that there is an intention to increase the use of the path to include provision of a cycle path. In itself this will obviously increase the number of users and this coupled with the anticipated numbers of employees using the Digital Village will very significantly increase the number of cars which will be parked in the adjacent roads. I know from experience that when the original University buildings were created the congestion caused in Huntly Road where I live made vehicular access to my own property very difficult if not impossible. I have no doubt whatsoever that the same situation will occur in the Roads adjacent to the pedestrian/cycle path. I noted from my walk around Talbot Village that all the roads have "yellow line " traffic restrictions and I want Bournemouth Council to implement the same restrictions in the effected roads if the scheme proceeds. Whilst I believe that at the moment the site of the purchased bungalow has not been referred to in the proposals I should be grateful for an assurance that the land will not be used to construct a roadway to access the site if the Digital Village at any time in the future. 90 21.09.2015 Ms Sally Aspirations Aspirations Academies Trust has 12 schools in three age 3 – 19 districts. The South Coast district currently comprises Magna Lissenden, Academies Academy, a secondary school in Canford Heath, Poole, Jewell Academy, a primary school in Townsend, Bournemouth, and Ocean Director of Trust Academy, a newly opened Junior school in central Poole. Magna Academy and Jewell Academy were both judged outstanding in all Development areas by Ofsted in June 2015, less than two years from opening. The Trust is about to bid to the Department for Education to open two creative technology schools in September 2017, one of which to be in the Bournemouth/Poole area. These schools will be operated in partnership with Ian Livingstone CBE, a highly successful and experienced entrepreneur and businessman, who is a leading spokesperson for computing skills and the video gaming industry. Ian co-authored the Next Gen report published by NESTA in 2011 and subsequently advised the DfE on the development of the new Computing curriculum. The new Academy will provide both primary and secondary education, for children from ages 4 – 19, and will develop significant links with both Universities and the local digital industry. Both Bournemouth and Poole have been experiencing significant demand for additional school places. Aspirations Academies Trust is currently looking for a suitable site for this new Academy, and this planning consultation appears to present an opportunity. A location central to the Bournemouth and Poole area, with close proximity to the Universities and close to this proposed ‘Digital Village’ would seem ideal. It is noted in the Supplementary Planning Document in section 6.9.4 page 39 regarding the nature of the Digital Village, that ‘The mix may also include health care facilities (a private hospital or care home for instance) and in section 6.9.3 on page 38 that ‘It is possible that the Universities may not require all of the land to the south and east of their present

No. Date Name Organisation Comments campuses. Alternatively, this land can be used for other forms of development, such as care home, or where it lies beyond 400m of Talbot Heath, residential development. We therefore suggest that the provision of a site for the creative technology Academy proposed by the Aspirations Academies Trust be considered within the planning for this area of development. 91 21.09.2015 Mr Gary Sport Sport England is the Government agency responsible for delivering the Government’s sporting objectives. Maximising the investment Parsons, England into sport and recreation through the land use planning system is one of our priorities. Planning The new Sport England Strategy 2012-17 sets a challenge to: Manager • See more people taking on and keeping a sporting habit for life • Create more opportunities for young people • Nurture and develop talent • Provide the right facilities in the right places • Support local authorities and unlock local funding • Ensure real opportunities for communities Sport England has assessed the Draft Talbot Village Supplementary Planning Document in the light of Sport England’s Planning for Sport: Forward Planning guidance. It can be found on our Planning for Sport section of the website http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/ The overall thrust of the statement is that a planned approach to the provision of facilities and opportunities for sport is necessary, new sports facilities should be fit for purpose, and they should be available for community sport. To achieve this, our objectives are to: PROTECT sports facilities from loss as a result of redevelopment ENHANCE existing facilities through improving their quality, accessibility and management PROVIDE new facilities that are fit for purpose to meet demands for participation now and in the future. Sport England believes that sport has an important role in modern society and in creating sustainable and healthy communities. Sport and physical activity is high on the Government’s national agenda as it cuts across a number of current topics that include health, social inclusion, regeneration and anti social behaviour. The importance of sport should be recognised as a key component of development plans, and not considered in isolation. The following comments are provided within the context of: • The National Planning Policy Framework (DCLG, 2012). • Sport England’s Planning for Sport webpages (2015). Site Context We note that currently Bournemouth University has over 17,000 students (not all on this site but the majority are). On-site, for sport it has less than any secondary school with 1x sports hall, 1 x gym and 2 x MUGA (which appear to be affected in the development proposals). The University’s BUSA teams have to travel well away from the University to play their sports. Hockey, Cricket, Rugby, Football all take place at Chapel Gate in Christchurch – approximately 45 minutes on the bus. The Arts University has no sport provision at all apart from 1 dance studio. Sport England raises concern with the current provision on-site or within close proximity for

No. Date Name Organisation Comments its students. 1. Local Plan & Evidence Base The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published in March 2012 (replacing PPS12 & PPG17) states: Paragraph 73 – Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to health and well-being of communities. Planning policies should be based on up-to-date assessment of the needs for open space, sport and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. The assessments should identify specific needs and quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses of open space, sports and recreational facilities in the local area. Information gained from the assessments should be used to determine what open space, sports and recreational provision is required. Sport England’s view is that, in order to meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (formerly PPS12 and PPG17), this should include a strategy (supply and demand analysis with qualitative issues included) covering the need for indoor and outdoor sports facilities, including playing pitches. The evidence base for sport and recreation should directly link into the development of an Infrastructure Delivery Plan / CIL. Sport England supports use of planning obligations (s106)/community infrastructure levy (CIL) as a way of securing the provision of new or enhanced places for sport and a contribution towards their future maintenance, to meet the needs arising from new development. This does need to be based on a robust NPPF evidence base (as set out above in comment no.1). This includes indoor sports facilities (swimming pools, sports halls, etc) as well as playing fields and multi use games courts. All new dwellings / creation of bed spaces in the Talbot Village in the plan period should provide for new or enhance existing sport and recreation facilities to help create opportunities for physical activity whilst having a major positive impact on health and mental wellbeing. Sport England note that the number 1 priority in the adopted Bournemouth Built Facility and Playing Pitch Strategy and Action Plan (2014) is to achieve and deliver the Slades Farm master plan. Slades Farm is the area to the North of Wallisdown Road. This opportunity suggests that the University be a key partner in the Slades farm developments and are encouraged to invest in the development to meet the needs of its students through CIL and a duty to cooperate with Bournemouth Borough Council. ‘Sporting and recreation facilities’ are included within the definition of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) infrastructure in the 2008 Planning Act (section 216) which means money raised can be used to fund new or enhanced sports facilities. For sport and recreation, Sport England would advise that generally it may be more effective if the contributions are sought through planning obligations rather than CIL, unless there is a specific project identified. If such a project is deliverable, then it may be more appropriate to fund through CIL and consequentially should on the Regulation 123 List. In removing ‘playing fields’ from the Regulation 123 List and focussing on the use of Section 106 Agreements the Council should be aware that after April 2015, no more than five planning obligations can be used to pool funds for any one piece of infrastructure/project. Therefore the Council will need to think quite strategically and plan effectively for sports infrastructure delivery in the future linking

No. Date Name Organisation Comments development sites with specific projects to meet identified sporting needs. This will enable the Council to take a proactive approach and ensure the most effective use of planning obligations and CIL together to help deliver this/meet the needs of the population. Any planning obligations must also pass the following tests as set out in paragraph 204 of the NPPF: • necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; • directly related to the development; and • fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. 2. Protection of Sport & Recreation Sport England acknowledges that the NPPF is promoting “sustainable development” to avoid delays in the planning process (linked to economic growth). Thatsaid, the NPPF also says that for open space, sport & recreation land & buildings (including playing fields) paragraph 74:

Paragraph 74. Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless: ●● an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or ●● the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or ●● the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which clearly outweigh the loss. Sport England would be very concerned if any existing MUGAs/tennis courts would be affected by these proposals without adequate replacement in terms of quality, quantity, accessibility, management & maintenance and prior to the loss of the existing facility. 3. Active Design Sport England believes that being active should be an intrinsic part of everyone’s life pattern. The master planning of major development has a vital role in providing easy access to a choice of opportunities for sport and physical activity to suit all age groups for making new communities more active and healthy. Sport England commissioned David Lock & Associates to investigate the contribution that masterplanning can make to create new environments that maximise opportunities for participation in sport and physical activity. This work including a developer’s checklist has been completed and can be accessed via http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/planning-tools-and- guidance/active-design/ Through an analysis of the current health agenda and urban design principles and good practice, the term ACTIVE DESIGN has been adopted to describe ways in which master planning can promote healthy environments through creating healthy environments through creating conditions for participation in sport and physical activity and the use of active travel modes (walking and cycling). Three overlapping Active Design objectives have been identified that should be promoted by master plans: improving accessibility; enhancing amenity and increasing awareness.

No. Date Name Organisation Comments Sport England would encourage new development be designed in line with the Active Design principles to secure sustainable design and encourage physical activity including walking and cycling. The Active Design work is currently under review with possibly a new ‘version’ to be published shortly. 92 21.09.2015 Mr David Historic We have been aware of the intention to produce a masterplan/SPD for the combined universities site for some time. Early aspirations Stuart, England extended to embracing the Talbot Village Conservation Area and exploring how routes through the area might be enhanced together Historic places with its potential for new uses. We have therefore attended workshops, and had meetings with Bournemouth Council and Urban Advisor South Initiatives to establish relevant issues and what the process would need to address. West The focus of our attention is therefore the Conservation Area as there are few, if any, other forms of heritage interest in the area which require our consideration (though there may be those of local interest which your authority and Bournemouth Council would wish to highlight). It became clear early in our discussions that the Conservation Area would need both an Appraisal and Management Plan to fully define its heritage significance, relevant issues, and scope for positive and sensitive change. These exercises would need to be completed in meaningful form to inform the extent to which “offsite” areas, notwithstanding which local authority is responsible for them, lend themselves to the realisation of SPD objectives (p21). The exercises are nearing completion, and we assume that in your inter-authority liaison their progress has been shared and the emerging findings have influenced the shape of the draft SPD. We are therefore pleased to note that the document identifies that Talbot Village to the north of Wallisdown Road is a conservation area and that the relationship of this to adjoining areas to the south should be respected (p11). This is in fact reinforced by Core Strategy Policy PCS23 which requires a high standard of design and contextual sensitivity from development to ensure that it respects the setting and character of the site, surrounding area and adjoining buildings (p49). While this policy has “jurisdiction” only in the Poole area it is consistent with the provisions of the NPPF which of course apply nationally, and such sentiments are also no doubt reflected in Bournemouth’s own Core Strategy. In response to these observations our comments can be summarised as follows: 1. It is not obviously clear how the settings of the Talbot Village Conservation Area and its constituent Listed Buildings have been understood and used to inform the proposals. 2. While the SPD applies to the masterplan area which lies within Poole, the realisation of the masterplan overall would seem to rely on the delivery of parts which lie outside it. Improving walking routes to and from the site through Talbot Woods relies explicitly on interventions to, inter alia, improve sightlines and introduce lighting for example (p47). The emerging Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan might identify that only proposals less than those which the masterplan envisages can be accommodated without causing harm to it and its Listed Buildings as designated heritage assets. To what extent therefore is success dependent on the full realisation of the masterplan and what measures are intended to create an inter-authority integrated and commonly robust delivery framework? 93 21.09.2015 Mr Martin Active Dorset Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposded Talbot village Supplimentary Planning Document. Active Dorset are the Kimberley, county sports Partnership for Dorset, Bournemouth and Poole and work closely with many partners to increase participation in Sport Chief and Physical Activity. Executive

No. Date Name Organisation Comments We note some concerns about the proposals as they stand but also see some possible solutions which would benefit both the proposed users as well as the wider community. The two University’s have in excess of 17,000 (some based on the Landsdowne Campus) students and the proposal is for this number to grow and yet the opportunity for the students to engage in sport and physical activity is extremely restricted. Currently Bournemouth University has a gym, a sports hall and 2 small 5 a side MUGA football pitches, the Arts University has no provision at all. This is considerably less provision than many secondary schools. From the proposal it would appear that a significant additional number of students will be added to the cohort on the Talbot campus site as well as over 350 additional bed spaces and also the employees attracted to work within the Digital Village. However, there is seemingly no provision within the plans for extending the sport and physical activity offer in the Talbot campus area and indeed it appears that the plans include the removal of the 2 MUGA pitches.  We are concerned that a large increase in student numbers as well as student residents and working staff is not matched by increased sport and physical activity provision, indeed there is seemingly a proposed reduction. Currently Bournemouth University make good use of a number of remote facilities, Chapel Gate in Christchurch for example, but that this approach very much tends towards only elite teams and players engaging with sport while at the Univeristy. The mass of students areunwilling to travel significant distances to access sport and physical activity and so in light of the lack of facilities on site, tend not to participate. For the health and wellbeing of students while at both Universities but also to improve the student experience and to encourage lifelong participation the provision of appropriate activity needs to be available in a proximate location to the campuses. The most suitable location for providing increased opportunity is at Slades Farm just to the North of the proposed developments, this is the top priority within the Bournemouth Built Facility and Playing Pitch strategy that was adopted recently. We understand that there may be difficulties as the proposed development is within Poole but the opportunity for provision is within Bournemouth but we would be happy to work with both Councils to achieve the best outcome for all residents.  Active Dorset note that the number 1 priority in the adopted Bournemouth Built Facility and Playing Pitch Strategy and Action Plan (2014) is to achieve and deliver the Slades Farm master plan. The proposed development offers the opportunity for both University’s to be key partners in the delivery of the Slades Farm Master Plan through CIL and section 106 if appropriate. We note that consideration has been given to walking and cycling within the proposals but given the size and potential impact of the proposals we would like to see a wider study undertaken that includes the possible impact on the Slades Farm masterplan and how traffic, pedestrians and cyclists would be affected if all plans are delivered.  We would like to see a wider traffic study undertaken that includes expected traffic implications of the Slades Farm master plan being delivered. 94 21.09.2015 Mr Mark - Please note my objection to all matters relating to the above draft plan. Having looked at the draft and also visited the open day on the Griffiths 7th Sept 15, I can find nothing to merit destroying what is a very much needed open space between Bournemouth and Poole. Unfortunately I do not have the time to respond to each of the points raised, but the resultant noise/mess/increase of traffic is not sustainable, this is already an over populated area around the heathland and Highmoor Farm which I know to be highly regarded by the local community.

No. Date Name Organisation Comments The effect on the wildlife will also be detrimental, to continue with this proposal is disrespectful to the local community and their enjoyment of living in this area. 95 21.09.2015 Ms Letitia - I am writing with regard to the BU plans to expand onto adjacent land that would incorporate Slades farm community garden project. I Haub am against any proposed building on this land. As the cost of providing healthcare to the population is soaring through largely preventable chronic diseases such as diabetes mellitus type 2 and other obesity related diseases, it seems to me that projects such as Slades farm which endeavour to give local communities the ability reconnect with their environment. These projects have the potential to act as catalysts for a multitude of healthy lifestyle pursuits and also to support the governments healthy eating policies. I view this project to be far more valuable than a digital village and would be in favour of more community farms. 96 18.09.2015 S Massey - I request you modify the following problems that are likely to arise if the draft is not altered: 1. Parking Problems: A) The Pedestrian/Cycle Link from the Slades Farm coming out at East Avenue and then with cyclists being directed along Rothesay Road to Bournemouth Gardens and Town Centre will encourage University staff and students to park along roads in the quiet Conservation area of Talbot Woods that do not have yellow lines causing significant nuisance and inconvenience and, in some cases hardship, to residents. B) Bournemouth University is not increasing car parking spaces although there is an estimated increase in student numbers by 2018/9 of about 27% to about 12,962 full-time students at the Talbot Campus, and as some students will be part-time, the actual numbers of students will be even higher. C) Arts University Bournemouth is only increasing such spaces by 57 and it is unclear what its estimated growth in student numbers is. 2. Potential Industrial park: if there is insufficient take up of the offer of The Digital Village along the back of Dulsie Road it should not be permitted to become an industrial park. 3. Potential damage to the quality of life of the residents in bungalows in Dulsie Road. A) Buildings in the Digital Village should be sited at least 30m from the boundaries of the bungalows, rather than from the bungalows. B) Restrictions are needed to prevent overlooking of the bungalows eg restrictions on the height and windows of buildings, screened loading bays at the back of the commercial buildings and prohibition of roof gardens. 97 21.09.2015 A N Sylvester - As a resident who backs onto the site of the proposed development, I am writing to express my worries and concerns regarding the project:- 1) Our privacy would be destroyed as buildings would overlook our properties. 2) We would have to tolerate excessive noise and pollution. 3) Our properties would depreciate quite considerably in value. The majority of residents in our road are elderly and moved into these properties because of the peace and quiet and privacy of the area. This would be destroyed and could possibly affect the health and well-being of many of the residents. Also Wallisdown Road will not be able to absorb the considerable additional traffic as it is presently already at a stand still most of the day.

No. Date Name Organisation Comments Lso the proposed entry from the site into our estate would mean considerable additional traffic and noise also the danger of workers parking in our road. As you are well aware there will not be sufficient on the site (from previous experience). Safeguards if proposed development goes ahead. 1) No buildings within at least 40 metres of our rear boundaries. 2) No buildings of more than 2 storeys. 3) A barrier erected to protect our boundaries with noise protection included. 4) Our security must also be taken into account. I trust you will take all the matters into consideration before taking this development forward. This is the wrong development in the wrong place. 98 21.09.2015 Mr Matt Lyons - The proposals for the location and number of storeys of the proposed buildings comprising the Digital Village will severley impact on the environment of the existing buildings in Dulsie Road which are mainly bungalows and on the properties in the adjacent roads. Talbot Woods is a designated Conservation Area and as such surely the impact of this development is in violation of the restrictions and guidelines that apply, giving Bournemouth Council a firm basis for objection. I have seen an artist impression of the development which has been displayed on a lamp post adjacent to the existing pedestrian route from Dulsie Road onto the farmland. The artist's impression shows the proposed buildings which completely overwhelm the street scene of this Conservation area. I do not understand why, bearing in mind the amount of land available for the development, the proposed buildings need to be located so close to the existing properties in the Conservation area. I suggest therefore that the layout of the new buildings should be as discrete as possible and certainly should not exceed two storeys high and accommodation should not extend into the roof areas. The buildings should be located at a reasonable distance from existing homes. I understand that the Talbot Village Trust is proposing to purchase a bungalow next to the pedestrian route. I note from the proposals that there is an intention to increase the use of the path to include provision of a cycle path. In itself this will obviously increase the number of users and this coupled with the anticipated numbers of employees using the Digital Village will very significantly increase the number of cars which will be parked in the adjacent roads. I know from experience that when the original University buildings were created the congestion caused in Huntly Road where I lived with my parents, made vehicular access to our house very difficult if not impossible. I have no doubt whatsoever that the same situation will occur in the Roads adjacent to the pedestrian/cycle path. I noted from my walk around Talbot Village that all the roads have "yellow line" traffic restrictions and I want Bournemouth Council to implement the same restrictions in the effected roads if the scheme proceeds. I strongly object to this proposed development, to allow this development to go ahead would forever change the area for the poorer, due to the environmental impact on the Heath. Anyone who uses Wallisdown Road knows that it already highly unsuitable for the amount of traffic. I would however strongly object to any alteration or addition of access via Talbot Woods. 99 21.09.2015 Mr Nick Natural Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, Squirrell, England enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. Conservation Natural England advice is set out into two parts, firstly the overall principles within the draft SPD and then detailed observations in an and Planning Annexe. Lead Advisor, The Vision set out in section 2 is generally acceptable to Natural England and has the advantage of providing an overarching Dorset and

No. Date Name Organisation Comments Hampshire approach. Team Overall Natural England is concerned that the draft SPD (dSPD) does not place appropriate weight on the importance and special features of Bourne Valley SSSI, which is a component of the Dorset Heathlands SPA/Ramsar and Dorset Heaths SAC. The dSPD is currently rather more aspirational than policy directed and is not setting out a clear development or avoidance/mitigation framework which can be considered and delivered in a sequential or phased manner. Natural England advise that this rather loose approach does not facilitate ready consideration of the proposals against the strict tests required by the Habitats Regulations 2010 where certainty is required. The dSPD follows the local policy context ofSSA20 to a certain extent but does not in Natural England’s view set out clearly the relevant legal and national policy framework of the Habitats Regulations 2010, NERC Act and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012). This might usefully be set out briefly in the text or within an Annexe to the document. The key proposals of concern are:-  the establishment of a walking/cycle link(Talbot Way) combined with additional student accommodation at the university  the allocation of land for the proposed Digital Village/C2 use on the Highmoor area combined with new car parking provision close to the heath  new residential development at Talbot Village including the development of land that currently has public access In our view the proposed mitigation is along the right lines but currently there is considerable uncertainty about both its efficacy and its implementation. The main problems that we have identified are:  Much of the proposed heathland support area land already has de facto public access; new areas of public access are small so any corresponding reductions in public pressure would be small.  Talbot Woods is already very heavily used by the public and in these circumstances it is hard to predict the effect of the proposed habitat improvements (although these are of course most welcome). There may well be an increase in use although this could happen anyway but the test is whether it would attract sufficient new or existing users of designated heathlands; this is much more questionable.  Upton Park is too far away for its use as a strategic SANG to have much effect on local use of sites in the Talbot area.  The use of habitat management at Talbot Heath as mitigation should not generally be used as mitigation against harmful development. Some of the proposals are in any case counterproductive. The encouragement of gorse next to tracks to deter dogs will increase fire risk.  The HRA screening identified that there was no significant effect occurs from the proposal ‘alone’ (but not necessarily no negative effect). The ‘in combination’ assessment relies entirely on the Upton Country Park SANG. This is essentially arguing that because small effects of other developments elsewhere are being avoided then there is no need for these effects to be avoided here. This is not valid; the in combination test means that the development needs to conform to the relevant policy of no net increase in recreational pressure on European sites.  The implementation of proposed mitigation measures is uncertain as it relies largely on external funding (9.3.1). Thus the SPD

No. Date Name Organisation Comments would confer a presumption in favour of certain potentially damaging developments without the necessary reasonably certainty that other measures, necessary to avoid the damage, would happen. Better links between development and mitigation need to be made The visitor access survey carried out provides a clear picture of existing use with a catchment of people using the Talbot Wood/Slades Farm area to the north and a similar area of users accessing Talbot Heath to the south of the designated sites. It is a concern that the link proposed will enable greater access to the heath, drawing in more users, walking and cycling. The proposed areas to be used as heathland support areas lie adjacent and between areas of the designated sites. Whilst it is self-evident that increasing the area of open space may reduce the length of time spent actually on the heathland the quantification of effects is difficult to predict with any certainty. Therefore, against the existing context of a predicted increase in access levels of 10-13% over the plan period (Core Strategy HRA 2008), Natural England advise that the dSPD should take a more evidence based and precautionary approach particularly given the proposed timescale. The loss of the majority of the plateau area of Highmoor Farm to built development represents a real and permanent lost opportunity to both avoid new and also reduce existing recreational and urban related impacts on the designated sites in the future. This must be carefully weighed against the authorities duties and the opportunities – real or aspirational. Natural England advise that the area of greenspace proposed south of the Digital Village/C2 and accessed from Alyth Road is currently already well used and hence the capacity for any additional visitors from the digital village or further north is limited. This area, north of the triangle field, should be expanded to provide a more suitable space which can develop overtime to intercept pressures. Natural England would be pleased to discuss the more detailed positioning on the development boundary. Natural England advises that the risk of potential increased access into the designated sites is such that the dSPD should adopt a more precautionary approach with proposals close to the designated sites. In particular the dSPD presents little supporting evidence for the need for the Digital Village, indeed the document is aspirational but not perhaps as realistic as is necessary in the planning area. Progress in the digital business area is highly varied and rapid yet the dSPD is not proposing any floorspace allocation before 2022. This is a very long time in the digital media area on which to make predictions about need and business requirements. Natural England advise that the dSPD should better reflect the policy SSA20 at this time and keep the range of land use options considered available. In addition the allocation should be based upon evidence and need which can be quantitatively assessed. Natural England propose that the dSPD should allocate the northernmost area of land (north of the farm building) proposed for the village initially and then indicate the allocation of the rest of the area coming forward in suitable phases. This uncertainty is reflected in 6.9.3. This would allow the agreed southern area to be retained as open land, without public access at the same time as monitoring the use and effectiveness of the proposed Heathland Support Area. Should there be a demonstrated need, either for more openspace or for the digital units/C2 the dSPD would have made provision for these requirements over the 7 year horizon. Natural England understand that the Trust has acquired a property at Alyth Road (3/9/2015), this can allow the cycle/walk way to be widened. This is a very encouraging and welcomed development. Consideration should be given to moving it to the north or the dwelling. Natural England is concerned that the dSPD shows a proposal for allotments at Purchase Road adjacent to the SNCI and very close to the designated sites. This proposal requires further information in the dSPD in order that the dHRA can properly consider this. For

No. Date Name Organisation Comments example would these be only for residents in the adjoining estate or would there be a carpark and facilities for residents from a wider catchment. The dSPD refers in a number of instances to a package of measures designed to both avoid and mitigate harm to the designated sites as well as some enhancements. Section 8 Delivery; refers to the possible time table for delivery of developments but not the delivery of the package of measures which the DHRA is reliant on. This needs to be addressed so that the authority can be confident that both aspects are being delivered. Natural England would be pleased to work with the authority to agree how such measures might be both phased, triggered and secured as is required under the Regulations. Overall Natural England advises that the dSPD is progressing in a direction which is consistent with the Vision as well as the policy requirements. However Natural England would wish to discuss many of the matters raised in this letter in some further detail to assist the authority in resolving concerns before the next stage. Detailed comments are provided below. Annexe : detailed comments on SPD content Vision 2.1, Natural England advise that the BoP should be listed as a key partner in delivering the enhancement of Talbot Heath as the other key landowner. 2.2 The Vision is welcomed. 2.2 f. The Management Strategy should also include the borough and Natural England . 3.1.3 The list of designations omits SAC 3.1.4 There are risks to the designated sites in allowing access southwards which should be mentioned. 3.4.9 Should mention the national SSSI designation. This paragraph makes little of the specialness of the nationally rare and protected habitats and species which are both a constraint but also a great asset in this context. 3.4.14 This sentence is without context, it should be expanded so the reader understands the zonal approach supported by plan policy and SPD. 4.1 This omits reference to SAC. 4.1.2 add in nightjar. 4.1.3 Add in TVT as a key landowner. 4.1.5 Natural England agree with the reference to Heathland Support area rather than SANG and particularly strategic SANG. 4.3, 7.2.5 The dSPD should be clear that the developments closest to the designated sites will be of a scale such that they do not impact on the heathland setting and openness of the landscape as is seen at Isaacs Close. 5 Policy, this should provide a clear paragraph about government policy guidance (NPPF), the Habs Regs 2010 and LPA duties under the NERC Act. For example the objective is to maintain and where unfavourable recover European sites, Ramsar sites are treated in the same way as European sites etc. Policy sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development except for specially protected sites, and a clear requirement to differentiate policy protection. The dSPD should consider if the authority wishes to make use of the Dorset Biodiversity Compensation protocol to assess biodiversity gain requirements under the NPPF. 6.2.2 Natural England welcomes the final three bullets in this section. The authority may be minded to indicate in the dSPD that these should be implemented through a tripartite steering group. 6.6.1/6.7.1 as stated above the effect of the proposed new paths/cycle route will be difficult to quantify and may be beneficial or draw new users onto the designated sites. Natural England advise that the dSPD should not limit visitor management options but insert a sentence to the effect that a variety of options will be kept under review.

No. Date Name Organisation Comments 6.9.5 there is an obvious disconnect here between being flexible in terms of development – but only considering development rather than the range of uses set out in SSA20. There is a need to base the allocation in such a sensitive area on evidence rather than on aspirations which are 7 years away in a fast moving business area. 6.9.8 and 8.2.2 Provide evidence for an additional 1,770 jobs and a 27% increase in students by 2018/19. The dHRA indicates that there is insufficient water pressure for a hydrant close to the heath yet with such significant additional occupancy Natural England request that the dSPD require the water requirements to be reviewed such that if additional capacity is required then s suitable hydrant is installed on the north side of Talbot Heath. 6.9.9 Insert heathland habitat and species are… sensitive to the effects of visitor use. 6.9.12 Natural England understand this proposal will be modified. 6.9.13 How are these measures to be delivered, by whome and when in relation to the proposals in the dSPD. 6.10.19 The proposed surfacing and width in the designated sites is appropriate although may not be necessary now. 8.3 This should include Lottery Funding and the NHS related to health funding. The sHRA 4.1 and 6.29 refers to part of the Digital Village in Talbot Woods, this is not mentioned in the dSPD nr shown on the Masterplan. 100 18.09.2015 Mr D & Mrs P - Consultation Gibb It is regrettable that the consultation process was undertaken during the summer holiday period and there was only one public exhibition day. We, like many others, were away for some of this time, including the one exhibition day, and have only recently returned. We had hoped that the Talbot Village Residents Association AGM, held on the 16th September, would have provided some useful additional details for us. In the event, your representative at that meeting, Darryl Howells, failed to give any presentation and provided no detail in answer to the questions raised. Indeed we were surprised to hear that the traffic survey and forecasts information will not be made public. Without the traffic information it is impossible to comment upon the traffic forecast statements made in the consultation document. However, as a local resident and daily user of Wallisdown Road we can say that this road is already congested throughout the day, not only at peak times, and this includes weekends. Whilst some traffic may divert to other routes in the future, as Wallisdown Road becomes even more congested, east-west alternatives are few and these are already very busy. Introduction Given the time limit for consultation, it is not possible to express all of our concerns about every detail within the draft proposals. However we do not consider that the residents have been given sufficient weight in the document and proposals, which concentrates, in the main, on the benefits of the land owners. As a resident we wish to maintain or enhance, as far as possible, the existing environment and overcome the issues of parking, both cars, public transport and University transport. We will therefore concentrate our comments on the major issues of traffic, development of both Universities and the Digital Village. Traffic/Development With the existing traffic congestion on Wallisdown Road, the difficulty of exiting the Village, particularly when the Universities are finishing and on open days together with the on-going problem where there is often insufficient parking space for buses on Fern

No. Date Name Organisation Comments Barrow, some solution needs to be found, prior to any further development. We recognise that both Bournemouth University and the Arts University Bournemouth will expand, but the following elements contained within the consultation draft must be implemented as pre-requisite for any further development:  A new vehicular access from the Boundary Road Roundabout.  The creation of a bus hub within the University ground to accommodate all the University buses and coaches, including those laying over.  Provision on-site to accommodate parking for all staff and those students permitted to park.  The development of a robust travel plan to eliminate the parking of any University vehicle on adjacent residential roads. Many of the residential roads within the Village are of insufficient width to accommodate parking without affecting the through movement of vehicles. Even on Fern Barrow existing parking around bends and adjacent to junctions causes problems, including visibility from side roads. On bends, when passing parked vehicles, the available road width does not permit opposing traffic to pass, particularly with bus movements. Indeed the current practice for some University buses to lay over around Fern Barrow, often for some time, causes visibility problems from side roads. Whilst the Universities propose some 60 additional parking spaces, in the longer term the Digital Village proposes approximately 800 parking spaces (based upon 25,000 square metres of gross floorspace and one space per 30 square metres). This just cannot be accommodated without causing grave problems within the Village, for Wallisdown Road and movements on Boundary Road Roundabout. Digital Village Whilst recognising that this is a longer term proposal, we are opposed to this proposal being served from Purchase Road. The existing Purchase Road is relatively narrow and the alignment results in reduced visibility from the side roads, particularly Bishops Close. This concern is heightened with the proposal to extend bus services to the Digital Village. Although we appreciate the link between this proposal and the skills within the Universities, we are concerned that once established the Council will have no control over occupation. If sufficient digital occupation is not achieved, what will stop the owners lettings the units out to other uses. Indeed in time the area may become part or wholly an industrial village. We hope nobody wants this!! The nature of this proposal is in conflict with the residential nature of existing use. We believe that this proposal must be served by a new access from the east, linking Gillett Road and much closer to the new link from the Boundary Road Roundabout, thus separating any traffic generated by this proposal from the residential area of Purchase Road. This will also encourage vehicular access direct from the Boundary Road Roundabout. Conclusion In recognising the benefits of both Universities to the local economy and their future economic success, we consider it is important at this stage to establish some limit to their overall size and numbers. Without any limit, development will continue and any benefits derived at this stage will be lost through over development and total gridlock of the surrounding road network. In the process, the environment for residents of Talbot Village, established when the properties were built will also be destroyed. We would ask that you give full weight to these representations, and make appropriate amendments, in formulating the final Supplementary Planning Document for Talbot Village, for the benefits of residents.

No. Date Name Organisation Comments 101 21.09.2015 W R Woods You will see from my address that my property is very much affected by this propose scheme. Councillor Potter remarks, in your leaflet, indicate that you had this scheme in mind for the last three years. However we, who are affected, have only been advised, just before you take to major considerations. With this in mind, I would draw your attention to statement made on the last line of the third paragraph of your opening remarks. “And mitigates the impact on those who live and work here”. Now I refer to Councillor Potters remarks again: Penultimate Para. Last lines: “As well as respecting the amenity of neighbouring dwellings”. Both of these statements have no meaning, when you propose providing for 3 storey factories 30 metres from my home. I just can’t understand your logic for your regard for others. There are many people in Dulsie Road who have lived here for many years and I am sure that they are very concerned. These concerns relate to a blight on saleability and decrease in value. You may say that it will take sometime for things to happen but surely your intentions will have to show up in searches and estate agents will have to make intending purchasers aware. For myself, I am 89 years old age and the time has come for me to think of moving. However, I am concerned as indicated and OBJECT to the plans as they are. 102 21.09.2015 Mrs G Harris - My husband and I strongly object to the proposed development within the 400m Protected Zone at Talbot Heath. 1. The permission to build on protected land will set a precedent. 2. It would further reduce open space. 3. Buildings and roads destroy vegetation and wildlife. The area is inhabited by rare butterflies, unusual migratory birds, even a buzzard sitting on a fence post in the field, which would be the very centre of the “Digital Village”. 4. Parking at the end of Alyth Road with its footpath to the heath, Dulsie Road and at cul-de-sac end of East Avenue would be under great pressure (easiest and quickest way to the proposed development and beyond on foot). Double yellow lines everywhere would be most inconvenient to residents and detrimental to a pleasant residential area. 5. Three storey buildings immediately at the boundary of Dulsie Road create an unacceptable visual intrusion. 6. Noise from commercial and manufacturing activities with their road traffic (cars, vans and buses) would have an adverse effect on the residents. Altogether an environmentally unfriendly project with disregard for the residents of the surrounding area. 103 21.09.2015 Mr Renny RSPB We were, as the Council is aware, involved in the 2011 public inquiry into proposals to develop 378 houses and other uses on land Henderson, owned by Talbot Village Trust (TVT) which forms part of this draft SPD. Since the outcome of that inquiry, in which clear direction was Conservation given on the unsuitability of residential uses within 400m of internationally protected heathlands, we welcome the initiative taken by the Officer Borough of Poole and its partners (TVT, Bournemouth University, Arts University Bournemouth and Bournemouth Borough Council) to determine a way forward for the TVT owned land (including land outside Borough of Poole area within Bournemouth Borough). We would add that both through RSPB comments on the Poole Core Strategy, the Poole Site Specific Allocations DPD, the public

No. Date Name Organisation Comments inquiry and during early consultation events on the current ‘Talbot Project Masterplan’, the RSPB has highlighted both the importance of protecting and enhancing the internationally important heathlands of the Bourne Valley but also the potential of TVT owned land to deliver significant environmental enhancements which would provide strategic environmental, economic and societal benefits. We strongly conveyed this vision at stakeholders’ events into the Talbot Project during 2013 in which we highlighted the role that part of the site could offer as a Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) addressing pressures on the internationally important Talbot Heath. We maintain this position. We have approached the draft SPD consultation with the above in mind, the protection and enhancement of protected heathlands, and the delivery of environmental and other benefits. In preparing this response we have had principal regard to the draft SPD and the shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment (SHRA), which supports it. We have also considered, briefly, the other documents presented on the Borough’s consultation portal. Our comments A. Talbot Village Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) We welcome within the draft SPD the recognition of the importance of protected heathlands, and the importance of delivering the Project Vision without causing harm. We welcome the absence of residential uses within 400m, highly appropriate given the very strong direction given by the Inspector to the Talbot Heath public inquiry and reinforced by the Minister (PINS reference APP/Q1255/V/10/2138124). However, we do have significant concerns over the scale, nature, timing and delivery of the proposed developments within the draft SPD. We also have concerns over a number of potentially erroneous or misleading comments within both the draft SPD and SHRA. Our main concerns Having reviewed the draft SPD our main concerns relate to: 1. The scale of the proposed development, against a background of increasing baseline visitor pressures on protected heathlands in the Borough (and more widely); 2. The development of the ‘Digital Village’ and the risk of urban effects on protected heathlands; 3. The development of heathland support areas (HSAs) and the risk of facilitating improved access to protected heathlands; 4. The development of a north-south cycle and walkway, and the risks of increased urban effects on protected heathlands; 5. The inclusion of generic C2 land uses, some of which may give rise to urban effects. We elaborate on these concerns below. 1. The scale of the proposed development, against a background of increasing baseline visitor pressures on protected heathlands in the Borough (and more widely); The Poole Core Strategy HRA (2008) identified increasing visitor pressure on protected heathlands in the Borough during the plan period. This included increasing visitor pressures on Bourne Valley (including Talbot Heath) in the order of 10-13%. We do not consider that the draft SPD demonstrates how it will address both the need to mitigate for these baseline pressures as well as the pressures stemming from the draft SPD. The proposals represent a comprehensive redevelopment of the majority of the site for commercial uses, with modest greenspace provision.

No. Date Name Organisation Comments 2. The development of the ‘Digital Village’ and the risk of urban effects on protected heathlands We recognise the commercial aspiration behind delivering this element of the proposals. We have two main concerns, the spatial extent of the allocation and the likely environmental effects. Regarding quantum, we consider that there is little evidence presented of the demand for such accommodation. We would suggest that a smaller allocation, in a more northern location be considered, allowing market testing and a greater quantum of managed open space which could help address local and strategic concerns over greenspace mitigation for heathlands. As presented, we also have concerns over the proximity of the Digital Village (albeit a village comprising accommodation up to 25,000 sq m) to protected sites. A significant potential workforce can be envisaged and there is a risk that occupiers and visitors to these businesses could increase urban effects to the protected heathlands. There is insufficient information currently available to determine whether these pressures can be mitigated. There are also other potential effects we do not consider have been adequately assessed in the SHRA. There is an associated issue concerning the loss of Highmoor Farm. Surveys have been carried out for Annex 1 birds using Highmoor Farm, its fields and tree lines, and the generic results are presented in the SHRA. We request sight of the surveys to determine their suitability, and to assess whether they do demonstrate there is no functional link to the protected heathlands, this issue was debated at the public inquiry in 2011. 3. The development of heathland support areas (HSAs) and the risk of facilitating improved access to protected heathlands; The proposals suggest the utilisation of land (identified on Figure 6.6 of the draft SPD) as HSAs. The RSPB welcomes this initiative in principle, as correctly located, designed and managed, HSAs offer the potential to provide informal recreational opportunities both for occupiers/visitors, but also local residents, potentially taking pressure off protected heathlands. There is however existing de facto public access to these areas, as was debated at some length at the public inquiry. It is questionable therefore as to how much additional capacity these HSAs would actually deliver. This suggests the need for greater greenspace provision within the proposal, as highlighted above. Care is also needed in the development of HSAs, as where they lie adjacent to protected sites there is a potential risk they will act as ‘green conduits’ to the protected heathlands rather than serving as a self contained destination in themselves. 4. The development of a north-south cycle and walkway, and the risks of increased urban effects on protected heathlands; We understand, and indeed support, the intention to promote modal shift and to improve accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists linking the wider TVT owned area to Bournemouth town centre and beyond. We have reviewed the proposals (Figures 6.9 and 6.10), and note the intention to facilitate an improved north-south footpath and cycleway. This could lead to increased opportunities to access the protected heathlands. A particular concern is the risk of access to the protected heathlands at the southern end of the development site, where an improved walk/cycleway is to be created within Talbot Heath. Alternatives for this section need to be found which avoid development within the protected site. We understand that alternatives avoiding the SPA are currently being explored. 5. The inclusion of generic C2 land uses, some of which may give rise to urban effects. We welcome the absence of residential use within 400m of the protected heathlands. Extensive research demonstrates the adverse

No. Date Name Organisation Comments impacts that are associated with urban development in this range. However, residential uses are not unique in leading to potentially adverse environmental effects on heathlands. The promotion of Use Class C2 needs further safeguarding, as such uses are known to potentially lead to effects through recreational disturbance and predation. An appropriate safeguard (such as involving project scrutiny by Natural England) needs to be included to avoid non- compatible uses within 400m of the protected heathlands. The above issues represent our principal concerns with the proposals. We also have concerns over a number of potentially erroneous or misleading comments within both the SPD and SHRA. We would like to discuss these and suggest they are potentially best addressed by meeting the Borough, with Natural England, at a date prior to the next stage of the draft SPDs development. 104 21.09.2015 Mr Graham Chair, SPD Talbot Project. Tuffin Talbot Village Part of this project suggests a 2 metre Tarmacadam Cycle Path running from Bournemouth University West Bound to Talbot Drive; this Residents we believe would necessitate the removal of part or all of the tree screen that runs along Wallisdown Road. This road must be one of Association the busiest single carraige-way roads in Dorset, and along with Traffic Volume there must be high incidents of accidents, in particular those involving cyclists. However the existing Tree Buffer is an important Noise and Pollution Buffer which, if removed, will cause the residents of Talbot Village great concern as well as Vehicle Noise and Pollution. This buffer was a condition set out in the Grant of Outline Planning Permission AN 5/83.8824/16. Therefore we object on Two Counts Firstly, If the trees were thinned out or removed, the Noise and Vehicle Pollution that would travel over the current barrier wall into Talbot Village, would affect properties in close proximity to this barrier wall. Secondly, There is a perfectly good, Well Lit Maintained Cycle Path that runs from Vine Farm Road to Talbot Drive. This means that cyclists can ride on a virtually Pollution and Noise Free Path, missing out Wallisdown Road altogether. If the existing cycle path is used it is a “Win Win” Situation, providing Cyclists with Safer Pollution Free and Noise Free Travel, as well as saving considerable amounts of Tax Payers money. There are also quiet estate roads all the way to the Wallisdown Industrial Area, or turn left at existing travel signals and go on to Alder Road. The existing cycle path would need extra signage as most don't know of its existence. The Talbot Village Residents in Cull Close, Georgina Close, Marianne Road, Mullins Close, Talbot Meadows, Vine Farm Road, Vine Farm Close and Georgina House were invited to take part in a petition to gain their views. The Options were Option 1 To Remove the Existing Tree Buffer that is alongside Wallisdown Road from University Road to Talbot Drive and install a 2 meter tarmac cycle path, Although there is a Safer, Quieter and Virtually Pollution Free Cycle Path from Vine Farm Road to Talbot Drive (See Option 2) Option 2 Leave the Tree Buffer In Place that runs alongside Wallisdown Road (Westbound) which protects the residents from Noise and Pollution from this Major Dangerous Road. This Alternative also gives the Cyclists a Quieter Virtually Pollution Free Ride, it is also safer as they use relatively deserted estate and side roads, and it is a better use of our Taxpayers Money.

No. Date Name Organisation Comments We selected those residents who would be most affected by this path who live in Cull Close, Georgina House, Georgina Close, Marianne Road, Mullins Close, Talbot Meadows, Vine Farm Road and Vine Farm Close. The results are as follows. Those petitioned 147 Those voted for (option 1) 2 . Those voted for (option 2) 106 . I have attached a road by road analysis of the results.

105 21.09.2015 Mr Nick Welch - I am writing to lodge my Objection to the above scheme. In Particular the building of an industrial estate described as a ‘Digital Village’ in order to disguise the fact. Your representative at the meeting held in the university confirmed to me that if the units did not let to the digital world tenants from other industries would then be sought as they would have to be let. The intention to build these units only 30 meters from residential properties and although you say 3 stories high there is no limit to the actual height so they will be towering above the bungalows they are adjacent too. There is no requirement for this industrial space as there is already existing land and industrial/office space readily available in Bournemouth & Poole in the established industrial areas. Some of which have been to let for some years. You estimate some 1700 jobs to be created which is commendable however the local infrastructure cannot cope now. Wallisdown Rd the only access route in and out is regularly at a standstill. Redesigning the bus station on the UNI site will not help this. The Bungalow at the cull d sac end of Alyth Rd recently purchased by the Talbot Village Trust obviously with the intention of providing an entrance onto the proposed cycle/pedestrian roadway linking the Industrial Estate and University buildings will also not alleviate the traffic problems as Glenferness Ave is often at a standstill during rush hours now, without the additional 800 cars per day Your estimate, somewhat conservative I would say for 1700 workers. This entrance will also cause Parking problems in the surrounding roads along with congestion and noise. The idea of a Railway Holt with platforms extending from Rothsay Rd and Glenferness Ave will also have a detrimental effect on the area contributing further to all the problems above. I strongly disagree to the whole Talbot Project. I chose to live in Talbot Woods area of Bournemouth because it was a Quiet conservation area, This comes with the highest rating band which we accept living in this beautiful part of the town which you now want to ruin. You need to rethink this SPD. Think more about the local residents and less about the income for the Talbot Trust and Council Business rates.

No. Date Name Organisation Comments 106 23.09.2015 Ms Sian - I am writing to express my concern at the proposals in the draft SPD. Edwards Bournemouth has already been overwhelmed by the buildings and students of the university and not in a positive way - increased tall ugly buildings, student population, traffic, vehicles (especially cars) and anti social behaviour. The latter occurring again last night as drunken students made their way back from Bournemouth town centre to their accommodation in Wallisdown campus and the surrounding areas via Talbot Woods. If the proposals are added to this there will be increased traffic down Rothesay Road which is already a dangerous route used by parents and staff going to Talbot Heath school and other’s passing through sometimes driving fast and dangerously. I have reported this to both the school, the council and the police and although no direct measures will be taken Community Speedwatch will be set up in Glenferness Avenue in an attempt to address this. The junctions of both Rothesay Road and Leven Avenue through which proposed cycle and pedestrian traffic intend to pass will likely increase the accidents, near accidents and heightened tempers that already occur particularly at rush hour. The possible provision in the future of a railway halt at the end of Rothesay Road is ludicrous! There is a narrow bridge, numerous pedestrians (including school age children), traffic and a green area in the form of Pugs Hole. This proposal should be deleted from the SPD. I pity the residents of Dulsie Road if these plans were to go ahead and fully support the refusal of them. 107 22.09.2015 Mr Ian Girling Dorset I am writing on behalf of Dorset Chamber of Commerce and Industry (DCCI) in support of Borough of Poole’s draft Supplementary Chamber of Planning Document. Commerce & DCCI has approximately 800 members, representing more than 37,000 employees across Dorset and also has strong links across the Industry county with six affiliated town chambers. We fully support any proposals designed to improve infrastructure, provide job opportunities and drive growth in the local economy. Bournemouth University and Arts University Bournemouth are recognised as world leaders in their fields and make a hugely valuable contribution to the economic wellbeing of the area. The SPD framework will give them the framework to develop further modern, state of the art facilities and retain their status as academic centres of excellence; this is vital in the increasingly competitive higher education sector. We also welcome the draft proposals for a digital employment village. This is positive news as the area’s reputation continues to grow as a hotbed for creative and digital industries. A specific hub dedicated to this sector will help to keep talented graduates in the area, attract more investment, create well-paid and highly-skilled jobs, enhance the area’s reputation and boost economic growth. Whilst recognising that there are challenges in relation to traffic infrastructure, we are encouraged by proposals in the SPD which shows that the council fully intends to address this issue. We support the draft SPD and would be very happy to have any further input into discussion of its benefits for the business community and local economy. 108 23.09.2015 Mr Lewis - My partner and I would like to object to the planning / building of the Talbot Village project because we feel like our privacy will be Powell invaded by a two or three storey building or anything higher for that matter, we have seen the pictures on Dulsie Road of what it will look like and we don't like how high it is and that fact that how close it looks to those houses, my partner and I have friends that live

No. Date Name Organisation Comments down that road and they feel like their privacy will be invaded as it even says on the pictures you've been putting down that road it says " Two storey car parks or three storey buildings will be built directly behind garden fences" none of us want any sort of building towering over our gardens and houses, we also feel like it will lower the price of the house if we want to sell in the future. We feel there will be more traffic round this area at the moment it's nice an quiet around here but we know there will be more traffic than ever before if this gets built and looking at the document some of the pictures/ plans show you'll be doing a road extension to Purchase Road linking the road to the new digital village so there will be more traffic passing through our little village where it's nice and quiet for the time being, also the houses down Bishop Close have kids that play outside and as its so quiet and not that many cars come past Bishop Close at the moment and my partner and I live down Bishop Close and we too have a 18month old baby who will one day be playing outside with the other kids so we don't want extra traffic coming and going down Purchase Road to get in and out the University's/ digital village. I see on the pictures and planning that you've highlighted an area in purple and naming it "model village outline area" we would all prefer if the digital village to be built over there instead of being behind our houses. 109 24.09.2015 Mr R F Cooper On belhalf of This is a follow up to our earlier response following publication of the Traffic Model Forecasting Report. Talbot Village This report raises questions about how the Council has handled the Consultation process. It is unacceptable to publish any document Residents on the last day of the Consultation period. Any relevant documents should have been available at the beginning. Association We also believe that the SPD has been published prematurely. The report is clearly marked Draft. We fail to see how the Council can produce the SPD until the final report is available. The proposals in the SPD have serious traffic implications and the SPD should not have gone to Consultation prior to the Final Report being produced. We must again conclude that the SPD is being rushed through with unnecessary haste. We believe that this report adds nothing to support the proposals in the SPD. All we have is a computer programme into which existing traffic flows have been put and theoretical answers come out. There is no way of knowing how this relates to reality. At the end of the day as residents of the area we will have to live with what actually happens, not the output from a traffic model. We make the following points: The existing travel times are derived from the model. They may or may not bear any resemblance to reality. Without sight of the S- Paramics Model Development and Validation Report’ which is not available we cannot make a judgement. One of the forecasts is based upon some Saturn modelling carried out by Dorset County Council which predicts significant reductions in traffic flows along Wallisdown Rd between 2012 and 2022 and 2034. This appears to be based upon the assumption that Wallisdown Rd will become so congested that traffic will divert to other routes. In the absence of concrete evidence we have to challenge that assumption. The only obvious routes present problems in terms of traffic congestion, the environment and road safety. If that premise is correct, we cannot believe that the Council wants to allow a development which will add to the traffic on Wallisdown Road and cause even more to divert to other unsuitable routes. An important factor in the output of any traffic model are the parameters which it applies and in particular the capacity of the highway network. Wrong parameters can have a significant effect upon the predictions. Since we have no idea from the model we have to ask again what allowance has been made for delays caused by the existing bus stops and pedestrian crossing and what allowance has been made for the delays caused by the many proposed at grade pedestrian crossings. To give two examples, the bus stop on Wallisdown Roundabout westbound just before the roundabout causes delays not just due to setting down and picking up but by

No. Date Name Organisation Comments waiting there for up to three minutes as a timing point. The crossing on Talbot Avenue causes significant delays during term times due to the numbers using it. Even if the modelling results are valid, then the report shows significant increases in the overall east bound journey times at times during the morning peak and for west bound journey during the evening peak even if the suggested reduction takes place. The really significant increases take place between 2022 and 2034 which corresponds with the development of the digital village. This supports our objection to the Digital Village on the grounds of the effect upon journey times along Wallisdown Rd. One of our concerns is the impact upon traffic within the estate including delays getting on and off the estate. The report is silent on this. We re-iterate our concerns. 110 6.10.2015 Planning Bournemouth Introduction – Role of the SPD Policy Team Borough Whilst the Master Plan may have been endorsed as an informal document through Council representation on the Principals Board it Council must be stressed that Bournemouth Borough Council has not formally endorsed the Master Plan. Bournemouth Borough Council will continue to work with the Principals Board, the Borough of Poole and other interested parties on land use proposals and required highway mitigation measures for the area outside of the SPD boundary. The Indicative Talbot Village Master Plan diagram It is recognised by BBC that an overarching approach to the future use of land in the wider area is desirable. However it is inappropriate for an SPD, with a defined boundary confined to a particular borough boundary, to include proposals outside of that boundary. As would be the norm when preparing an SPD effecting land in an adjacent Borough, Bournemouth Borough Council has not had the opportunity to consider such proposals in a formal manner. Land use proposals outside of the SPD boundary should therefore be deleted from the SPD. Irrespective of this technical issue Bournemouth Borough Council continue to welcome the opportunity to work with interested parties including the Principals Board and the Borough of Poole on land use policy and proposals for the area outside of the SPD boundary. SPD Vision Support the recognition in the Vision that the residential amenities should be respected. Amend the first paragraph of the vision to read ‘..... , while protecting and enhancing important wildlife habitats and heritage assets and respecting the amenity of the local community’. That in respect of Vision (g) the Borough of Poole is notified of Bournemouth Borough Councils concerns about the provision of a new access from Boundary Roundabout (see response to transport sections). The sixth bullet point of 2.1.1 should be amended to read ‘.... There are also resident concerns about parking on the estate streets in residential areas surrounding the campus in both Poole and Bournemouth ...... ’ Land uses adjacent to the SPD area Paragraph 3.5.3 be amended as follows ‘The future vision is to enhance the heritage, cultural, environmental, arboricultural, social and economic value of the historic model village, including upgrades to the cottages and farm buildings,....’ Any proposals or future plans coming forward in the Master Plan area within Bournemouth Borough will be considered having regard to the emerging Talbot Village Conservation Area Management Plan and Appraisal, local plan policies including any future revisions and

No. Date Name Organisation Comments evidence that may be appropriate. Existing Local Plan Policies The specific references to proposed land use in Bournemouth should be deleted from the SPD. However in progressing work on future plans and proposals with interested parties including the Principals Board and Borough of Poole Bournemouth Borough Council will have regard to relevant planning policies and any future revisions. SPD Proposals and Design Any proposals for roads, bus lanes, cycle ways and footpaths must be sited, designed and constructed so as to minimise potential impacts on residential amenities. Every effort should be made to ensure that where possible such infrastructure is sited away from residential properties, including gardens, and that significant landscaping is incorporated to buffer potential impacts. Any proposed cycleways and footpaths should not be developed further so as to allow for vehicular access. In order to minimise the potential impact from on street parking associated with the development in existing residential areas, a robust and enforceable parking management plan should be developed. The SPD at the sections concerning the Talbot Academic Quarter, the Digital Village and Building scale, height and massing should include a reference to minimising impacts on the residential amenities of those living around the site. Buildings and other features on the site should be sited, designed and constructed so as to minimise these impacts and in addition significant landscaping should be incorporated to buffer potential impacts. There is concern about reference in the SPD at paragraph 6.9.3 to the alternative use of land in the Talbot Academic Quarter and the Digital Village. Bournemouth Borough Council expects the primary use of this land to be for business uses in accordance with Use Class B1, and not to be used for more general industrial or storage / distribution purposes such as found in Use Classes B2 and B8. Paragraph 7.2.5 In some situations a minimum set back of 30 metres may be insufficient and therefore a detailed appraisal will be required to determine sufficient distances between residential properties, including gardens, and the proposed buildings and associated car parking, this should be made clear in section 7.2. In respect of paragraph 7.3.4 alternatives to the suggested car parking to the rear of buildings on the eastern side of the Digital Village should be explored. There is concern that to locate car parking here in the manner suggested will lead to impacts on residential amenities, made worse by limiting the potential for landscaping and distance to the car park from rear boundaries of residential properties. Section 7.1 of the SPD should also make reference to a Poole Local Plan Policy that seeks to protect residential amenities. The Design section of the SPD should make reference to the need to incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems. Infrastructure Funding Bournemouth Borough Council has made no provision for funding of infrastructure associated with the development. CIL income will be subject to competing demands to provide for infrastructure in Bournemouth and developer contributions have to be carefully justified. SPD Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) Irrespective of the purpose of including a specific quantum of development in the HRA it is premature and entirely inappropriate to assume such development is acceptable. Any future development proposals and policy approaches in Bournemouth will be determined

No. Date Name Organisation Comments in consultation with a range of interested parties and have regard to all available evidence. Responses to Transport Considerations Bournemouth Borough Council recognises it is important that the Talbot Village SPD provides clear direction to prospective developers to enable the appropriate level of sustainable development. In order to achieve this aim and as the Local Highway Authority responsible for the Wallisdown Road corridor adjacent to the SPD area, Bournemouth has the following comments on the transport elements of the Consultation Draft. Summary of Transport Comments The SPD needs to align with both Councils’ statutory responsibilities as well as higher level planning and transport polices including the Borough of Poole Core Strategy; the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies; and the Bournemouth, Poole & Dorset Local Transport Plan 3 (2011-2026). Any further development should, particularly in relation to the Wallisdown Road corridor (Mountbatten Arms to East Avenue Roundabout): - d transport corridor resulting from the development at Talbot Village; s the serious road safety issues along the corridor, particularly relating to cyclists; easing use of sustainable modes of travel, particularly cycling and walking and significantly improve the facilities for these two modes of transport along this strategic transport corridor; -borne trips to any new developments at Talbot Village are discouraged and that measures are put in place (enforceable as appropriate) to deter parking in nearby residential roads;

Transport considerations are an intrinsic part of the Talbot Village SPD and associated Master Plan. Therefore within both the SPD and the Talbot Project Master Plan there is an urgent need to set out clear, funded transport proposals that will aim to fully mitigate the transport impacts of the proposed developments. This needs to be demonstrated through detailed traffic modelling prior to the adoption of the SPD. Detailed Transport Comments Section 2.2 The Vision - 2.2.1 g) This should explicitly state that the transport strategy will aim to ensure that journey times and road safety casualties do not increase along the Wallisdown Road corridor and should, wherever possible, decrease. Section 4.2 Accessibility/Transport - 4.2.2 Should state “Conflicts between motorised vehicles and pedestrian/cyclist movements...” 4.2.2 In addition to what is stated the text should recognise Boundary Roundabout as one of the worst sites in both towns for road casualties (3 serious, 32 slight between 2010 and 2014) 4.2.4 states “A Transport Study ... has concluded that although Wallisdown Road is a busy east to west route, the proposals can be accommodated without significantly increasing congestion beyond that which is likely to arise from natural growth of traffic. ...” The traffic modelling work has yet to be agreed or completed (BBC is still awaiting a response to comments on the validation report)

No. Date Name Organisation Comments therefore it is premature to state what the impact will be on congestion from any development at Talbot Village. Notwithstanding this, due to the strategic and economic importance of the Wallisdown Road corridor and the current high levels of congestion, there should not be any further increase in journey times along this corridor as a result of the proposed developments. Specific mitigation measures therefore need to be developed and properly tested by a validated traffic model. There is also a need to ensure that other routes on the wider highway network are not detrimentally affected should vehicles reassign. Section 5.4 Bournemouth, Poole & Dorset Local Transport Plan 3 (2011-2026) (corrected title) Paragraph 5.4.3 states that the key policy initiative for Wallisdown Road is its designation as a ‘Quality Bus Corridor.’ This is not completely accurate. Its designation, as identified in Section 6.2.6 of the Local Transport Plan, is as a Prime Transport Corridor. The South East Dorset Multi-Modal Transport Study (SEDMMTS – 2012) states that there is considerable scope for cycling to provide an alternative to the car for short trips. Accordingly it recognises Wallisdown Road as an important link on the Strategic Cycle Network to be delivered between 2014 and 2020. SEDMMTS only refers to the Wallisdown Road Bus Showcase Corridor as a ‘second-tier’ scheme which is not due for implementation until 2025. Whilst recognising that bus improvements are needed, the numerous physical constraints along Wallisdown Road will mean that some bus measures are likely to be too difficult and costly to accommodate e.g. bus lanes. In order to attempt to tackle the congestion issues a balanced sustainable transport approach will therefore be needed, which includes walking and cycling improvements. These wider measures should not only improve access to bus services but will also help to address the road safety issues; promote active travel; and support low cost travel for those on low incomes as well as improving the public realm. This balanced approach is outlined in Section 6.2.7 of the Local Transport Plan which states: “Junction and on-line improvements and the re-allocation of road space will create opportunities for cycling / walking improvements and bus priority measures.” Importantly this is more in alignment with Policy PCS 17 of the Borough of Poole’s Core Strategy which states that “The A3049 East- West Corridor will be the subject of improvements designed to increase the attractiveness of alternative travel modes to the car. This will be used to address multiple deprivation, improve bus, cycle and pedestrian routes to and from Bournemouth University and assist in conurbation-wide traffic management.” The SPD therefore needs to be updated and reworded accordingly. It is appreciated that Policy PCS17 states that transport improvements will be made along the Wallisdown Road Corridor to encourage the attractiveness of alternative modes to the car i.e. public transport, cycling and walking. However, more detail needs to be incorporated into the SPD at this stage to identify what measures will be provided to mitigate the transport impacts of the development to help ensure that there is no increase in journey times along the Wallisdown Road corridor. The SPD also needs to show how such mitigation measures would be phased, funded and implemented over time. Section 6.5 Long term strategy – Paragraph 6.5.1 – seventh bullet point: This indicates that a new access will be provided off of the southern section of the existing Boundary Road Roundabout, serving the Universities, Talbot Village residents and future occupiers at Highmoor Farm, and will connect with Gillett Road. The southern section of Boundary Roundabout is currently a key, unimpeded walking and cycling route for pedestrians and cyclists, particularly for students accessing the universities. Boundary Roundabout has one of the worst road casualty records in the conurbation and adding a fourth, southern arm to the roundabout, particularly for ‘all-purpose’ traffic, will increase conflicts between

No. Date Name Organisation Comments motorised vehicles and vulnerable road users. Without proper mitigation this will inevitably lead to more casualties. The situation will be compounded by the anticipated growth in student numbers walking and cycling to the universities. It should also be noted that the other elements of the proposed development, such as the Digital Village, will increase vehicular trips along the proposed new access road and this will increase the potential risk to pedestrians and cyclists in the vicinity of Boundary Roundabout. In addition, the introduction of the fourth arm will generate more turning movements leading to more interruption to the main Wallisdown Road traffic flow. The fourth arm also creates severance that will act to discourage people from walking and cycling. Both of these issues will lead to greater congestion along Wallisdown Road rather than alleviate it. The introduction of the fourth southern arm to Boundary Roundabout is arguably contrary to the Borough of Poole’s own policy DM 7: Accessibility and Safety within the Poole Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies, which states: “Proposals for new development will be expected to contribute to improved connectivity to transport networks, promote accessibility to jobs, shops, services and leisure facilities and should not compromise or result in detriment to connectivity and accessibility or to highway safety.” Bournemouth Borough Council also has a Local Plan Saved Policy to enhance traffic flow and safety on the Primary and County Distributor routes. Policy 8.1 within the Bournemouth District Wide Local Plan (2002) states that “Development will be permitted on Primary and County Distributor Routes where it will not result in direct access, parking or turning movements on these roads ....” To date no proper strategic or transport case has been made for the need for the fourth arm of the roundabout for ‘all-purpose’ traffic that would override the need to adhere to the above policies (the development of the Digital Village may strengthen the strategic case). Should a valid case be made there would remain the need to implement proper mitigation measures beforehand to ensure that there is no detriment to road safety, traffic flows, accessibility and connectivity. A safer, continental style roundabout, or traffic signal junction, with suitable crossing points for pedestrians and cyclists could potentially provide suitable mitigation, but would need to be properly assessed. A bus only link onto the roundabout would cause less conflict and severance and would therefore require less mitigation. Section 6.10 Transport and movement General Comment: - Any development approval needs to comply with statutory legal responsibilities included in the Traffic Management Act 2004 that places a network management duty on LTAs. Section 16 (1) states: (b) facilitating the expeditious movement of traffic on road networks for which another authority is the traffic authority.” 6.10.1 This paragraph implies that a full and proper transport strategy is in place which is not the case. Indeed, the Talbot Project Master Plan is incomplete at this time. Whilst acknowledging that the SPD includes references to improvements to internal site layouts to assist walking, cycling and bus use and minor ‘external’ north-south improvements, it does not address the more important transport issues on the Wallisdown Road corridor. Nothing within in the SPD explains how additional trips from the developments will be accommodated. In particular there are no details of the mitigation measures necessary, what land purchase will be required and how the measures will be funded to help ensure that there will be no increase in traffic congestion and road casualties. In the absence of any details relating to mitigation measures Bournemouth Borough Council has begun to develop some potential proposals for the Wallisdown Road corridor. However these possible interventions still need to be fully tested by the Talbot Project’s transport consultants’ transport model to ensure that they are viable and provide the full level of congestion and road safety mitigation required to compensate for the impacts of the development at Talbot Village. The necessary measures also need to be agreed by the Borough of Poole, which is an owner of land (south of Wallisdown Road) that would be required to deliver any potential transport solutions.

No. Date Name Organisation Comments Paragraph 6.10.2 – first bullet point: Refer to comments above on 6.5.1 – seventh bullet point. 6.10.2 – fourth bullet point: The word ‘careful’ should be replaced with ‘appropriate’. Appropriate design not only applies to the link but also to the roundabout, with the scale of mitigation depending on whether the link is used for all traffic or buses only. 6.10.4 Refer to comments above on 6.5.1 – seventh bullet point 6.10.5 States that ‘the [traffic] modelling indicates a small increase in journey times along Wallisdown Road, but that most trips are dispersed across the wider [highway] network’. The detailed modelling work has yet to determine the increase in journey times and therefore the actual impacts on congestion. It is also necessary to calculate any increase in trips, including additional bus, walking and cycling trips, both with and without any mitigation, in order to assess impacts upon congestion and road safety along Wallisdown Road. This also applies to other routes as a result of any reassignment of traffic. Furthermore the developments should not lead to any additional ‘rat-running’ along adjacent residential roads. Notwithstanding the above due to the current high levels of congestion and road casualties along Wallisdown Road the new developments at Talbot Village should not result in any increase to these problems. The SPD therefore needs to be clear about what measures will be put in place to avoid this, how they will be funded and when they will be delivered. 6.10.7 Refer to comments above relating to 6.10.5 Car parking - Travel Plans, particularly for the Digital Village, need to include parking policies that deter shorter car-borne trips. Car parking needs to recognise and address the issue of people parking in nearby roads. Public transport – buses - 6.10.13 Have the bus companies been involved in the discussions regarding the bus hub? Have they indicated that they would be willing to use it for ‘public buses’ and that journey times will be saved? Public transport – rail - 6.10.15 Have Network Rail indicated their position on an additional halt? Previous discussions with DfT have indicated that an additional station cannot be added on the Waterloo line without one being removed. Cycling - The SPD needs to recognise the existing very high road casualty rate amongst cyclists and the need not simply to avoid making things worse but to contribute to improving the situation. 6.10.17 This needs to be reworded to provide much better context. Ultimately without modal shift and improvements to road safety the development proposals will not be sustainable as they will exacerbate the current poor traffic situation. Therefore the following revised wording is suggested:- Due to the location of the borough boundary, Wallisdown Road is the responsibility of both Bournemouth Borough Council and the Borough of Poole as the local highway authorities. Bournemouth Borough Council, which is primarily responsible for the section between Boundary Roundabout and Wallisdown, has begun leading on developing a new transport strategy for the corridor. The purpose of this strategy is to address the long-term congestion and road safety issues along Wallisdown Road as well as seeking to improve the local public realm. In addition it is also identifying possible mitigation measures that may enable some or all of the proposed future development at Talbot Village, provided that when tested there is no increase in congestion or road casualties. The high cycling casualty rate indicates that whilst the demand for cycling is increasing infrastructure is not keeping pace. The expansion to the universities will add to this demand. Therefore in the light of the number of serious road collisions involving cyclists, included within the possible transport measures are proposals to introduce segregated, safer cycle lanes along the majority of the length of Wallisdown Road. This will require a narrow section of land on the southern side of Wallisdown Road including land in the ownership of the

No. Date Name Organisation Comments Borough of Poole and Bournemouth University in order to mitigate for the developments at Talbot Village. 6.10.19 Where possible appropriate directional lighting, which is sensitive to existing nearby housing, should be considered along the section of the cycle route where it skirts the edge of the heath. This would encourage more use of this proposed route in winter evenings. Walking - The SPD also needs to recognise the existing high road casualty rate amongst pedestrians. 6.10.23 in addition to better pedestrian (and cyclist) crossing facilities the text needs to add that the transport strategy being led by Bournemouth aims to increase the width of the existing very narrow footways along Wallisdown Road including in the vicinity of the university and Talbot Village. Notwithstanding the above paragraph, the existing footways along Wallisdown Road are narrow in places and should be widened as part of the mitigation measures for the proposed development. 6.10.23 Figure 6.11 The location of pedestrian crossings will be different to those shown, and the figure should therefore state ‘indicative locations only’. 6.10.24 The proposals and figure 6.11 appear to terminate existing recorded and unrecorded public rights of way e.g. Footpath 33. The SPD needs to recognise that any proposed changes to the PROW network would need to go through a formal process. Road safety - Both the Borough of Poole and Bournemouth Borough Council as local highway authorities have legal responsibilities under Section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to take appropriate measures to prevent road accidents. In addition the Local Transport Plan identifies road safety as a key priority. In view of the serious road safety record in the vicinity of the Talbot campus and along the Wallisdown Road corridor generally (as well as the associated cost to the local economy) there ought to be a dedicated section on Road Safety within the SPD. This should set out the explicit measures to be implemented to ensure that there is no increase in road casualties resulting from any development at Talbot Village. 8.2 Phasing - 8.2.9 – first bullet point: Notwithstanding the need to make the case for ‘all-purpose traffic’ using the fourth arm (refer to comments above on 6.5.1 – seventh bullet point) should the intention be to open this arm up to all-purpose traffic during Phase One (2015-2022) then the necessary mitigation must be implemented beforehand in Phase One and not in Phase Three (2026-2036) as stated in 8.2.11. 8.2.9 – first bullet point: If a bus-only link is agreed for the fourth arm during Phase One this will still require some prior mitigation at Boundary Roundabout during Phase One. On a general note the SPD should be much clearer on what mitigation is required to the highway network as a result of the various developments taking place at Talbot Village. The SPD also needs to be clear about who is responsible for providing the mitigation, how it will be funded and when it will be implemented, ensuring it is in place beforehand. 8.3 Infrastructure funding - 8.3.1 The SPD should make it clear that where the proposed developments create issues, e.g. adverse impacts upon congestion and road safety, which need to be addressed by transport infrastructure, appropriate funding for such mitigation will be required from the developers. There should not be the expectation that local authority or external funding, such as LEP Growth Deal, will be used to address issues directly caused by the developments. Other Technical Observations/Comments - Figure 6.7 reference to adopted road is misleading as all the roads within the Bournemouth section of the map are adopted apart from those within the Talbot Model Village. Para 6.10.3 Whilst congestion is partly caused by the junctions, regular traffic turning movements into and out of side roads and the

No. Date Name Organisation Comments shopping parade in the centre of Wallisdown exacerbate the problems. Therefore the immediate highway network does impact upon congestion. 6.10.6 The parking restrictions in Bournemouth are not technically Controlled Parking Zones but instead have Traffic Regulation Orders in place on restricted streets, typically restricted waiting times, no waiting at any time etc. Figure 6.9 The housing estate to the west of East Avenue (accessed from Mayford Road) is not shown connected to the improved cycle network when currently there is a desire to travel from here to the Campus and in to Bournemouth. 6.10.19 A 4m wide path is more appropriate than the 3m path indicated given the future demand for shared pedestrian and cycle use with 1m buffer strips either side as per the Sustrans Design Manual 2014. 7.4.4 The signage choice should reflect that used in the Talbot Model Village to the north of Wallisdown Road so that it presents a uniform character.